Yesterday, Russian Prime Minster Vladimir Putin charged that the Bush administration had put Georgia up to attacking South Ossetia in order to influence the upcoming election in November. “We have serious reasons to believe that directly, in the combat zone, citizens of the United States were present and if this is the case, then the suspicion arises that someone in the United States has on purpose created this conflict with the view to exacerbate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the presidential candidates in the United States,” he said to CNN’s Matthew Chance. “They needed a small victorious war.”

In a Moscow press conference yesterday, Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the General Staff, said that Russia had found a U.S. passport in a building occupied by the Georgian Interior Ministry near the capital of South Ossetia. Nogovitsyn held up a color photocopy of the passport, issued to a Michael Lee White, but did not identify the American other than to say he is from Texas. The United States had 130 military personnel in Georgia training Georgian forces for Iraq duty, but the State Department has said that none of them were involved in the recent fighting. The Russians have offered no other evidence for their sweeping claims.

“To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate just sounds not rational,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino yesterday. She’s correct, of course. If Putin’s claim were not so ludicrous, we would think, as Perino suggests, that he had taken leave of his senses. Yet it’s unlikely he has suddenly become deranged.

It is more probable Putin has realized that the West is not resisting his initiatives. We need to remember that it is Russia, and not the Atlantic Alliance, that is cutting ties. So, like other aggressors, the prime minister feels emboldened by recent success. Therefore, it is natural for him to tell a big lie by accusing the United States, with virtually no evidence, of committing grave offenses. Only Putin can tell us why he is embarking on this highly irresponsible and dangerous course of conduct, but it is apparent that, through inflammatory comments like those to CNN, he is testing the resolve of America’s leadership.

Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, President Bush has adopted the least confrontational tactics possible. It’s clear, however, that this mild course of action is not working. Putin’s wild assertions yesterday reveal that substantially tougher measures are required. And by the look of things, they are required now.

On Tuesday, North Korea announced it had stopped disabling its reactor at Yongbyon on August 14. Moreover, Pyongyang said it “will consider soon a step to restore the nuclear facilities in Yongbyon to their original state.” This reactor is the source of the renegade nation’s plutonium for its small arsenal of nuclear weapons. So will the North now rearm itself?

To do so would mean abandoning the series of agreements it has made at the Beijing-sponsored six-party talks. Today, the North Koreans are complaining that the Bush administration has not taken their country off the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, something that Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill promised in those negotiations. The United States, on the other hand, argues that North Korea has failed to produce a “protocol of verification” of its disarmament promises. As Pyongyang said this week, “The U.S. is gravely mistaken if it thinks it can make a house search in the DPRK as it pleases just as it did in Iraq.”

The North Korean regime, of course, thrives on crisis, so it should come as no surprise that it has created another one this week by threatening to revive its production of fissile material. It is a surprise, however, that the Bush administration is letting Kim Jong Il do so. He is not in good health, he has yet to arrange the succession of power to his son, and his country is headed to another great famine. The North is, once again, playing a weak hand well.

How can Kim get away with his antics? There are many reasons, but most of them boil down to the Bush administration’s belief-one might call it faith-that large authoritarian states share our goals and will help us solve the problems of the world. In this case, the President somehow thinks General Secretary Hu Jintao will get rid of China’s only formal military ally-North Korea-to aid a nation that China wants to turf out of Asia-the United States. Beijing, however, has not been especially helpful since 2003, when the six-party talks began. The Bush administration, nonetheless, keeps trying.

Cynics and assorted other disbelievers have always assumed that Kim Jong Il would renege on his commitments because there is no set of conditions under which he would surrender his nukes. It is more precise to say, however, that the United States is not prepared to make the threats, offer the benefits, and engage in the coercive diplomacy that would be necessary to convince the Kimist regime to honor its promises. In short, the Bush administration is not willing to put the hard word on Beijing, Kim’s sponsor.

This month, in the Caucasus region, we have seen what happens when Dubya’s faith in large authoritarian states leads to disastrous consequences. Our North Korean policy, built on the same dubious assumption that big-power autocrats will assist us, can also end in tragedy.

Yesterday, Valeri Kuzmin, Moscow’s ambassador to Moldova, warned the former Soviet republic not to make the same mistakes as Georgia.  The now-independent nation should avoid the “bloody and catastrophic trend of events” in the separatist Trans-Dniester region, the ambassador said.

