But Russia has a tendency of saying "screw the rules everyone else agreed to, we're doing it our way."
I don't disagree. That's why the U.S. needs to deal with Russia in a strategic fashion and with attention to verification of commitments. An ad hoc approach or appeals to sentimentalities won't cut it when it comes to dealing with Russia.
Putin is saying that any act without UN authorization is aggression, but Putin had no problem invading Georgia without one.
It should be noted that Russia had specifically warned Georgia not to use military force to settle the situation concerning its breakaway provinces, as Russia has long argued that it would act to protect its interests in its "Near Abroad." Even as it faced an enormous military disadvantage, Georgia's leadership recklessly ignored that warning. With regard to the warning, the following are excerpts from a report published by Russia's Interfax news agency on April 25, 2008:
If Georgia unleashes a military conflict in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia will use force to defend its fellow countrymen living in these regions, Valeriy Kenyaykin, the Russian Foreign Ministry's special envoy for relations with the CIS countries, told a news conference at the RIA Novosti office today.
"We are doing everything to prevent a military conflict. But if it is unleashed, we will have to respond, including by military means," he said.
"No-one should have any illusions in this respect!" the diplomat stressed.
In diplomatic terms, warnings don't come any clearer than that.
And he had no problems order the war in Chechnya which killed 160,000 people.
There's little dispute that Russia has used force in a very blunt fashion leading to exceptionally high casualties. On the Chechnya issue, Russia has asserted that the matter is strictly an internal one solely within its sovereign jurisdiction.
In both cases--Georgia and Chechnya--Russia has acted in a fashion that it views is consistent with its major interests. That's really no surprise. Russia also views others as trying to impose roadblocks to its ability to act in its interests. It tries to do the same, as well. However, the only real calculation that matters when devising foreign policy is that nations act in their interests and, if they possess greater power, they have more flexibility to do so. If the interests are important, one can expect a higher likelihood of response with or without UN sanction for that response.
The U.S. is more than strong enough to deal with Russia as it is. Nevertheless, it needs to maintain a tight focus on areas of common interest/mutual benefit in its dealings. Where differences exist, it can't view things through the prism of its own ideals or hopes, as Russia does not necessarily embrace those same hopes and ideals.
Smaller countries e.g., Georgia, need to be very careful when standing up to Russia. If the balance of power is against them, they need to avoid taking risks that would trigger a big Russian response. In terms of policy content, the former President of Georgia grossly discounted the power disparity in ignoring Russia's warning. Unfortunately, he has yet to write any memoirs, so it is difficult to understand his thought process. Did he think Russia was bluffing? Did he think a rapid military resolution would create a fait accompli resulting in Russian inaction? Did he think bilateral relations with the U.S., even in the absence of NATO membership, would deter Russia? Did he selectively view the issue through his ambitions in a fashion that led him to miss the big risks involved? Confirmation bias and overconfidence are a deadly combination.
True there are matters that should be cooperated on, but with Putin in power, I don't see that happening. Every inch we give Putin will take a mile in his favor. We simply may have to wait until he's out of power for anything to change. Millions of Russians are doing the same thing: waiting for the Dawn to break on Putin's Russia.
I share the hope for a more liberal and democratic Russia. Right now, I don't think that is very likely in the near-term. In many ways, today's Russia is less a reflection of President Putin than President Putin is a reflection of Russia's history and structural realities.