And he wants you to know about it. From his op/ed in the Sunday Times: First, speaking up clearly and bluntly about what has happened. This is not a time for diplomatic opaqueness. It is a time to distinguish unambiguously between right and wrong. It is a time for democracies to stand together. It is a time for members of our parliament – the seat of one of the world’s oldest democracies – to speak up for one of the world’s newest. Today, in Georgia’s hour of need, this instinct unites government and opposition. Second, we need urgent diplomatic efforts, in which Britain must play a leading role. Russian forces must leave Georgia right away as they are required to do under the ceasefire agreement both sides have signed. Third, Russia must pay a price.

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

From the International Herald Tribune: So along with the old-school onslaught of infantry, armor and artillery, Russia mounted joint air and naval operations, appeared to launch simultaneous cyberattacks on Georgian government Web sites and had its best English speakers at the ready to make Moscow's case in television appearances. If the rapidly unfolding events caught much of the world off guard, that kind of coordination of the old and the new did not look accidental to military professionals. "They seem to have harnessed all their instruments of national power — military, diplomatic, information — in a very disciplined way," said one Pentagon official, who like others interviewed for this article disclosed details of the operation under ground rules that called for anonymity. "It appears this was well thought out and planned in advance, and suggests a level of coordination in the Russian government between the military and the other civilian agencies and ...

Everyone is aware that Washington is not about to send the Marines into Georgia to assert its regional interests, but what are the realistic diplomatic and economic penalties that could be leveraged against Russia? The Bush Administration will be looking to save face, but as we have speculated, its range of options is rather limited. The Wall Street Journal elaborates a couple of ways that Russia may find itself punished for the war in Georgia: Western authorities should also explore the vulnerability of Russian assets abroad. At the least, they can make life difficult for the holders of those assets. Post-Soviet Russia allowed the emergence of businessmen and entrepreneurs who indeed wish to function as normal participants in world commerce. Their number, however, assuredly includes the lucky billionaires under Mr. Putin's protection. All of them want to benefit from the West's rules. That privilege should be restricted so long ...

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is getting a lot of interesting press coverage this week - and like his public persona, there are those who hold him in awe, and those who blame him entirely for what's happened (if you haven't yet read what the Russians say about him, hold onto to your keyboards...). Here are some more interesting snippets of how his personality is being portrayed. "Why Americans swoon for the former Soviet Republic of Georgia," by Ilan Greenberg, Slate.com I got to know Georgia—and Saakashvili—when I profiled him for the New York Times Magazine. For almost two months I shadowed Misha. In Slovakia for a regional summit, walking next to Saakashvili along Bratislava's cordoned streets, the Georgian head of state hooked his arm on my elbow and offered to trade gossip about his senior staff. In Tbilisi, Saakashvili gave me ...

Thanks to a lawyer colleague of mine, I have been put into contact via telephone with a high-ranking official from the Georgian government, who has shared some firsthand reports from the ground. The official reports that a contingent of the Russian armored division stationed in Gori has moved on to occupy the nearby town of Kaspi, leaving in its wake hundreds of robberies and looting of stores. This report is consistent with other news reports of the expanded occupation of new Georgian towns, accompanied by theft and looting - and in some cases forced labor, which is the first apparent evidence of humiliation or abuse. According to my source, the details of many of these robberies would lead one to believe there is a psychological motivation. After raiding a warehouse near Gori, he says, dozens of Russian soldiers ...

Although the dust is far from settled in Georgia, and indeed I am getting firsthand reports of ongoing Russian troop movements, we will soon have to begin taking a serious look at the international law implications of this military action, and ask some tough questions about 1) the legal status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia pre- and post-conflict, 2) the status of Russia's "peacekeeping" mission and their range of duty, and 3) the legal basis for the deployment of Russian troops into Georgian sovereign territory. Although the Kremlin PR machine sputtered and coughed in the early days of the war, things are really catching up now (there are three separate articles attacking the Georgian cause in the Washington Post alone today). However one of the earliest and most important pieces was a by-lined article by Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov published in the Financial Times back ...

President Bush seems quite confused as to how he can wield any influence whatsoever over Russian conduct in Georgia. His latest statements find him actually having to repeat his requests for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia, and even whining about Russian "bullying." (hint: only the bullied talk about bullying.) Unlike the West, the Russian response with regard to Georgia ever regaining their U.N.-recognized sovereignty over the breakaway provinces has been swift and unequivocal: fuhgettaboutit. Now the latest news is that the maverick foreign policy minds of the Bush Administration are working on a clever new strategy to "isolate" Russia as punishment for invading Georgia. Who does he think he's kidding?

If you believe that John Bolton has never said or written something you didn't vigorously disagree with, then you probably haven't done enough research. However the razor-tongued former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is now safely packed away in the private sector (working alongside Ken Starr at Kirkland & Ellis), where he can speak with a great amount of autonomy to air his indiscriminate grievances ... which always makes for good reading. This guy does not speak the language of nuance, but when he says that this is indicative of how Russia intends to conduct foreign policy for the coming decade, we should listen up. Here's his bit on the Russian objective with the invasion of Georgia:

Reports of the parallel cyberwar being conducted against Georgia alongside the military onslaught is not news. We saw indications that organized groups of hackers using DOS (denial of service) attacks - which have previously been linked to the Russian government in the Estonia case - weeks before the invasion began, blocking the ability of the Georgian government to publish to their own websites. But what strikes me as interesting about the cyberwar is how self-defeating and damaging it is to the Russian position. If Moscow feels confident and legitimate in its military actions in Georgia, then why would it be necessary to engage in criminal activities to attack their counterpart? It in fact makes it more difficult for one to sympathize with the invasion and the greivances when it is cloaked in such unsavory sideshows. But perhaps I am ...