Has Russia become dangerous, adversarial and increasingly undemocratic?

At one level, yes, as Moscow’s brutal, excessive and lingering intervention in Georgia demonstrates. Further, we all should understand that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the real power in the Kremlin, took the lead in orchestrating Russia’s belligerence against its neighbor, not Dmitry Medvedev, the nation’s elected president.

At another level, however, Russia is simply behaving like a former superpower that yearns to return to the game, defending its perceived interests and feeling cocky about its newly acquired economic muscle. So, if Putin and his cohorts see the need to bolster like-minded entities, such as the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they will act. To Moscow, there is little difference between the ambitions of those areas and Kosovo’s.

Earlier this year, despite opposition from Russia, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. To me, the Kosovo case was unusual. I have consistently argued that not all bids for independence are equal. But the bottom line to the Russians is that the world turned a deaf ear to their concerns; it should come as no surprise that Moscow now has a similar affliction.

Moreover, it is worth underscoring that Georgia threw the first punch, using its military against South Ossetia in early August, after years of smoldering tensions. In doing so, Tbilisi made the age-old mistake of gigging the bear, which predictably roared and struck back with disproportionate force.

That leaves us with a disturbing conundrum: What next?

Are we witnessing an attempt by the Putin gang to reconstruct or reassert the authority of the old Soviet Union? Can the West really do anything to protect democratically elected governments that happen to fall within Moscow’s sphere of influence? Is the Cold War emerging from the ashes? Is a hot war brewing, especially in light of Russia’s warning to Poland – a NATO member – last week, essentially saying that Warsaw was exposing itself to attack by accepting missile interceptors from the United States?

Some of the answers are clear, others not. Russia is undeniably resurgent, although I suspect that its goals fall far short of reviving the Soviet Union. Rather, it wants respect – from its former republics, to be sure, but also from the rest of the world. In that sense, Russia is part of the evolving balance of power in the 21st century, rising along with others such as China and India. Additionally, Moscow is caught up in a still-unfolding internal transformation that defies predictability.

Thus, aside from diplomatic protests and other non-military responses, which are plainly warranted in the Georgia case, the United States and its allies can do little in response to troubles on Moscow’s doorsteps – without prompting a wider conflict.

None of this necessarily means a return to the Cold War, although Putin has always had more of a personal anchor in that time period than in post-Soviet Russia. As long as he retains his grip – and that easily could be for life – Moscow’s attitude will reflect Putin’s unwillingness to break cleanly with the past.

On the matter of Poland, Moscow certainly has adopted a forceful and antagonistic posture, but not to the point that it has traded practicality for stupidity. Let us remember that Russia managed, in the interest of self-preservation, to show restraint during the entire Cold War. Putin and his cronies have more sense than to start a war with the West, which is precisely what an attack on Poland would accomplish.

Furthermore, while Russian leaders may protest and wave their arms over Warsaw’s decision to house the missile interceptors – which happened last week, after a year and a half of debate – they know that those defenses pose no challenge to Russia’s military. Moscow could overwhelm them without even trying. Actually, such a limited number of interceptors would be truly useful only against an attack by a rogue state. Putin and his cronies know this, as well.

In the final analysis, the new Russia can be viewed as dangerous, adversarial and increasingly undemocratic. But it is also a work in progress that its leaders are shaping without discarding practicality and good sense. Americans should brace themselves for a long, bumpy ride.