Tremendous reporting went into this story. This makes no overarching judgments about the August war, but sheds important light on the incongruity of the claims from both sides of the conflict. Gives some insight into the balancing act the United States had to perform. Fairly diverse sourcing helps credibility. Also, in the three or four years I've read him, I find C.J. Chivers, formerly the Times' embedded journalist in Iraq, to be a very reliable and well-written reporter.

This is a well written and objective review of the events that immediately preceded the Georgian/Russian conflict. It is based on the report put together by OSCE observers who have a reputation neutrality and objectivity. However, it goes beyond that report with interviews of local villagers concerning the alleged shelling of their village, of government officials in Georgia, Russia and the US and of anonymous Western military advisors. It's a little light on the longer term build up to the conflict but is otherwise a very good piece which jibes with the more reliable reports coming out of Georgia at the beginning of the conflict. before the spin began.

Article detailing the ongoing disputes over what led to the Russian incursion in Georgia. It is interesting to me to contrast this article (and some other sources) with what my elected representatives ( I contacted them on this matter) maintain--that it was all Russian aggression.

The New York Times comes in line with German and British newspapers and magazines that have described Georgia as the aggressor in the war with Russia this past August. The story does not report that 19 Russian soldiers (peacekeepers) were killed in the surprise Georgian attack on South Ossetia.

Several different sources are used and the lack of information is underlined. No assumptions or misconceptions are present in what could otherwise be a very misleading article.