Madam, - Michael Kelly asks (August 19th) if I seriously expect readers to believe Georgia was the undemocratic party in the recent conflict with Russia. I made no such suggestion.
In my "Head to Head" article I was not comparing the democratic credentials of Russia and Georgia. I was referring to Georgia's application to join Nato, an organisation which insists its members adhere to certain democratic standards.
My views on this question will, I am sure, be shared by members of Georgia's democratic opposition, so brutally crushed by Mr Saakashvili late last year on the streets of Tbilisi. - Yours, etc,
SEAMUS MARTIN, Dublin 8.
Madam, - Sean Coleman declares that the Russian invasion of Georgia doesn't alter serious strategic realities (August 19th). On the contrary, Georgia is of vital strategic importance for European energy security.
The Russian state-controlled company Gazprom currently supplies a quarter of Europe's gas, and, as was seen in 2006, is not afraid to reduce supply for political ends. Much of the gas originates in the Caspian area, and is transferred by pipeline through Russia and Ukraine to the rest of Europe. The BTC gas pipeline bypasses Russia via Georgia to Turkey, with plans to link it to the European network, thus providing direct competition to Russia and reducing its power. This diversity of supply would insulate Europe against politically motivated price increases and is clearly of great strategic importance. - Yours, etc,
COLM CARROLL, Wapping, London.
Madam, - As a Russian, I am more and more convinced that people do not understand my country and its politics. Writing about the "despotism" of Vladimir Putin or the potential Russian annexation by force of the Baltic countries shows how little people here know about Russia.
The recent reporting on the events in Georgia and the language used by the English-language press has nothing to do with objective information or any attempt to enlighten people on what happened in the Caucasus.
At work or with acquaintances I have simply given up talking about Russian politics. They make jokes and leave me no chance to explain. That's how I imagine the Russian government thinks. What is the point in explaining if the international community has already made up its mind? - Yours, etc,
MARIA OLEYNIK, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4.
Madam, - It is correct to say Russia was not defending minority or human rights in the Caucasus - that would be worryingly out of character. Russia was, however, defending its borders, and that includes going deep into enemy territory to repel aggression. There are useful similarities with Afghanistan in 1979, not least a civil war on the border being stoked by US imperialist interference, a CIA-puppet president working to destabilise the situation, and a trigger-happy Russian army.
The alleged bombing of Georgians in South Ossetia by Russia before the Georgian attack is unsubstantiated and in keeping with the campaign of lies emanating from Tbilisi. Of course Russia would like to control - or at least expose the vulnerability of - the BTC pipeline, which was part-created with US money to secure control over Caspian basin resources. But Moscow's primary objective here is defensive: to secure its borders against Western aggression, and try to forestall Georgia's Nato armament (Putin's efforts to join Nato were rebuffed by the US, which quite reasonably realised that what its arms business needs is more rather than fewer enemies).
It is important to distinguish between defensiveness (even aggressive defensiveness) and imperialist brinkmanship. As last week's news from Warsaw shows, and as coming developments in the Ukraine will probably confirm, Russia has once again played into the hands of Washington by providing the political arguments which US satraps can use to push through the missile emplacements for which they are being bribed. So the winners here are the arms makers and their salesmen in Washington. And that is why this stupid stunt took place. - Yours, etc,
MARK PRICE, South William Street, Dublin 2.