Meddling kids

Today, the New York Times gave its take on the limited policy options that are available to the US in responding to Russia's strategic victory in Georgia --"Friction with Russia may spell trouble for US."

Quoting Stanford University professor and Barack Obama's chief Russia advisor Michael McFaul, the New York Times asserts that Russia currently has more options available to thwart US strategic objectives than the other way around. At one point, professor McFaul apparently observed that:

Russia appeared intent on trying to “disrupt the international order” and had the capacity to succeed.

Similarly, the article quotes Georgetown University professor Angela Stent as saying:

Ironically, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there’s always been the concern about Russia becoming a spoiler, and now we could see the realization of that.

I wonder what international order Russia is disrupting or spoiling by opportunistically defending its interests in Ossetia and Abkhazia? Would that be the international order in which everyone bows to a US hegemon that opportunistically pursues its own interests unconstrained by the rule of law or the interests of its allies? In that case, a little disrupting and spoiling may not be such a bad idea. Perhaps it will cause the US to retreat from its imperial ambitions and to return to being the world's staunchest defender of universal values like human dignity. However, given that some of the comments quoted above are from an Obama adviser, I won't hold my breath.