I know nothing of the relationship between Georgia and Russia, but Russia's decision to bomb Georgian separatist regions unilaterally strikes me as a more overt demonstration/consolidation of power by Russia. Others I know are more sympathetic to Russia and laud its display of power.
I support the prudent, judicious use of military strength when necessary, but I certainly strongly favor preserving human life and focusing on negotiation, using force only as a last resort. At first, I was confused by the sort of logic that defends a big country beating up on a small one, which is partially influenced by my increasing suspicion regarding the governing style of the folks in charge in Russia these days. As I don't derive my moral code from a set of books, I often forget that there is justification for deference to the seat of power in Christian theology. It's an interesting thing, because in this case, the "right" is apparent to me, but the argument from the more traditionally "moral" side in the debate is contrary to my perception.
It makes me reconsider my assumptions, in particular those about what consitutes the moral principles that a person uses to develop opinions about issues of right and wrong, and just how fundamental skepticism might be in terms of predisposing a person to argue for the case of the David or the Goliath.
I'm sure that all made very little sense. I'm just mentally chewing on some stuff.