First of all, let met just say that Dailykos community is really great. Somehow, I can always learn about something new every time I read the diaries and especially the arguments in the comments section.
I notice that in many diaries, people seem to be divided between those who are, for simplicity sake, "pro-Russian" and those who are "pro-Georgian." (number of comment tips are almost the same for one argument and the refutation). The latest diary I read was michlawa2's diary about Obama's call for Georgia's deeper relations with NATO.
Now, I personally disagree with that stance, but then I'm no foreign policy expert, and especially not on Ossetia. But here's what I know and I want to share this: Civil War is messy. There's no such thing as a clear right or wrong in any party. Below is my considerations:
I will be the first to confess that I have no idea who's right in this case, Russia or Georgia. I do not know what kind of ethnicity lives in Ossetia, I don't know how Georgia treated the Ossetian previously, and I don't know whose claims are right: Russia claiming that Georgian army attacked the civilians, or Georgia claiming that Russian army attacked civilians. I just know rudimentary facts (thanks to Dailykos!): S. Ossetia is semi-independent for 17 years, with Russian peacekeeping force in force, but the region is supposedly in Georgian area. So, would it be wrong for Georgia to try to annex South Ossetia?
Someone in the comments mentioned that it is clearly wrong, just as it is wrong for China to attack Taiwan. If that's the case, then let me just look around for examples and ask if they're all clearly wrong. How about Grant's army marching to Richmond? What about the war between Tamil Tigers and Srilankan Government? What about Aceh and East Timor, South Thailand, Basque, South Sudan, Darfur, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia-Serbia war, Tibet, et cetera et cetera?
That's why Civil War is messy. There's a jumble of historical circumstances, geography, ethnicity, culture, economic opportunity, religion, and politics to be considered. You can't say that all attempts to annex a breakaway region are always wrong, nor can you say that all secession are always wrong. By all account, the confederate wanted overwhelmingly to secede, and by all account they were supposed to be let go if they were to respect democracy. But the Union nevertheless took military action to annex the southern States. I think most people would consider it as the right action.
For me, I have one question to determine if I'm for or against secession: are the people provided with the same political and economical opportunity with anyone in general? If the answer is yes, then any secessionist movement to me seems a tad silly. For example, I personally couldn't see why Scotland would want to breakaway from Great Britain. By the same consideration, I have to say that it's probably right for the Tamil Tigers to secede, because the Sinhalese majority never wanted to share political power with the Tamil minority. Of course, the best outcome for me would be for the Sinhalese to absorb the Tamils and let them voice their concerns politically.
Of course, that criteria is far too simple for the real world. For example, in the case of South Ossetia, we never knew how it would be like if Tblisi actually controlled the region. Would the people be included in the nation as equals with the majority? We don't know because the historical circumstances is that they have always wanted to break away since the formation when the Soviet Union collapsed. Should they be given a chance, given geographically, Georgia should straddle half the valley south of Caucasus (the second half being Azerbaijan)? I am inclined to say yes, but I have no basis to back that up.
So civil war is messy, and we might only know who's right and wrong after the dust settles. But one clear thing is that, excepting genocide, no one could be clearly right or wrong. Although I have to say, for Obama to endorse the idea of NATO membership for Georgia now is quite funny and dangerous. Russia unfortunately has a lot of leverage nowadays, and adding fuel to fire isn't very wise. Then again, I don't have ten "foreign policy experts" whispering my ears, so I don't know...