John Bolton believes Russia's invasion has little to nothing to do with anything in South Ossentia, and everything to do with the moral weakness of our NATO allies. Yesterday on the Dennis Prager show:

I think the size of the Russian offenses, the way it was planned, the way it was carried out all show that this is something the Russians had been considering for some time. So if hadn't been last week, it would have been next week or the week after.

I think the Russians based a large part of their calculation on their conviction that they would not face opposition from the West and the reason for that is they watched very carefully what happened at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania last spring. At that time, President Bush proposed to put Georgia and the Ukraine on the path to NATO membership, and our NATO allies in Western Europe almost unanimously rejected it. Germany rejected it, France, Italy. And the reason was they were intimidated by Russia. Russia didn't want Georgia and Ukraine on the road to NATO membership and the Europeans caved in.

I think the Russians saw that, they saw it as weakness in the Western alliance, and they concluded (correctly, as it turned out) that they could get away with what they've done. So it was a demonstration of the, of the uh, adage that weakness is provocative. It's not strength that is provocative, it's weakness. And NATO show its weakness last spring and Russians took advantage of it.

Of course while the underlying Russian calculus revolves around these countries' weakness and Western perfidy, ironically, any defenses which exist can be used as a moral justification for the attack. Consider this chilling bit of saber-rattling from a Russian general:

Earlier, a senior Russian general warned that Poland has made itself a nuclear target for Russia's military by hosting elements of a US anti-missile system. "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent" certain, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.

In other words: "By having the ability to shoot down any missiles we aim at them, Poland is inviting us to do so." If a cop wears body armor, well, then he's just asking to be shot, being all "uppity" and defending himself that way.

"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority," Gen Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.

"As first priority." Let that put to rest any Chamberlain-esque thinking that all they want it "just this one" or "just those two." They have "priorities" friends, and there's a second tier as well.

He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them," Interfax said.

"You help defend them from us in any way, even just allying with them, and that will justify our unleashing a nuclear holocaust."

And this:

Russia's ambassador to NATO has compared the U.S. missile defense system to "a dead cat," since its effectiveness can only be verified as a result of reciprocal thermonuclear missile strikes.

Are people getting this? This is some serious stuff. I (and probably many of you) have been saying from the start that we are facing an historic crisis, but most observers in power are just not getting it. (And of course, that's always been part of the pattern of the historic crisis.) Even Bush apparently doesn't, given his recent tepid reaction and some of the stupid terms I've been hearing he's promoted in the ceasefire agreement.

Like (bold added):

Miss Rice brought with her a draft French-brokered ceasefire that would require Russia to withdraw its combat troops from Georgia but would allow Russian peacekeepers to remain in the flash-point separatist region of South Ossetia and temporarily patrol outside the area.

So Russia has to "withdraw combat troops from Georgia", but is still allowed to place troops (a) in South Ossetia (which, BTW, is in Georgia), and (b) "outside the area", which means Russia is also allowed to put troops "temporarily" (just a decade or three will do, I imagine) in non-Ossentian Georgia! Are we out of our mind?

This sounds to Russian ears roughly like this: "Dear Vlad: We really don't want to upset you. Here, have Georgia. I hear Ukraine is lovely this time of year, too. (Latvia and Moldovia too!) Please don't give us too much trouble beyond that. Love, George."

Of course it's not Bush alone who is responsible for his sissification. I've never seen any president so personally (and usually wrongly) vilified in contemporary history. I personally think the mainstream media, the State Department (via Condi), and our Western allies have finally drilled into head the lesson that this is no time for bravery and moral courage. (Which is called by a host of nasty names such as "arrogance", "unilateralism", "empire building" or "aggression.")

I guess its time to start petitioning the IOC to hold the next summer Olympics in Moscow. If pre-War Nazi Germany and China were blessed with such approval, why not Vladimir Putin's little fiefdom? Enjoy the games, everyone. Try not to let thought that the Chinese athletes were literally kidnapped (taken away from their parents) at age three (and the fact they're forced into performing even now) ruin your enjoyment. Instead, why don't we complain about too many commercials?

Am I bitter? No, actually, I'm a generally-cheerful happy nice guy in real life. But I have a fire in my eyes right now, and won't stand silently giving mute approval to our war-enabling behavior. I may have only six readers (and perhaps only two now) but however tiny the audience, I want to do what I can to point out the enormity of what's happening. Bush isn't saying it. And much of the press isn't either. Many of you get it, but we will, I fear, be in the minority again until it's a bit too late.

As Poland's president said:

Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people.

Amen.