This follows similar comments from Dmitry Medvedev to Moldova yesterday.  “After the Georgian leadership lost their marbles, as they say, all the problems got worse and a military conflict erupted,” the Russian president said to his Moldovan counterpart, Vladimir Voronin.  “This is a serious warning, a warning to all.”

The real warning, of course, is that Medvedev’s Russia does not intend to stop and consolidate its gains in Georgia.  He and Prime Minister Putin have not only absorbed large blocks of Georgian territory, they have also begun their campaign to either tame or destabilize other neighbors.  Moreover, they have cut off military relations with NATO, signaled their intention to not seek membership in the World Trade Organization, and told President Bush to shelve efforts to obtain Congressional approval for their civilian nuclear cooperation deal.  For his part, Mr. Bush has appeared dazed in public and issued statements of no particular significance.  In comparison to him, the French look forthright–daring to call Russia “an international outlaw“–and even resolute.

Mr. Bush, you have just heard the recent words from President Medvedev and Ambassador Kuzmin.  What will you do in response?  The West may still be waiting for you.  The Russians are not.

Today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that his nation had recognized Georgia’s two breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as independent. Moscow ignored President Bush, who yesterday noted that “Georgia’s territorial integrity and borders must command the same respect as every other nation’s, including Russia’s.”

Well put, Mr. Bush. If Russia will not respect the territorial integrity of its neighbors, then why should we respect Russia’s? Instead of issuing words the Kremlin will only ignore–today Condoleezza Rice called Moscow’s recognition of the two Georgian regions “regrettable”–we should speak in sentences that Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin will understand. One such sentence is this: “The United States believes that all people in the Caucasus region should have the right of self-determination, and that includes the people of areas inside Russia such as, but not limited to, Chechnya.”

Moscow needs us more than we need Moscow at this particular moment, so now is a good time to reintroduce the concept of reciprocity into American foreign policy. The Kremlin’s leaders have made it known they do not treasure good relations with us. So why should we treasure good relations with them? Because Russia put itself in play with today’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, we should not feel hesitant to begin talking about a free and independent Chechnya.

Today, the White House announced that Dick Cheney will leave for Georgia, Italy, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine next week. He is taking the trip at the request of President Bush. In the meantime, it looks as if Condoleezza Rice has been shunted off to the side, as David Hazony notes today. After a few fruitless years of aimless diplomacy, is Dubya changing course again?

Let’s hope so. The polite policies of Condoleezza Rice are obviously not working. She sought to partner with the Kremlin, and that approach resulted in the inability of the United States to predict Russian aggression beforehand and to counter it afterward. Cheney, at this moment, is one of the few Bush administration officials who sees the world in somber tones. In other words, he sees the world clearly.

In our world, populated by resurgent autocrats and aggressors, strong democracies need to protect the weak ones. We failed Georgia, and the most we can do now is engage in a long struggle first to preserve what is left of it and then rollback the substantial Russian gains. Yet we can do better for our other endangered friends.

So here’s a simple proposition. When Cheney meets Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko, he should say this in public: “The United States will consider a Russian attack on your country as an attack on the United States.” We essentially gave that promise to Poland last week as part of the missile defense deal, and we should not be downgrading the now-threatened Ukraine into a secondary category of ally.

The international system is crumbling at this moment, and our first order of business is to prevent further erosion. The best way to do that is to recognize who are our friends and who are our adversaries. And, yes, by protecting our friends.

A few hours ago, the greatest spectacle of this century concluded in Beijing with the second of two truly awe-inspiring ceremonies.  “These were truly exceptional games,” proclaimed Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, as he declared that they had come to a close.  And just about everyone, whether friend or foe of the regime, can agree with John Burns of the New York Times when he writes they were “the most stunning Olympic Games of our age.”

The extravaganza cannot help but change China.  So what will be the effect of the Olympics?  The most immediate legacy will be an enhanced police state.  As veteran China-watcher Willy Lam says, “the central government has revived Mao Zedong’s “people’s warfare” concept by reinvigorating the intrusive neighborhood committees of watchers and by reemploying “similar vigilante outfits.”  Beijing has also increased the role of the People’s Liberation Army and the paramilitary People’s Armed Police in domestic security patrolling, especially in restive minority areas.   In fact, all elements of government are being mobilized to combat “splittists,” troublemakers, and hostile forces of all stripes.  For more than a half decade, President Hu Jintao has implemented increasingly severe measures, and he has now decided to increase repression even further after the tourists, athletes, and journalists go home, “taking revenge after the autumn harvest” as Lam puts it.

