@wretchard:

Regarding intent: How is a “peacekeeper” different than an “armed invader”? Well, most, if not all peacekeepers are (a) sanctioned members of a larger, international organization (e.g. U.N., NATO, etc.), (b) there by the invitation (or at least acquiescence) by both parties of the conflict, and (c) monitored and accountable to international organizations. Russia’s “peacekeepers” were unsanctioned, uninvited, and acted without international license. In other words, O’Connor’s base assumption was that Russia’s Army was there as peacekeepers. If that changes to “invaders”, everything else in his logic changes also.

Georgia cannot be considered as “provoking” Russian, when in fact, Russia had already invaded Georgian soil, and had intervened in Georgian internal affairs to Russia’s own gain. Any response of Georgia would in that light, necessarily be considered defensive in nature.

Even given Russia’s premise, the response to “ethnic cleansing” anywhere in the world is not, and never will be, a Russian invasion force. That’s imperialism, taking land from another people, simply because they can.