The response issued by China's Foreign Minister later simply relayed that this conflict would be resolved through dialogue.
A stronger US response to Russian military activity has been widely documented, with one particular highlight being Bush's condmenation of Russia's “disproportionate” military response to South Ossetia, via its bombing of another, separate province – Abkhazia. An American ally, Georgia supported the US-led invasion of Iraq — in soldiers — which it is now seeing a (rather disappointing) return on, as the US agreed to airlift these very troops back to fight for their own motherland.
With Russia peeved by Americans backing its opposition, the justification of the US remains: “Who shot whom first?” is an obsolete consideration. DAS of State Matthew Bryza comments: “I don't know if we’ll ever know the answer to that question. . . Russia has escalated so brutally” that the international community cannot help but to respond against it.
What does this mean for the intersection of US-China relations? It seems the ball is in-court for the US. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations breaks it down: "You still need Russia to deal with Iran. . . You want to integrate, as much as you can, Russia into the international order." Yet, rallying with China is as good as money in pocket. In his WSJ article, Gerald Seib estimates that Americans will be dealing with a miserable, resentful Russia, and that she will no longer tolerate vying with China for affection. There will be no repeat of playing hard-to-get between the “two Communist behemoths during the Cold War. “