[Skybird]

I am realist, 1480. I take the situation for what it is.

A longer but quite insightful essay. I agree with most of it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572811,00.html

(...)
So how to handle this arrogant Russia, and what tone to adopt in dealing with Vladimir Putin, the director of Moscow's Kremlin policy? Last week, this was a question with which superpower America was becoming more and more concerned by the day.
There are two ways, the official and the informal, of looking at Putin in Washington. To determine which one prevails one needs to look at where one is speaking rather than with whom. In the public spotlight, Putin is seen as an aggressor after Russia's completely excessive incursion into Georgia. But in confidential conversations in the private sphere, he is a Russian hero fully in command of the language of power politics.
President Bush calls the Russian invasion "inappropriate and unacceptable." Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army, who was invited to speak before the conservative American Enterprise Institute, calls the same action "brilliant." The headline in the Wall Street Journal read "Vladimir Bonaparte."
"Whether we like it or not, Putin will undoubtedly go down in history as one of his country's great leaders," says Clifford Gaddy, the leading Russia expert in Washington, who works for the liberal Brookings Institution and occasionally advises President Bush.
Bush and Putin came into power at almost the same time, Putin in late 1999 and Bush just over a year later. "I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his soul," the American president raved after their first meeting. He saw the man he wanted to see in Putin: the reformed communist who was forced to choose a path leading to a market economy and democracy.
Conservative triumphalism was in fashion at the time, and in this spirit Bush had the National Security Strategy of the United States, an official document outlining the nation's position on foreign policy, revised in 2002. To this day, the document contains the following sentence: "The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterpris

Putin is living proof of the fallacy of this statement, and Bush, in the wake of Russia's invasion of Georgia, has been exposed, once again, as a loudmouth. The new Russia is in fact absolutely opposed to looking anything like the old West, says Strobe Talbott, who served as deputy to former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. According to Talbott, the message Putin sent to the West via Georgia consists of three partial messages. First, Russia is back on the world stage. Second, Russia wants new power, but not a return to the days of political ideology and economic autarchy. Third, Russia wants to set the terms of its integration into the new world order itself.
But this means nothing less than that the premises of American foreign policy, from former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to the current President Bush, were wrong, says Talbott. This policy was always based on the assumption, according to Talbott, that Russia wanted to allow itself to be integrated into the existing Western architecture, including NATO, the Group of Eight (G-8) Industrialized Nations, the World Trade Organization and, in the end, perhaps even the European Union. "Now we know that this premise is wrong."
(...)
Perhaps the rest of the world will now look more closely at the hidden spots between Europe and Asia, into provinces and ethnic groups whose names they can hardly pronounce. The West's outrage over Moscow's military escapade will likely subside in a few weeks, and even America will return to politics as usual. Washington urgently needs Russia, both to keep Iran in check and as a counterbalance to China, a rising major power. America's new president, whether it will be Democratic candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, will have to seek allies again to grapple with the world's conflicts.

But Russian Prime Minister Putin is clearly the victor here, after having taken control of the Caucasus crisis decisively and efficiently, by Russian standards. The world now knows that Russia is asserting stronger claims to be a major power alongside the United States.
The war is as good as over, and Putin the military commander is withdrawing. It was Medvedev who was forced to meet with foreign dignitaries who had come to complain about the Georgian conflict. Russian state television also returned to coverage of the nominal head of state.
After completing his work, Putin returned to a more behind-the-scenes role. He was seen conferring with financial experts in the drab Moscow conference room at his headquarters. They were discussing the planning for the Russian national budget -- until 2023.

It looks like he will be around for some time to come

And this (German) essay compares Putin's importance to Russia with that of Kennedy to the US - just that Kennedy, when being challenged in the American's backyard (like Russia being challenged in it's own) showed far less scruples and self-restraint than Putin and even considered not only military but even ultimate military retaliation. We in the West must learn to accept that Putin is extremely popular in russia, and that many Russians attribute future hopes and perspectives to him, like Kennedy did in his time. He is popular especially with the young, and is seen by many as the one who brought russia after the years of decline under Yeltsin a new beginning. Or to use a currently popular american phrase: he brought a change. we need to accept that the Western social, political and economical model is not quite as popular with the rest of mankind, as the Eu and even more as Washington have ever imagined in past years, just like the essay above just said. Some weeks ago I linked a text with a study showing that democracies internationally are in retreat, and authoritarian regimes win in popularity. Georgia itself also is anything but a textbook example of a democracy and has more in common with the tyrant in Uzbekistan, than with Brussel or Washington.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...572691,00.html

If they translate it into English for their international edition, I'll post it.