Of course, in this atmosphere political reform remains off the table.  In 2008, the Chinese government permits less room for speech than it did in 1988.  Almost everyone knows that China needs a freer political system, but outside tight circles of elites in Beijing, nobody is supposed to talk about liberalization.  Unfortunately, the Summer Games will make things worse, at least in the short run.  “The Olympics demonstrated the success of the current system and the Communist Party’s determination not to reform politically,” said one Chinese commentator to Reuters.  “There is no reason to change.”

The one thing we will see change is Beijing’s foreign policy.  Flush with success from a successful event, China’s leaders will continue their more assertive approach toward other nations.  The Communist Party decided to adopt more aggressive polices in the middle of 2006 after a series of internal meetings in Beijing, and the trend will become even more apparent after the Games.  Hu Jintao not only believes that the country should assert itself; unlike his predecessors, he thinks China should actively work to restructure the international system so that it will become more to Beijing’s liking.  It won’t be long before the Chinese become the main obstacle to the implementation of American policy. 

So those who said it was important for China to have a successful Olympics were dead wrong.  The West fundamentally misunderstands Communist Party leaders.  The Chinese people will pay the price.  Eventually we will too. 

Yesterday, Iran announced it will put a human in space in 10 years. “Within the next six months to one year, the exact date of this mission will be determined,” said Reza Taghipour, the head of Tehran’s space agency. The announcement followed Saturday’s launch of a two-stage rocket. Tehran hailed the test as a success, saying it put a satellite into space. The United States, on Tuesday, disagreed. “The vehicle failed shortly after liftoff and in no way reached its intended position,” said an intelligence official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It could be characterized as a dramatic failure.”

A failure? At Iran’s stage of rocket development, failures are almost as good as successes, because they provide valuable information. It appears, for example, that this week’s test showed Iran had learned much since its launch of the same rocket, named the Ambassador of Peace, in February. This time the second stage fired successfully, according to Charles Vick of GlobalSecurity.org. So we can conclude that Tehran is on its way to putting a satellite into orbit, an Iranian into space, and a warhead into a trajectory that can reach Great Satans and other enemies of the Islamic Republic.

“The Iranian development and testing of rockets is troubling and raises further questions about their intentions,” said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, on Sunday. It’s a good sign that the Bush administration is paying attention, but is it actually intensifying diplomacy to stop the Iranians? So far, there is no visible sign that it is doing so. Understandably, the President has been preoccupied by Moscow’s invasion of Georgia. Yet the Russians are not only aggressors. They are, unfortunately, also proliferators of dangerous technologies. Taghipour, yesterday, noted that he is working with the Russians on his space program.

He is? Taghipour’s announcement should remind us we need a better Iranian policy, but, more important, we need a better Russia policy.

This morning, Nick Kristof warned Americans that they had better get used to a China-centric international system in which they will be relegated to second–or third–place. “The world we are familiar with, dominated by America and Europe, is a historical anomaly,” he writes. “Now the world is reverting to its normal state–a powerful Asia–and we will have to adjust.” For him, the most important trend at this moment is the rise of China.

Kristof certainly stays on safe ground when he predicts the emergence of the Chinese state. Just about no analyst thinks the United States will be the dominate power when this century ends. In Thomas Friedman’s “flat world” where globalization spreads economic development evenly from continent to continent, a China five times more populous than the United States will end up five times more powerful. Sometime in the course of human history, that may happen.

Yet Chinese dominance, if it ever occurs, won’t happen soon, certainly not this century and maybe not even the next one. Why? Because national strength is not just about population size. As Kristof points out, the New York Times would today be printed in Chinese or Hindi if history moved in straight lines.

If the world truly has a “normal state”–a highly debatable proposition–it is that large and stable countries set the tone for the rest of the international community. And Beijing is in no position to challenge the United States. China, a one-party state, is beset by debilitating internal strife created by hardline governance and intolerance for minority peoples. The Communist Party is having trouble governing itself, not to mention China. As a result, it is in no position to exercise leadership beyond Chinese borders.

China will certainly win more gold medals at the ongoing Olympics, a fact that seems to hold great symbolism for Kristof. Chinese dominance of the Games, for me, speaks more to Beijing’s devotion to maintaining an East German-like sports development program and its commitment to cheating. As he notes, the mighty Chinese state has just sentenced two elderly women–one 77 and the other 79–to one-year terms of re-education through labor because they applied to stage lawful protests. If the Communist Party is so popular, then why does it need to incarcerate two old women and deploy more than 400,000 soldiers, paramilitary troops, police, and volunteers to maintain security for the Olympics?

