> So one does have to make a choice then. You're either with the Russians or
> you're against them?
========================
No. One can say Russia and Georgia are both capitalist states, and that we
don't distinguish between capitalist states, in the same way we can choose
to not choose between procapitalist parties. Since there are no longer any
non-capitalist states (Cuba excepted, IMO) nor socialist parties, that's
tantamount to abstaining from contemporary politics, or at least choosing
only to comment on political developments while refraining to take sides.
I can understand why those on the socialist left would adopt this stance, though , as regulars on the list know, it's not mine and I support the social democrats and the US Democrats as the parties of choice of the unionized workers, women, minorities and the other more politically enlightened groups against the conservative parties which want to reduce their organizations and take away their rights. I wish we had our own parties to present as an alternative, but these are the only choices which are on offer to ourselves and others right now.
The same is true on an international level, where there are no longer any anticapitalist states we can support unequivocally. But there are still conflicts between US imperialism and those peoples and states - not all of them our cup of tea -wanting to develop outside of its orbit.
In this particular case, I think it's pretty clear the US-backed Georgians are the aggressors against the South Ossetians and Abkazh who would rather be independent or a part of Russia than of Georgia. If it's ok for the West to recognize Kosovo's right to national self-determination, the same principle should apply here. On a more visceral level, any nation which gives a rapturous welcome to George Bush and names the main road between their capital and airport after him, adorned with his portrait, forfeits any claim on my political sympathies, though, of course, I don't like to see civilians on either side caught in the crossfire.