Westie,
Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?
Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.
But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?
Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?
I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.
I guess they didn't consult you first. What evidence are you basing this on? There was a great deal of antagonism leading up to the invasion. Both militarily and politically.
There's no evidence of a longstanding plan to invade. The operation showed every sign of being ad hoc and reactive, and not just because it didn't show Western levels of 'competence'. (And the Russians have some experience of rolling in to places with overwhelming force....)
By not taking Tbilisi now they have reporters wondering if they are actually the good guys. You dont have to take the capital to decapitate the leadership, as popular as it might be. Perhaps they recognize there are some sympathetic in the West who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are loads of sound tactical and geo political reasons not to have a bloody fight in the capital of a democracy as part of an invasion.
OK, so not taking Tbilisi doesn't necessarily show that the Russians weren't aiming to invade Georgia and force regime change as part of a long-standing plan they'd prepared years before.
But where's the evidence for any such motivation?
All of the facts support the contention that, having seen their own peacekeepers and their South Ossetian chums attacked they responded, repulsing the attack, forcing the Georgians back and dismantling as much of Georgia's offensive capability as it could. And no more than that.
TOFO,
Good point. But while righteous indignation might be fair enough, and taking sanctions might be white-hat stuff, threatening a nuclear strike seems to be in black hat territory, to me.