China is unstable, as the rash of bombings, stabbings, and large-scale protests in the run up to the Olympics shows. Eventually, the country will solve its internal “contradictions,” if I may use a Communist Party term. Until China’s leading political organization settles centuries-old conflicts it inherited and all the new ones it created, the world’s normal state will be an international system with strong Western societies at its core.

Today, NATO issued a statement about the crisis in Georgia at the end of its emergency summit in Brussels. “We have determined that we cannot continue with business as usual,” the statement says. “We call on Moscow to demonstrate–both in word and deed–its continued commitment to the principles upon which we agreed to base our relationship.” The 26 states of the alliance also agreed to set up a NATO-Georgia Commission. Discussions about extending membership to Tbilisi, scheduled for December, were not accelerated.

That’s it? Russia invades a country, and the Atlantic Alliance sets up a commission? Dmitry Rogozin, the Kremlin’s NATO envoy, put it best. He labeled the emergency summit a “mountain that gave birth to a mouse.”

But we shouldn’t blame the Alliance for its uninspiring response. The establishment of an organizational structure to deepen ties to endangered Georgia actually looks resolute in comparison to the American reaction. After the invasion started, President Bush continued taking time off for the Olympics in Beijing, and then, after returning to Washington, turned around and headed for more vacation at Crawford.

What is the President doing? Is he recalling the American ambassador to Moscow? Asking the rest of the G-8 to convene to expel Russia? Blocking the Kremlin’s application to join the World Trade Organization? Extending American military protection to Ukraine? Please tell me, Mr. Bush, that the Russians will pay some price for a naked act of aggression.

Mr. President, your Russia policy, which appears to have been based on your personal relationship with an autocrat, was fundamentally misguided. Yet what is especially disheartening is that, when it is clear that the assumptions underlining that policy have been proven wrong by the events of the last eleven days, you have failed to change course or even show leadership. This, as you may have noticed, is a critical moment for the West. Where are you?

Today, Pervez Musharraf resigned as Pakistan’s president. Referring to the impeachment proceedings he faced if he had decided to stay, the embattled leader had this to say in an hour-long address to his country: “Whether I win or lose, the nation will lose.”

Will his nation lose? Its economy is crumbling and the coalition arrayed against him is now bound to break apart, ensuring political instability for the indefinite future. Islamic militants are certain to make further inroads into the country and gain even more latitude to inflict harm. Relations with India, already tense, will probably deteriorate. Musharraf, for all his faults, was seen in many quarters as the best hope for stability.

Pakistan, it seems, always manages to get worse, so times of transition are particularly perilous. Yet there are three reasons for optimism at this particularly uncertain moment. First, Musharraf came to power through a military coup, but he’s leaving in a manner prescribed by the country’s constitution. He did not even receive the immunity he wanted. All this represents progress for the country’s fragile notions of representative governance.

Second, it is proper that he should go. He overthrew democracy in Pakistan and, in so doing, ultimately prolonged crisis. Somehow, the people–and their badly damaged political system–ended up achieving the right result.

Third, Musharraf’s departure lays the groundwork for a more stable society. Things will certainly get worse in the days ahead because this is, after all, Pakistan. Yet now there is at least the possibility that the country can come together after weathering initial turmoil. As long as Musharraf clung to power, there was no realistic possibility of sustainable improvement. He had lost popular support over time, especially in March of last year by suspending Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Supreme Court’s chief justice, and trying to force him to resign. Since then, one calamity after another, including the December assassination of Benazir Bhutto, has befallen the country.

Why is Pakistan so unstable? One factor is that other countries have sought to solve the problem of the day and supported whatever atrocious leader Pakistan had at the time. While Washington and others accepted short-term compromises with autocrats, Pakistanis became more resentful and the country became more unstable.

And what is the way forward? The reinforcement of democratic institutions. A democratic Pakistan may not be our friend, but we will all be better off in the long run when the country comes to equilibrium under popularly elected leaders. The country has a moderate center, and it should hold.

“History, it seems, is back, and not so obviously on our side.” So writes the thoughtful Bill Keller in today’s New York Times. And who could disagree? At this moment, Russian tanks are occupying helpless Georgia, China is putting on awesome displays of national prowess at the Olympics, Iran is defiantly enriching uranium and testing long-range missiles. The world’s hardline states are banding together, and the West is split, dismayed and disheartened. As the Financial Times’s Chrystia Freeland wrote last Tuesday, “We have entered the Age of Authoritarianism.”

