Seen from here (though it's true it's impossible to define a "European" opinion, and views differ depending on where in Europe you are), I don't get the impression Georgia succeeded in fully persuading people of the rightness of its cause and its victim status. When you see the generally Atlanticist Spiegel print this from its correspondent in Tbilisi:

Fragile Cease-fire : Russian Army Clears Out Georgian Army Bases - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Liars don't tend to be believed. That is why news agencies and foreign correspondents reacted calmly to the announcement from the Georgian National Security Council on Wednesday morning that 50 Russian tanks had just rolled into the Georgian town of Gori.

Unfortunately, Gerorgia's security council has lost its credibility. Georgia has made official announcements before about attacks that didn't happen -- as have the Russians.

outright calling the Georgians liars, it seems clear the communications plan hasn't worked too well for Saakashvili. This is not isolated, there's been a certain breeze of scepticism blowing through a significant part of the European media (that I've seen) regarding Georgia's claims.

However, it seems the rolling fire of unverifiable-for-the-moment claims went over more successfully in the American media. Better orchestrated for those media? Planned in advance for them? The Nation piece about Randy Scheuneman, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser (cited in Frank's diary here), is intriguing. Even if this is not a Wag The Dog play intended to sharpen the contours of the New Cold War and bring McCain on, "Georgian" PR certainly seems to have been conceived of with the American media in mind. Or is reality more nuanced?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind