but, what you have to realize is that the russian-american proxy conflicts that are starting to get very hot are not an externality to the conflicts. this is a russian containment strategy, as was laid out in the pnac. it was this idea that america had to strike hard while russia was weak, because the collapse of the soviets was not an end of anything but merely a pause in a broad struggle. and, if you understand it properly, that struggle didn't begin in 1917 or 1945, either - it was a consequence of the napoleonic wars, which split europe into spheres of interest that were dominated by england and russia. there's a consistent strain of thought that the reason us industry funded hitler so generously is that it was hoping they would invade russia. if you look at the issue in ukraine closely, it's essentially an updated and modernized version of the same tactic.
the countries that they've been taking out are all old russian proxies. it's a process of plucking these areas out of the russian sphere and integrating them into the anglo-american sphere.
what has changed since libya is that the russians have made a decision to stop being naive. and, that is what the russians were: naive. they were convinced that whomever replaced bush would be more moderate, and that it was just a process of waiting the neo-cons out. but, they've realized that this was an error and have adjusted.
it's not a new war. and, if it's world war three, then world war three started a long time ago. it's the same war that's been raging for decades, and in fact centuries. and, it will neither end nor recede at any time in the near future.
history may not blame america. it may argue that any other state would have done the same thing under the same calculation that russia would not remain weak forever. however, it will certainly point to a missed opportunity by the clinton administration to push peace and co-operation rather than imperial dominance and self-interest.