The last two commentators forward some interesting and reoccurring positions;

It again implies there are two sides "western" and Russia. If western includes South America, this would not be the general consensus. The world is neither behind the US nor the EU, however it is safe to state that these two entities hold a majority of the world power, control and influence.

One world government would also mean a one world military, such as NATO. It's only when there was no balance to one power, that Iraq was allowed to happen, and continues to happen.

The fact is that Russia, China, India, South America and probably some part of Middle East will continue to evolve and with each step will undermine and challenge the will of this notion of a one world power. It is this human resilience that should be admired.

The notion that Russia is reasserting its military is a prelude to Armageddon, is rhetoric. Instead of focusing on Russia, more concern should be given to the daily loss of life in Iraq, the rhetoric of attacking Iran with low yield nuclear weapons, and/or any other country not willing to succumb.

In current times, the actions of "the west" can only be described as "evil". If evil is the quantifiable measure of death and suffering, and the idea that one life is more valuable then another. It’s safe to assume that if "the west" has a God and is protected as such, this God is know to most other peoples of the world by another name.

If there is a general good will and intent to make the world a better place, it cannot be marred in lies and deception; such was what is seen in "Western" media, and spoken to by "Western" politicians. However, it is not served up for foreign consumption as they have no credibility there, it’s only for the stupefaction of its own citizens, so that they may be used as instruments of evil deeds and intentions.

Where exactly did Western Europe and the U.S. "(due to ineptness and a woeful shortsightedness) miss an excellent opportunity to foster Russia's westbound spasm"? What else should the West have done? Why is the old-school European thought always built around "failures" of the West? Is it at all conceivable that Russia/Putin have anything to contribute to the debacle?

And please don't tell me that the opportunity was missed because the U.S. treated Georgia like a free and independent state. It must be nice for Western and now Eastern Europe to be under the NATO umbrella with the U.S. guaranteeing its borders but is there no room for other peoples and other countries who want to be free of aggression? Apparently not.

Of all the world leaders on the stage during the Bush administration, Putin has clearly been the one that Bush has embraced without exception. It didn't matter whether Putin jailed his opposition, paid for his campaign from public coffers, poisoned critics in London, vetoed U.N. measures meant to stop the genocide in Darfur, or squeezed the Caucasus states to keep their monopoly on Europe's gas and oil supplies. Bush embraced Putin.

So this idea that the West failed to offer enough to Putin is utter nonsense in my view and just another example of what's wrong in what is passed off as European policy.

I hope this hand-wringing "oh what will we do" kind of thinking is a minority viewpoint in Europe. If not, get ready for the future. We'll all need all the preparation we can muster.

Not until world leaders get around to the understanding that only by the adoption of a world government can we safeguard the survival of humankind. With Russia now considering arming their Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads again (and most probably they will), the world is teetering towards possible Armageddon at some time in the 21st century. Indeed, as the world’s energy and natural resources deplete unrelentingly, the chances clearly intensify by the year.

In 1997 around 100 eminent scientists, including the great Nobel Laureate Glenn T Seaborg (Element 106 Seaborgium named in his honour) determined that for a world to foster peace, the eradication of poverty and the development of increased global living standards for all, the world had to construct the ORE-STEM complex. Through this complex for the world’s people, it was seen as the only hope of continuing the human experience past 2100.

This complex is a vast research and development city that responds to the world’s global and national problems. Its mechanisms paramountly are to bring all nations of the world together, solving such things as energy security, famine, poverty, climate change and peace security in a positive climate of cooperation, communication and collaboration.

The ORE-STEM complex also adopts a mechanism of installing ORE-Incubator centres in every nation of the world, thus forming a system/network of interconnected national incubators worldwide. The unique and unified effect of this is to channel into the vast ORE-STEM complex the major problems that the world faces, but where also, the ORE-Incubator centres (each being major facilities in their own right) combined with the ORE-STEM complex bringing problem solving to a totally global level. Therefore the whole of humankind is a party to the problem solving process.

At a cost of US$75 billion over a 15 year period the ORE-STEM complex and its satellite national incubator centres spread throughout the world would only cost a mere US$5 billion a year, or in total, only 1/700th of the world’s total annual GDP. A small price for the world’s survival eminent scientists say.

The only thing holding back this futuristic vision for a stable and technologically advancing future world is the politicians themselves, who still look at the world from the standpoint of nationalistic values and where world values come a very distant second . Overall this is a recipe for wars and human destruction in this century.

People should therefore support this cooperative and peaceful system to evolve for the future world and before it is far too late to do anything about our dire problems. These of course are undoubtedly increasing yearly and until we come to a precipice and where no one then can solve. But will they one has to ask ? Most probably not, still placing their continual/steadfast trust/belief in politicians and dismissing the thinking of eminent scientist as being irrelevant. Unfortunately complacency and believing in those with only rhetoric and predominantly nationalistic beliefs to back them up, will eventually be the complete undoing of humankind. The people have been warned of the consequences.

