South Ossetia is not Kosovo

the West is right to respond firmly to Russia's new belligerence by refusing to recognise the new states. Never mind that Russia is itself being incoherent in continuing to insist that Kosovo's independence from Serbia is still illegal (a stance driven in part by its wish to avoid setting a precedent for Chechnya or other restive republics within Russia). Mr Medvedev's assertion of a parallel between Kosovo and South Ossetia is almost entirely bogus. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
James Canning
4.3
by James Canning - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a good report, but perhaps it should have mentioned that the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia tried to prevent further civil war and impounded heavy weapons seized from the separatists. The article rightly calls upon Georgia's president to stop promissing he will retake control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A loose federation is the most that could be hoped for, and even that is unlikely due to Saakashvili's botched handling of the admittedly difficult situation. Georgia refused to issue passports to the Abkhazians, and Russia did so at the request of the Abkhazians. Kosovo presented a different situation, as the article makes clear, but the Russian point that the independence of Kosovo was declared without UN ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Roger MacDonald
3.5
by Roger MacDonald - Oct. 1, 2008

The editorial raises some valuable points - including contrasting Kosovo peacekeeping operations: "In Georgia’s enclaves, Russian forces have acted as self-interested troublemakers, not as neutral peacekeepers." The biggest issues regarding Russia's support of Georgian regions' independence overlooked in the editorial, and associated article (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009856) are how Russia's moves serve to threaten NATO from further encroachment, buoy domestic Russia nationalism and challenge some Caspian Sea region oil exports.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Dwight Rousu
2.5
by Dwight Rousu - Oct. 1, 2008

The article ignores that Georgia troops initiated strikes into Ossetia civilian areas to ignite the Russian response. The article ignores neocon confrontational policy to arm and encourage Georgia and to set up anti-missile sites to essentially generate the possibility of disarming Russia's nukes to allow a crazy president to launch a first strike nuclear attack upon Russia, wiping out their whole country and population. Both sides are belligerently at fault. The author seems to say, without many facts quoted, that if the US did it, it was justified; if Russia did it, it was evil. This qualifies as propaganda.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Lee Becker
4.6
by Lee Becker - Oct. 1, 2008

This a leader or editorial, not a news article. I didn't read the article it references. I think the leader is overly critical of Russia and easy on the U.S. and the west regarding Kosovo. But the magazine is entitled to its opinion.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
4.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Ara Gregorian
1.7
by Ara Gregorian - Oct. 1, 2008

Propaganda just bores me...

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Stevan V. Nikolic
1.8
by Stevan V. Nikolic - Oct. 1, 2008

It is one-sided and not researched well. The author shows basic luck of knowledge on the subject.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Average
from 11 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.4
Facts
3.0
Fairness
3.1
Information
3.5
Sourcing
2.9
Style
4.0
Accuracy
2.8
Balance
2.4
Context
3.5
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
3.4
Credibility
4.1
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!