McCain, Georgia and a problem like Russia

I've been trying to avoid commenting on US election, despite it being intensely fascinating, as there is so much information, analysis and spin out there already. For me, the most astute commentator on the race is Andrew Sullivan, and I'm certainly not alone there. Despite his economic conservatism on certain issues, I agree with most of what he has to say. But I've been wondering about his comments about Georgia/Russia and the US recently.

Analysing an editorial co-written by Joe Liberman, Sullivan stated:

'What they are laying out in very clear terms is the agenda of a McCain presidency. The agenda is war and the threat of war - including what would be an end to cooperation with Russia on securing loose nuclear materials and sharing terror intelligence, in favor of a new cold war in defense of ... Moldova and Azerbaijan. I'm sure McCain would like to have his Russian cooperation, while demonizing and attacking them on the world stage, but in the actual world, he cannot. Putin and Medvedev are not agreeable figures, and I do not mean in any way to excuse their bullying. But this is global politics, guys, and these are the cold, hard choices facing American policy makers.'

Partly through a process of gentle moderation but also persuaded by Sullivan's own arguments, I have warmed towards Obama on foreign policy considerably. The concept of withdrawal from Iraq has been compromised, proposed and countered by Obama, Bush and Malki to such an extent that it is almost a non-issue now (I say that tentatively). My view that Obama would be good for the US but bad for the world, a view based largely on his willingness to withdraw from Iraq sooner rather than later, is no more. I feel McCain's view of the world differs little from Bush's, and this cannot be healthy when dealing with the Islamist threat in a 'new world order' at the same time as playing good old-fashioned realist diplomacy with Russia and China.

However, I feel a little uncomfortable with Sullivan's points about being 'in favour of a new Cold War in defense of Moldova and Azerbaijan'. The citizens of both these countries deserve not to be bullied by Russia, as do the citizens of Ukraine, Georgia and even Belarus. I think it's a somewhat dismissive comment, and whilst a new Cold War is in no-ones interest, it doesn't mean that the West should not support democracy on Russia's borders. Having a strong and nuclear-powered neighbour who is on the security council doesn't mean you don't have a right to free and fair elections, anymore than having oil-friendly sultans means Middle Eastern states don't have a right to democracy.

Russia needs the West as much as the West needs Russia - be it in the fields of energy or counter-terrorism. But what does Russia have to fear from democratic neighbours? If it's case is strong enough, if it stopped bullying other countries in the form of energy blackmailing, separatist support or bare-knuckled sabre-rattling, than perhaps the citizens of the eastern-bloc and the caucuses would be warmer towards their neighbour rather than engaging in coloured revolutions against leaders who are being poked in the direction constantly by Russia. Than perhaps Russia could know democracy too - for it certainly isn't one now.