Arthur Herman wrote one of the best commentaries on the war between Georgia and Russia I have had the pleasure to read. In his commentary Herman does not merely analyze why the war erupted, rather, he summarizes how Western politicians and pundits responded to the naked Russian aggression.

As Herman writes, Western leaders may have been hesitant simply because they are in a position of power. Their words matter tremendously. If they are afraid that Russia will also use aggression against them, they may be inclined to tone the criticism down a notch.

But pundits do not have such considerations. They can put the blame squarely on the one who deserves it, in this case Vladimir Putin and his puppet Dmitry Medvedev. That is one of the main differences between pundits and politicians: the former do not have to adhere to any complicated rules or considerations of diplomacy when they analyze a specific event. They can be (brutally) honest about it, which is important if one wants to inform one’s own domestic audience.

Yet this is not what happened. Pundits everywhere failed to blame Putin for the war, or, at least, blamed the Georgians just as much. Georgia’s sin? Trying to squash a Russian supported rebellion in one of Georgia’s own provinces, South Ossetia. Georgia did not invade Russia, nor a country allied with Moscow; it tried to reclaim a part of itself.

Russia then instantly invaded Georgia and nearly destroyed the country.

Georgia is a liberal democracy, Russia is not. This should have meant that Western pundits would have defended the Georgians almost automatically. A closer look at the situation should have pundits even more supportive of the Georgians: it was clear that Russia had prepared for this war for weeks, even months. The instant response, and on quite a major scale, made clear that the war was created by Moscow, believing that when push came to shove, the West would abandon Georgia and let it die alone.

But that’s not what quite some pundits said. Instead, they blamed the West and Georgia: there should never have been any discussion of Georgia joining NATO. Such discussions worried Putin so much, and angered him so greatly, that he invaded Georgia, these enlightened pundits argued. OK, but why did none of them wonder why Georgia wanted to join NATO, and why other countries formerly dominated by the Soviets and even former Soviet Republics are constantly asking to join NATO? Georgia did not want to join NATO for nothing; it should have been clear to the pundits that it wanted to the join NATO because it knew that if it had no protection against Russia, it would continue to be kicked around, and unable to determine its own fate.

Politicians should be diplomatic. Pundits should not. Explaining the inner workings of the bureaucratic machine in Moscow is necessary, making excuses for its invasion of a neighboring country is not. 

It is something pundits should keep in mind next time Russia goes in and destroys a much smaller and weaker country, that was on its way to liberal democracy.