Terrific headline on this New York Times story: "Georgia Says Accord Broken as Russia Occupies City".  Do we really need to question Georgia's claim that the accord has been broken?  I mean, I'm no diplomat.  But I feel like when a country signs a ceasefire, and then hours later occupies a city with a tank battalion, then no matter how hard that country denies that the tank battalion exists, they have pretty clearly broken the ceasefire.

Russia is denying that it is occupying Gori.  On the other hand, only several hours ago they were denying that they had any tanks there.  If they don't, then some other nation seems to have lost an armored column somewhere.  I can only presume that they allowed one of my ex-boyfriends to drive the lead tank.  They were probably headed for America, and accidentally turned right at Greenland.

Several commenters have expressed disappointment that I have not expressed any outrage about this.  Well, I'm outraged.  Also, not a fan of a resurgent Russian empire.  I think we should do something about it, not that I think we will.  But we could certainly do more than we are, which is nothing.  George Bush appears to think of this as an unwelcome distraction from the main job of any US president, which is watching Olympic swimming.


>

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.