In that age, the dominant narrative is that “the sole superpower” is in decline. Other nations will, if not take our place as hegemon, marginalize us. Nobody calls this period “the Second American century.” It belongs to China, maybe Asia. Or as Freeland argues, the tone in this era will be set by resurgent authoritarians.

Perhaps. We are, as analysts recognize, at one of those junctures in history, a period of discontinuous change. Yet the time we are entering will not necessarily be dominated by autocrats. Yes, dictators this month have seized initiative, dominated headlines, and put the West on the defensive, but history never travels in straight lines.

Authoritarianism has flourished in recent years because the Western democracies have let it. Worse, we have abetted the rise of hardline states in the hopes that, as they integrated themselves into the international system, they would become enmeshed in it and change for the better. That generous approach, of course, would be the right one to take if history in fact had ended, as the now-notorious Francis Fukuyama argued in his then-influential 1989 essay. Yet as we watch events unfold, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our indulgent approach has failed because the authoritarians are now using new-found strength to reorder the world by force and coercion.

Fortunately, the democracies will adjust their course. The invasion of Georgia, for instance, will inevitably lead to first a reassessment of Russia policy, then a questioning of the theory of engagement, and finally to a renewal of commitment to ideals.

So, yes, the world is changing. We are entering an age of extended turbulence and conflict. Yet it will not be the Age of Authoritarianism as long as citizens in free societies defend fundamental principles, as they must and as they will.

Today, Russia threatened to use nuclear weapons against Poland, which signed a missile defense deal with the United States yesterday. Under the arrangement, the United States will base ten interceptor missiles on Polish territory. “Poland, by deploying, is exposing itself to a strike-100 percent,” said General Anatoly Nogovitsyn. The deputy chief of staff then explained that Russian doctrine permits the use of nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear allies of nuclear states if the allies host strategic deterrence systems.

This is not the first time this year that Russia has announced it might nuke a neighbor. “It is horrible to say and even horrible to think that, in response to the deployment of such facilities in Ukrainian territory, which cannot theoretically be ruled out, Russia could target its missile systems at Ukraine,” Vladimir Putin said this February, referring to missile defense systems. Before this, Russia made similar threats against the Czech Republic, which will host missile defense radar, and Poland. Ukraine is not part of the American plan.

I don’t have the time to write a book this afternoon, so I will not analyze all that is wrong with the Kremlin’s position on the American missile defense plan for Europe. Yet there is one thing that should be said at this moment.

The United States this year has been quiet in the face of Russia’s nuclear threats, ignoring them as if they were not made. Yet Putin has taken American indulgence as a green light to issue even more menacing statements, including today’s against Poland. So before it is too late, the Bush administration should speak clearly to Moscow and affirm in public America’s policy of nuclear deterrence. Possession of the world’s most capable nuclear arsenal is no use if aggressors think we will not use it.

Putin attacked Georgia last week because he thought he could get away with it. Now, the prime minister, through his military, has put us on notice that he might use his nuclear weapons against others. We should not let him think he can do so without grave consequences. I don’t like what I’m writing any more than you do, but this, unfortunately, is the way the world is.

Yesterday, Moscow’s foreign minister gave the United States an ultimatum to choose between Russia and Georgia. After calling the young democracy “a special project for the United States,” Sergei Lavrov said this: “A choice will have to be made someday between considerations of prestige related to an illusory project and a real partnership in matters which indeed require collective efforts.”

Condoleezza Rice, to her credit, replied that Washington was choosing “the democratically elected government of Georgia.” While making her welcome pronouncement, the secretary of state dismissed Russia’s threat of withdrawing assistance. “Let’s be very clear whose interests are being served by the partnership that Russia and the United States have engaged in on Iran or North Korea,” Dr. Rice said.

Yes, we must be clear. The miscreants who run the North Korean and Iranian states must be enjoying this falling out between Moscow and Washington because Russia will be an even more difficult “partner” for the United States in the days and months ahead. Moscow can, and probably will, go to even greater lengths to undermine American diplomacy. But we shouldn’t be overly concerned. Russia has barely lifted a finger when it has come to disarming Pyongyang, both before and during the ongoing six-party talks. On Iran, it has been the theocracy’s primary backer and consistently acted with bad motive.

So let’s consider Lavrov’s ultimatum a favor. He is, without this being his intention, forcing us to confront reality. We all want the major powers to be able to work cooperatively in dealing with the urgent problems of the day. Yet we have, in our desire to see a united international community, failed to recognize that Russia has interests incompatible with ours. No use of words like “partnership” can hide that fact. As painful as this may be, we need to start dealing with the world as it actually is, not the way we want it to be.

