Brzezinski then asks if "the global community can demonstrate to the Kremlin that there are costs for the blatant use of force on behalf of anachronistic imperial goals."
The article follows from that introduction with its grand flow of big lies and double standards and hypocrisy. He resorts to innuendo via psychology, saying that Georgian President Saakashvili "has seemingly become a personal obsession" with Putin, fully reminiscent of Bush's theoretical (?) obsession with getting Saddam Hussein.
The idea of a "pretext" for confrontation enters his arguments. This of course is probably a lesson learned from the U.S. and its many historical pretexts for imperial expansion ranging all the way from the Mexican (Alamo) and Spanish wars (Maine) through to Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), and Iraq (WMDs, terrorists) – although the latter hardly required a pretext under the idea of pre-emptive military action.
Georgia's action is described as "rash", most international media support the idea that it had to be supported in some way by U.S./Israeli actions of supplying and training Georgia's military. The attack is described quite clearly in the alternate media indicating that there was little intention to worry about civilian casualties:
"The Georgian offensive opened with an infantry assault against South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali...after a preparatory artillery attack...with fire support capabilities including target-oriented and concentrated fire...including a mortar barrage and launch of notoriously imprecise truck mounted GRAD multiple-barreled rocket launchers. [4]"
But even FOX media provided a strong description of what could only be an aggressive invasion:
"Georgia, a U.S. ally whose troops have been trained by American soldiers, launched a major offensive overnight Friday. Heavy rocket and artillery fire pounded the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, leaving much of the city in ruins. [5]"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
