Madam, - The campaigns of misinformation and lies make it hard to know what really happened in the Georgia-Russia conflict. However, it appears that on August 8th Georgia shelled and overran its former province of South Ossetia, which has been de facto independent since 1991, having decided by an overwhelming majority in two referendums to secede from Georgia.
The Russians, to protect the majority Russian population and their own peace keepers, dislodged the Georgians and proceeded to secure Abkhazia, another ex-Georgian province with an overwhelming majority of Russians, also de facto independent from Georgia.
As should have been totally foreseeable by both Georgia and the US, the Russians then decided, by a variety of unacceptable means, to strengthen their position, ensure that South Ossetia and Abkhazia could never return to Georgia, and teach the Georgian government a lesson. And here the matter lies. In my view, the Georgian adventurism could have ended up a lot worse than it has - so far.
However, I find the US government's position hypocritical in the extreme. The Americans accuse the Russians of seeking regime change in Georgia, as though their actions and policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine's West Bank didn't have exactly the same objective. They accuse the Russians of disproportionate reaction, forgetting Israel's drive into Lebanon, which couldn't have taken place without US tacit acceptance. And incidentally, our British friends should also remember how Blair's government refused to ask the Israelis to pull back in Lebanon.
The US neo-con government policy of isolating Russia by installing a nuclear shield in the Czech Republic and encouraging Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato is irresponsible - and seems to forget that President Kennedy risked a nuclear war when Russia tried to install nuclear warheads in Cuba. What makes them think Russia is going to react differently?
It is quite depressing to think that our vote on the Lisbon Treaty interfered with the emergence of an independent European policy which could balance the US's currently irresponsible behaviour in international affairs. No doubt Mr Ganley and his US friends are enjoying the European weakness. - Yours, etc,
JOE MARSÁ,
Sandycove,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Mikheil Saakashvili, president of Georgia, has shown the world that the "Pearse" principle of die-hard nationalism still has a flag-bearer in the Caucasus. Obviously, this "man of the people" saw no need to evaluate the likely consequences of his rash action and the inevitable retaliation that saw so many of his own people die.
How many times has history recorded such rank stupidity? There was indeed an over-reaction from an overwhelmingly powerful Russian military, but the initial act of aggression against South Ossetia gave Putin the opportunity to flex the muscle of his armed forces within a stone's throw of his own backyard.
There is such a thing as healthy nationalism but, as most of us know, many of the world's most deadly wars came about as a direct result of the actions of one misguided, or insane, individual. In this instance, President Saakashvili's ill-conceived attack on South Ossetia represents the unacceptable face of hard-core nationalism.
His reliance on immediate help from the West predictably backfired. Yet he will continue to enjoy the status of patriotic leader, while thousands of pointless deaths are mourned in towns and villages. And the West will not thank Mr Saakashvili for opening the door to Putin's ambitious plans for the Caucasus. - Yours, etc,
NIALL GINTY,
The Demesne,
Killester,
Dublin 5.
Madam, - For the information of Emmet Dunphy (August 12th), the difference between the US-led Iraq war and the war in Georgia is that neither the Russian air force nor the Georgian air force is using Shannon airport to refuel warplanes or to transport prisoners for torture.
The primary focus of the Irish anti-war movement is on the complicity of the Irish Government in the unlawful Iraq war. - Yours, etc,
EDWARD HORGAN,
Newtown,
Castletroy,
Limerick.
Madam, - I refer to the article by Mikhail Gorbachev (Opinion and Analysis, August 14th) and to the letter in the same edition from Eoin Ó Murchú. Mr Gorbachev blames the crisis on "the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy". Mr Ó Murchú makes the paradoxical statement that "the Ossetians are as entitled to sovereignty as the Georgians. . . but prefer to be part of Russia".
To me the Russian action is just that of a powerful country bullying and invading a weaker one.
The question for both Mr Gorbachev and Mr Ó Murchú is: were the Chechens entitled to autonomy? The Russians declared them "terrorists" and destroyed them when they demanded from Russia what the Ossetians were demanding from Georgia.
If you are big enough and powerful enough you can be hypocritical and walk all over your neighbours. I thought we in Ireland would have known a thing or two about that. Mr Ó Murchú seems to have forgotten that and Mr Gorbachev just takes it for granted. - Yours, etc,
A. LEAVY,
Shielmartin Drive,
Sutton,
Dublin 13.
Madam, - It seems perverse that while ordinary Georgians were being killed and maimed, the sole source of concern in certain circles here was for a football fixture. I am a long-time soccer supporter but since when does a mere match count more than innocent human lives? Shame! - Yours, etc,
J. A . BARNWELL,
St Patrick's Road,
Dublin 9.