Dr. David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC)
Bern, Switzerland

First of all, the author should be commended for trying to understand Russia, which is so uncommon among authors writing about it these days.

However, I do not understand the reasoning in the paragraph about Russia and Georgia. The author seems to argue that because Russia "knew" about the Georgian plans of aggression in South Osetia and did not attack Georgia preventively, it demonstrated its bad faith. Does the author seriously believe that Russia would prove itself more "sincere" if it attacked Georgia preventively? (I imagine what would U.S. media say about that!)

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the author's facts about the cyber-attack and its intentions are true. Wouldn't such a "cyber-attack" be a good way to prevent bombing of the city of Tskhinvali by the Georgian government and killing 2000 civilians (most of whom, oops, are citizens of Russia) and 15 Russian peace-keepers? I guess it would be the least painful way to send a warning message to Georgia and therefore not entirely unreasonable. (I wish I could give the Russian government a credit for such a step!) It seems the argument is on its head: indeed, if Russia wanted to attack Georgia it would rather NOT "scare away" Georgia by cyber-attacking it.

Another problem with this comment appears to be the complete disregard for the Ossetians, populating the Republic of South Ossetia, attacked by Georgia in this incident, including the safety of their families, their rights to self-determination that they so overwhelmingly demonstrated in a popular referendum (more than 98% votes) and Georgia trying to brutally crush them for that. In fact, the article does not mention them at all! The 800-pound gorilla in the room remains unseen. Do the Ossetians matter at all or they have been conveniently forgotten in the Russophobic hysteria that has been unfolding over the last few days?

Talk about "excuses"! The fact that South Ossetia and its victims are being commonly forgotten in the rhetoric of the U.S. government seems to suggest that the incident is just an excuse by the US government to extend its control over Russia's neighbors and properly thank Saakashvili for for his politically risky step of sending his troops to Iraq.

A side comment about Yeltsin. He may have been "a nice guy" for the West but he was put in an impossible position by the U.S. resulting from the US bombing of Serbia. That's when the euphoria about the U.S. ended in Russia and the window of opportunity, the author is talking about, closed. Secondly, when they argue in the West that Yeltsin was a "democrat", they forget that he mismanaged the country to the point of a complete economic collapse. It's an old adage: democracy without a functioning economy and the requisite order is meaningless. That is exactly why Putin has been so immensely popular in Russia, not because he "manipulated the media" (the Russians are not THAT stupid!) but because the economy has been working again and the country has been brought together.

I agree with author about one thing, a Russian indeed has to start drinking in the morning to be able to like the West over the last few days. (With the exception of Italy that is supporting Russia in this conflict!)

"Russia depends on critical products manufactured externally. So I think if world community exerts itself, Russia can be restrained."

This is typical western thinking. It's not the "world" against Russia, nor does the "world" have a problem with Russia. This word ("world") is sometimes substituted for "international community".

In fact, most of the world (by capita or number of countries) is most likely happy to see that there is a counter balance to western aggression and rhetoric.

The Montaner article says about Russia: “The other, a darker force, is perniciously nationalistic, has a dangerous tinge of paranoia, is suspicious of any foreign influence and treats other countries as if they were potential enemies. That seems to be the Russia that prevails today, guided by the Medvedev-Putin team, and is supported by a majority of the population”.
There might be a deeper evil at work in Russia than nationalistic paranoia. There could also be an advancing ‘Pharaoh complex’ among Russian leadership that has existed as an institution since the rulers of the Ugrians in 500 CE. The ‘Pharaoh complex’ is a condition in which the acquisition of political power is an end unto itself and the more successful the acquisition, the more ‘godlike’ the leaders. The power acquisition, of course, means that acquisition of other lands and wealth (Georgia’s pipeline ?) is the natural extension of the Pharaoh’s totalitarian imperialism as it was under Stalin and the Romanovs. The last thing leaders developing a pharaoh complex want to see is a working democracy in which they have no purpose. How far will a leadership group go if it is protecting an addictive power complex rather than carrying out the more natural (and mundane) protection of a nation at peace?

Is the human race incapable of focusing on "real" motivations or will we forever put our own motivations into our dialogues and avoid reality?

This article in Business Week says it all:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_34/b4097000700662.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

It was, is, and will be energy and the control of Europe via control of energy.

This post is so over-the-top old Europe in thinking that if only if the inept West had paid hommage to the better angel of Russian nature, all would be well.

Putin was control and it's really that simple.

Ellen@biblenews.org: The Byzantine eagle looked both East and West because that is where attacks originated. It did not designate power over both the east and the west, and has nothing to do with any prophesies.

Thank you Mt. Montaner for some history and objectivity. When did Russia's fear of the West begin? Was it with the War between the Whites' and the Bolsheviks, when foreign powers introduced their troops into the fight? Was it the beginning of WWII when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union and did horrible damage to their cities and town? Was it because the Soviet Union lost up to 25,000,000 million soldiers and citizens in WWII? Was it the Cold War? Was it the treatment by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The West should treat Russia and the CIS as an equal and with dignity and respect for their citizens.

