It appears Western political thought is stuck in the colonial mindset of the 19th and early 20th century. This is the mindset that divides borders between states based on natural landmarks and sometimes arbitrary dividing lines that completely ignore local ethnic distinctions.

A look at maps of Africa and the Middle East highlight the colonial mindset. European colonial powers divided up these regions based on the political interests of Europeans and sometimes simplified borders based on natural landmarks such as rivers and mountains. This, of course, completely ignored the ethnic makeup of the peoples actually living in these regions. Today's middle eastern national borders are more a reflection of post-WW I mandates than anything the people living in these areas would actually draw on their own. African national borders are a hodgepodge of strange divisions that resulted from the continent being carved up by European states eager to divvy up the spoils of colonization and divide the natural resources they intended to exploit.

Today the borders among nations of the Caucasus region between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea reflect this same mindset. The recognized borders are a loose combination of topographical divisions (rivers, mountains, and lakes) plus ethnic groupings. Unfortunately, if one overlays and ethnic map over a political map over a topographical map nothing lines up cleanly. There is significant crossover or "bleed" among the ethnic groups that is simply not reflected in the national borders. A true Armenia would be a third larger than it is, cutting a swath through eastern Turkey and taking a chunk from Georgia and Azerbaijan. Taking another chunk of Georgia would be the Ajeri in the south, the Abkhazi in the northwest, the Avars and Ingush in the east. And in the North are the Ossetians, who have never been ethnic Georgian, and unfortunately, don't like the Georgians either. The borders have been drawn by armies and political accords. Unfortunately for a large segment of the Ossetians, they live in the southern part of the Caucasus Mountain range and consequently have been forced to call themselves "Georgian."

Thus, we can ask the fundamental question that Nato and the United States do not want to ask: Why can't Ossetia be independent, or at least choose who they want to affiliate with politically? There is really no good reason for forcing the South Ossetians to be part of Georgia except that Georgia wants it and the West wants to accommodate the Georgians who have a convenient oil pipeline running through their territory. Quite frankly, the "freedom-respecting" West should be supporting the Ossetians not the Georgians. Unfortunately for the Ossetians, they do not possess anything the West cares a lot about so Georgian claims are the ones being backed. The U.S./Nato position in the conflict reeks of hypocrisy and ignorance. There has been plenty of blustering in the West about how the Russian's swiftly took advantage of the Ossetian uprising but the West seems to want to ignore the basic facts of the region. South Ossetia should not be part of Georgia. The Ossetian people do not want to be part of Georgia. The western backed Georgian leader started the conflict and then had his assed handed to him. If there are any "rights" and "wrongs" to be spelled out in this conflict the U.S. and Nato have consistently chosen the "wrongs." It is simply embarrassing to be on the wrong side of the conflict and disgusting to watch the Western powers support and defend the idiots in Tbilisi. As long as political boundaries are drawn by looking at Google Earth and the West cannot seem to live without Russia as an enemy, these types of conflicts will persist.