My opinion is a bit biased as I happen to respect Russia current international stand. Many bloggers and internauts do admire Russia out of a romantic and underdog effect. In my case I simply consider the point in which it was in 2002-4 and where it is now. It is simply seeking its interest, but its a rather honest interest of Progress. It is not following sectarian politics, Wahabbi ideology, predatory capitalism (well, less than many other countries in the 1st world). I wish every country to act so, instead US is sponsoring almost every country, group and movement that simply is at odds with Russia, and as its the case of finding an enemy of an established and enlighted “Empire”, you always find ethnic atavists or prophets of the closed society.

Now to Mc Cain proposal: kicking Russia out of G8 would be unfortunate. It would demonstrate how G8 is a political creature instead of a club of leading economies (or I should say “clusters”). The only real reason I might forsee to give Russia the door is that is not quite an industrialized Nation, as at the moment is relying on resources. In that case, EU, UK and US are not industriazied either, rather “informaticizied” and “tertiarized”.
Indeed the solution is just a matter of rationalization: EU is an established Economic subject and deserve to appear at G8 summits instead of the trojka France-Germany-Italy (moreover, this way also successful Spain and Netherlands could be comprised), so to leave some room to India, China, ASEAN (have we forgot the Asian Tigers?) and Korea.

One might say, once G8 overstretch, it loses capability of reaching an entente. Then, perhaps, instead of having a G8+5 it would be better a G5+8, so to have a congruous discussion between congruous demnocracies.

Sincerely
Leonardo B.

Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, but nothing is stopping us from forming a “party” or “caucus” of Representative Democracies in the United Nations General Assembly! It’s true! Who gets to be in it, of course, is another matter. I chuckle thinking of trying to form an “American caucus” (we decide unilaterally who gets to join) at this time.

As for Russia, we are idiots to alienate them. Realist-speaking, they still have thousands of nukes. Economically speaking, they are a major energy supplier. And I imagine it will increase the strength of appeals to Russians to stand together, and overlook de-democratization, with finger-pointing about how the world is moving against them.

As for why, I have long suspected that America had a massive anti-Soviet program which it couldn’t dismantle overnight. Well placed spies and assets, ones that it wouldn’t harm U.S. interests to continue to exercise, using its power and denude Russia of its former empire. My attitude is more of the “live and let live” tempered with the “if they start it, we finish it” type, and, if correct about my suspicions, I am non-plussed.

I also think Tajikistan’s move towards Afghanistan and Iran is _exactly_ in line with my own, mostly fleshed out theory of language and conflict, a grand theory of human history, which suggests that language is the fundamental factor in the modern world. Unlike Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen or Kirghiz, the Tajik language is from the Iranian family, as is the Pashto language of Hamid Karzai (and the Taliban). However, the theory is undercut a bit because the other four languages aren’t Slavic, but Turkic. It is usually at the level of government, so, perhaps Tajikistan’s leader speaks Tajiki, while we know Turkmenbashi and Nayarbayev are Soviet holdovers, so obviously fluent in Russian, and who are used to managing their countries through that language. Or perhaps I’m just too eager to see the pattern everywhere.