This opinion piece, objective as it honestly tries to be, is an assessment of the Russain view of the world under Medvedev and Putin that reflects more the colour of the author's glasses than the reality that Medvedev/Putin perceive and have to contend with to perform their duty of ensuring strong development for the Russian people in conformity with its size, its geostrategic location, and the resources over which it has control and markets over which it influence if for no other reason than the eminently market-force imperative of comparative advantage deriving from lower transportation costs.

All this is very much like the view of a virulently anti-West, Nuke-weapon-obsessed Iran that reflects more the colour of the glasses of Israel than the reality that Iran's rulers, foremost Ali Khamenei, not Ahmadi-Nejad have to contend with.

In both cases, Russia and Iran/the Muslim World, the rulers (be they Yeltsin or Medvedev/Putin, Ali Khamenei/Ahmadinejad or Khatami/Larijani, or, for that matter, Abdallah of Saudi Arabia or Assad or Mubarak) want a non-predatory, non-paternalistic relationship with the West that at the same time avoids pitting them against their immediate geographical neighbourhood in mad resource-wars or wars of geostrategic influence.

In recent days James Straub (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin) and William Pfaff (http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=333)have offered wise and penetrating analyses of current and potential areas of conflict that diplomats and military advisers should read.

A better, far better world for all of humanity is possible if reason and a willing not to succumb to predation prevail.

When Boris Yeltsin restored the double-headed eagle as the symbol of Russia he was showing the world where Russia's role in history lies. The Byzantine eagle, which has power over both the east and the west, links Moscow to ancient Rome, via Constantinople. It will be interesting to see whether Istanbul becomes the seat of the Union for the Mediterranean, with the blessing of Russia. Such a powerful combination of nations would decrease the influence of the USA on the world stage. This scenario fits in with Bible prophecy. www.biblenews.org

Indeed. In the early 90's Russia tried to join NATO, and was very sharply rebuked. If we had a different reaction then, the world would be much different now.

You know, I always wondered about this. I would have thought that we would have sent in educators, diplomats, pr people, etc -- to help build a infrastructure more to our liking. But we blithly ignored them, as well as other peoples who needed help, most notably Haiti which we invaded and promised to rebuild and did not.

I think it's shameful.

*****
I fear that President Bush lacks the refined vision that an effort of that kind would require,
*****

President Bush does not lack the refined vision. it will be more apt to say during the past eight years Moscow has not been in Bush's sphere of vision.

I have viewed President George W. Bush's actions as a bystander, and I am very impressed by the success rate of his administration when an issue does make it to top of the pile on their desks. Recently oil prices have come down almost 25% because someone in the administration decided to take action on it.

Looking back, after democrats won Congress in 2006, it has been a disappointment to see the other side of Bush's face. He has become worse than a lame duck, literally.

The issue with Moscow is a different one. General Russian population is still poor and cannot afford to consume internal production. Russia depends on critical products manufactured externally. So I think if world community exerts itself, Russia can be restrained.

The arguement that Russia decided to go westward under Yeltsin has an inbuilt fallacy - beggars cannot be choosers.

Lost opportunity indeed! Instead of trying to cricle Russia by bringing in all the soviet repulics in tht EU and NATO, they could have been a bridge between the 'West" and Russia with equal access and frriendship with both. Everybody would have benefited.

Bush, with his forked toungue spoke of a strategic partnership with Russia, and at the same time installed military bases and missile sites in the ex-repulics. This boldended them beyond practicality and enraged Russia, which should have been obvious.

You cant take a great power (istorically) and try to bring them to their knees. Whether it is Russia, China, India or Iran. These are ancient civilizations with a hangover of a great past and the size and potential to regain their glory. The US is a new kid on the block entering middle age.

"One ... subscribes to a passion for progress and modernity. The other, a darker force, is perniciously nationalistic, has a dangerous tinge of paranoia, is suspicious of any foreign influence and treats other countries as if they were potential enemies."

Much of the world also considers this an accurate description of the U.S., after seven years of the Bush administration -- including Russia, I suspect. Not a promising combination.

How could any thinking American be deluded into accepting another republican disaster in foreign policy? The religious right wing has taken credit, or attributed it to God, for everything from the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet to the cure for acne. In actuality, they have, in just the past 50 years, shown the world exactly each and every weakness of a democratic republic. The worst examples in my mind would be the Warren Commission report on the murder of Jack Kennedy, Reagan/Bush ignoring the spread of the AIDS epidemic, the elevation level of talk radio from opinion to absolute fact, and lastly, the use of war to revenge the shame of a father let alone a past mistake and the destruction of the nation you have sworn to protect and defend in the process. Just what great expectations did talk radio lead you to believe them capable of? Face the fact that we have be governed by the lowest common denominator we could find.

Everything about the George regime is about lost international opportunities and a relentless destruction of America!