In the world as it actually exists, we will have to give up accepting lowest-common-denominator solutions that Russia–and China–demand and start implementing effective strategies. We will get nowhere unless we recognize that we are no longer the leader of the world. We are, however, the leader of the free world.

Starting last Friday with the Russian invasion of Georgia, we have learned that our policy of engagement has failed to encourage Russia to move in positive directions. It’s time to stop placating autocrats, whether they be Russian or otherwise, and start confronting them. After all, they are confronting us.

This morning, President Bush announced that a U.S. Air Force C-17 was on its way to embattled Georgia to deliver humanitarian aid. “This mission will be vigorous and ongoing,” he said. He also announced he is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tbilisi to “personally convey America’s unwavering support for Georgia’s democratic government.”

But will the Georgian government be there to greet her? Minutes before the dramatic statement, Steve Harrigan of Fox News reported that Russian forces had advanced to within twelve miles of Tbilisi and that the road between their positions and the Georgian capital was undefended. Earlier reports indicated that the Russians controlled Georgia’s airspace. In short, President Bush is, once again, relying on the Kremlin’s good will.

Mr. Bush’s moves today were the best that could have been made under the deteriorating circumstances. Yet the circumstances would have been much more favorable to the Georgians and to us had the White House taken decisive action on Friday, when the Russian invasion began. Instead, the President, while not learning beach volleyball from Misty May in the Chinese capital, issued words that the Kremlin of course ignored.

Long before his outing at the Olympics, the President should have made it clear to Russian leaders that they would face great consequences should they use force against Georgia. Instead, he continued his evenhanded policy that predictably emboldened Moscow.

Given the current unfavorable “correlation of forces,” the President might end up acquiescing in the Russian occupation of previously undisputed Georgian territory or perhaps accepting an even worse outcome. It may take years or even decades to unwind the damage done in the past few days. There are, unfortunately, few scenarios that we can rule out.

Yet as we undertake the defense of Georgia, we need to think about the other Georgias-specifically Ukraine and Taiwan. Each of these democracies is being threatened by a neighboring big-power aggressor–and in each case the United States has yet to make firm commitments to its defense. That’s because the Bush administration has yet to abandon Secretary Rice’s fundamentally flawed notion that the United States should try to manage the world with the help of the other great powers, especially Russia and China.

So let’s change course and make sure there is only one Georgia this year.

President Bush’s comments on the latest developments regarding the Russian invasion of Georgia are not encouraging.  After noting that Moscow’s forces were operating south of South Ossetia and were threatening the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, the President said this: “These actions would be inconsistent with assurances we have received from Russia that its objectives were limited to restoring the status quo in South Ossetia that existed before fighting began on August the 6th.”

Now that is interesting.  Mr. President, did you hold off speaking out and acting because of these “assurances”?  Your reliance on Russian promises would explain your inadequate response to a clear act of aggression.

So, Mr. President, it is time to reveal your administration’s conversations with the Russians.  What did they say?  And when did they say it?

Has the Bush administration lost its will to defend the international community? “We’ve placed ourselves in a position that globally we don’t have the wherewithal to do anything,” notes George Friedman of Stratfor, the strategic analysis firm. “One would think under those circumstances, we’d shut up.” In response to this quote, a senior Bush administration official laughed and had this to say to the New York Times: “Well, maybe we’re learning to shut up now.”

Well, is that what American officials really want the world to hear? The frightening aspect of this comment is that it reveals that there is a new mentality at the White House. To his credit, President Bush sponsored the surge in Iraq. Yet balanced against this bold plan is his lack of a sufficient response to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, his feeble diplomacy in the face of North Korea’s nuclearization, and his commitment to unproductive talks with an increasingly defiant Iran. Russian tanks roll into the territory of an ally, and the President of the United States engages in friendly conversation in public with Prime Minister Putin. It’s evident that the United States has lost the will to exercise its traditional role as the power of last resort.

Of course, there are things that even a superpower cannot do, especially when China and Russia are gaining strength and developing a common agenda. One can perhaps forgive Bush for failing to achieve objectives in a changing global environment. Yet his White House is not even providing leadership or speaking with a clear voice. Instead, his officials joke about American helplessness. It’s not quite right to say the Bush administration has shifted tactics or has lowered its ambitions. It has simply given up.