Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A Tale of Two Editorials
The London newspaper says that Georgia should be "wary of unnecessarily provoking a thin-skinned Russia" while the Post trumpets that Russia is trying to "crush a neighboring democracy."
I invite you the read the two. Which one is more apropos for guiding policymakers in the West? Which one presents a sober, factual analysis of the situation, which neither pulls punches nor feels the need to spin developments to present "good" and "bad" guys? Then ask yourself, why we Americans have to turn to a British newspaper to get the "fair and balanced" treatment needed to make effective policy?
Say what you may but this is equally valid for Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and other such places.
As for why we have to go to UK papers it is because US polity cannot handle accepting limits.
More on the economics of the Georgia-Russia relationship here.
Because the Cold War never ended in Washington. the USG continued to wage it, while Moscow stopped. But since the Russian government has come to understand that we are unappeasable, they have stopped trying to appease us, and are now returning our punches.
And the Washington Post dosen't like that.