To its credit, the Washington Post has run a number ^[1] of op-ed pieces ^[2]in recent days from Russophiles (including Mikhail Gorbachev ^[3]) who wish to rationalize and support the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Not only does doing so remove any attempt by the Post’s critics to claim it is biased (it’s one of the world’s leading voices in opposition to the Putin dictatorship and has issued a series of blistering editorials condemning Russian aggression), but the very best way of destroying the Russophile position is to simply let them try to state it. Every single time, they come off looking either like morons or maniacs, often both.

Take Olga Ivanova, for instance.

She’s a master’s degree candidate at Duquesne University and an intern at the Post.

Last Friday ^[4], the paper ran an op-ed column from Ms. Ivanova in which she struggled with every furiously vibrating fiber of her being to attack those who reported on Russian atrocities during the Georgian invasion.

Here’s her quite literally insane thesis: “Many Russian youths come to the United States for college and then go back to Russia to help build our own democracy. Russians believe in democracy. … But I don’t know whether many Russians will ever trust American media reports again.”

Ms. Ivanov doesn’t name one single such person who is “building democracy” in the Russia by means of her U.S. education, nor does she describe any action “Russians” have taken to show their “belief” in democracy since Vladimir Putin came to power.

And how could she name such a person? If a Russian journalist committed to democracy and schooled in the U.S. were to return to Russia, where would they work? Certainly not in state-owned and operated TV. Surely not any of the major circulation newspapers, which are also controlled by the Kremlin.

Indeed, such American credentials would be extremely suspect in the Kremlin’s halls of power — that is unless the bearer was actually planted here by the Kremlin to increase its “understanding” of us as an enemy. Perhaps this hapless child has yet to discover that fact by returning to Russia and trying to put her degree to work. She’s in for a rude awakening, if that’s the case.

And build it from what? All opposition parties have been liquidated from the Duma; all local government has been obliterated. Anna Politkovskaya has been shot and killed, and nobody has been punished for giving the order to do it.

Where, I would ask Ms. Ivanova, were the voices of these “democracy-builders” when Russia launched the invasion? Can you name a single one of them who stood up and insisted on reporting uncomfortable facts about Russia’s behavior, or actually opposed the use of force? Of course not. And therefore your column was totally devoid of any such references.

What sort of journalism are they teaching at Duquesne these days? Don’t they tell young reporters that they need to state specific facts, names, places, dates, to back up their claims? If they do, Ms. Ivanova has been sleeping in class a good deal. Her work is totally devoid of them.

Ivanova writes: “I understand why Russian media would present events in a light that favors Moscow’s actions.” But in fact she does more than merely understand it. She supports its attitude actively, because she does not say one single specific critical word about the Russian media’s reporting on the crisis.

Ivanova states: “Within hours, Georgian troops destroyed Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000, and they killed more than 2,000 civilians. Almost all of the people who died that night were Russian citizens.” This is another insane sentence (almost as if the Post’s editors were giving her the rope to hang herself), for two reasons.

First, it’s flatly false. The Kremlin has been backtracking from that “2,000″ number ever since it was first issued, and it’s clear Russian troops did just as much damage to Tskinvali as Georgian troops did. The New York Times states ^[5]: “[A Human Rights Watch] report’s findings ^[6]also seemed to indicate that early Russian accounts of casualties, which in the first days of fighting reached 2,000, were far too high.” Is this “master’s degree” candidate really that oblivious of the record?

Second, even if there had been no contradictory reports, what source is Ms. Ivanova relying on for this information? The Russian government, as reported by the Russian media? But she already admitted that the Russian media is not reliable, and said she “understands” why. Scholar Paul Goble ^[7]has already documented in detail how badly the Russian media is misrepresenting the Georgia crisis to the people of Russia, so relying on anything they say seems palpably loopy — unless you are a Kremlin propagandist. Yet, Ms. Ivanova is prepared to take their word as accurate and then to condemn the Western press for varying from the Kremlin line?

Ms. Ivanova writes: “The much-revered American principle of a free press guarantees access to an independent source of information. It is supposed to mean that nobody takes a side, that journalists give readers the facts and let them draw their own conclusions.” To show us how it’s done, for a final flourish Ms. Ivanova compares Georgia to Nazi Germany in so many words. No, I’m not kidding. Read it for yourself.

If this is the kind of “journalism” produced by a Russian who’s been educated in the U.S., do you dare to imagine what sort of garbage would be produced in Russia by those who haven’t?

Let’s be clear: What happened in Georgia ^[7]is that Russia gave diplomatic recognition and support to a breakaway region of another country without international agreement, massed troops on the border, repeatedly violated Georgian airspace, shot down a Georgian aircraft, fired missiles into Georgian territory, and attempted to assassinate a major Georgian official in the region. Then it goaded the region into launching an attack on Georgian forces, and when Georgia finally responded with a limited strike against the region, after more than a year of provocation during which Georgia responded only with diplomatic protests, Russia invaded and seized the region, including the use of strategic bombers that destroyed civilian apartment blocks. Now, the breakaway region is engaged in massive attacks on Georgian civilians, in the manner of a pogrom.

There are two possible explanations for Ms. Ivanova’s “analysis” overlooking these facts. One, she’s a garden-variety Russian nationalist, shocked to discover that the propaganda she’s been fed her whole life about how wonderful her country is has not been swallowed by the outside world. Thus, her reaction is a merely a predictable defense mechanism. The other, far darker, view would be that she is a Kremlin collaborator, a Nashist, someone interested in helping the Putin dictatorship to continue. Regardless of her intentions or motives, that is exactly what she is accomplishing.

Read her text. There is not one single critical word about Vladimir Putin to be found in it anywhere. Not about his crackdown on the media, not about his murderous rampage in Georgia, not about his alienating Poland into signing on to the U.S. missile defense treaty. Nor is there a pause, even for a second, to ask what Russia might have done to provoke this onslaught of negative coverage. Just an attack on all the evil Russia-hating foreigners who have betrayed her trusting, democracy-loving soul. Is that how she sets an example of objectivity for the American press to follow?

Scary, isn’t it? This is the nature of the enemy we now face in the new cold war with Russia.