While the rest of the world’s eyes rested on the Olympics, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia (the eastern European country, not the state) invaded South Ossetia.

South Ossetia, a small breakaway region that has been semi-independent since the early ‘90s, when it declared independence from Georgia, then became the site of furious fighting between Russian and Georgian troops that rushed the region.

While South Ossetia’s bid for independence was not recognized by Georgia, ethnic Georgians make up less than one-third of the population.

To complicate matters further Ossetians have historically had excellent relations with Russia, before and after the Soviet Union. In fact, a number of South Ossetians have Russian passports. While it is in violation of international law for one country to grant passports to citizens of another, this has still given Russia the opportunity to say that it is protecting its citizens.

The United States has played a pivotal role in this conflict, most notably in its open support of Georgia’s possible membership in NATO, which significantly strained relations between the U.S. and Russia earlier this year, while simultaneously emboldening Georgian President Saakashvili in his quest to “reunite Georgia.”

The American media has consistently portrayed this conflict as being the result of Russian aggression and overreaction to the situation, neglecting to spotlight the fact that Georgia started this fight.

A telling detail is the consistent portrayal of Russia as the “former Soviet Union” which is similar to calling Texas a “former Republic of Mexico.”

In the New York Times’ first article on Aug. 8, after Georgia invaded South Ossetia it refers to “Officials in the former Soviet republic of Georgia” calling to mind an older era when the Soviet Union was essentially the U.S.’s Orwellian “Oceania” able to be blamed for all the woes of the world.

The Soviet Union collapsed more than 25 years ago. Is it really necessary to stir up old memories?

The BBC has consistently referred to Russia as simply “Russia.”

Is it particularly hard to refer to a country by its given name, and not one laden with innuendo?

Up until this conflict, Georgia provided 2,000 troops in Iraq, the third highest “Coalition” troop contribution behind the United States and Britain. In return the United States provided further military training to Georgian troops.

Former Russian president-turned-prime minister Vladimir Putin consistently reminded America that he saw this type of partnership as an incursion into Russia’s backyard.

Granted, there are many levels to the conflict, including Russia’s anger at Georgia for attempting to join NATO and supporting Kosovo’s secession from Serbia. However, in the simplest terms, Georgia started it.

Russia warned Georgia in February that if Georgia supported Kosovo’s secession from Serbia, Russia would back the separatists in South Ossetia.

Saakashvili’s platform for presidency included his vow to return the rebel South Ossetia back to the Georgian fold.

Fortunately for Saakashvili, whose plan was derailed when his invasion into South Ossetia provoked a severe Russian reaction, he has the unconditional backing of the United States and the world where cries about Russian overreaction and lack of fulfillment of treaty obligations have filled the air.

If Russia really is the bad neighbor in the region, why did the South Ossetians immediately began evacuating women and children north, into Russia, when the conflict started?