[blogforloversxx]

Jasonik, I think your allusion to US authoritarianism-in-development is a little overreaching. It's not there yet (let's at least wait 'til after elections). What is true, though, is what Zippy brought up - American imperialism. The Georgian conflict pretty much confirmed that the US is just as imperial as anyone else, but - it didn't tell Saakasvili what to say or do. He made his own decisions and screwed himself. If the US were authoritarian, they would have made his decisions for him.

The article brings up a few obvious but important points. While even during the years after 1989 the public felt a sense of global peace and stability, there were still significant conflicts going on. However, there was the belief that we'd moved on from the heady conflicts that had begun well before the 20th century and continued throughout nine-tenths of it. The resurrection of authoritarianism as a legitimate political economy model, and moreover, its positive consequences for countries like China and Russia (on mainly economic, but also other, levels), means that - in a world that never guaranteed global stability, but only gave the illusion of it - the existence of these modern manifestations of authoritarianism completely shifts the balance of power away from the West, consciously and through demonstration (as evinced by the Georgian conflict). It also means that, since these mini-ethnic conflicts are bound to kindle and rekindle where they always have, there will be more opportunities for geopolitical conflicts to escalate into a truly global scale.

Part of the reason for the fallible belief in global stability and Western domination post-1989 was the faith in the status quo maintaining itself through the MAD theory. As long as there were only a few major nuclear powers, no one rational would dare escalate an irrelevant ethnic conflict onto the world stage (except the US, in a way). But post-Internet and post-oil boom, there are additional methods of attack that everyone is certainly vulnerable to: cyber and economic.

We need to be aware of this new paradigm and react diplomatically going forward. Flexing our muscle now will only lead to trouble, and we are exceptionally vulnerable economically. Whether we like it or not, there's a new place for the United States in the 21st century, and it'll take some getting used to.