I wrote yesterday about the rampant bias in the Western mainstream media and the inexcusable hypocrisy of G7 leaders.
Today the BBC has included in an article documenting Russia's latest defensive remarks the most seemingly honest summary of the original events that I've seen so far:
The conflict in the region began on 7 August when Georgia tried to retake South Ossetia by force after a series of lower-level clashes. Russia launched a counter-attack and the Georgian troops were ejected from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This acknowledgement that it was, in fact, Georgia (an Iraqi coalition country) that provoked the original fighting is squashed towards the end of the article, but it's there nonetheless and uncharacteristically stated as fact, despite its stark contrast with the recent rhetoric about Moscow being the aggressor.
And it's a fact which fits with the Kremlin's line. Russia's Foreign Ministry accused the G7 of making "baseless assertions about Russia undermining Georgia's territorial integrity," saying, "this step is biased and is aimed at justifying the aggressive actions of Georgia."
That Abkhazia is prepared to be absorbed into the Union of Russia and Belarus "within five years", and that South Ossetia is also open to such a notion, should be all we need to hear to know that Russia's so-called "transgressions" are precisely what these regions want. And if the prevailing view is that Georgia began the conflict, what exactly is the problem here?
Bootnote
If South Ossetians really have been torching Georgian villages, then that should be investigated and dealt with as a matter of course. Any Western politician trying to blame Russia directly for such acts can only be attempting to instigate a climate of fear and terror.
