Except I would go so far as to argue that relativism vs. dualistic "good and evil" is an example of a false dichotomy. And, essentially, I'm stating it is possible to disagree entirely with Solzhenitsyn and the core theology of Manicheanism--that everything in life is reduced to good and evil--and not be a relativist.
It is my view that the traditional flaw of liberalism is not because it refuses to label things "evil"; it is because it, via postmodernism, does not judge right versus wrong, thus being morally impotent to defend itself. I think there is a substantial difference between the two, inasmuch as "good vs. evil" is a personality attack, while "right vs. wrong" is ideas-based. Ergo, it is possible for a generally "good/positive" entity to hold "wrong" ideas and still be good, whereas it is generally impossible for an "evil/negative" entity to be acknowledged as having some "good" ideas. Additionally, reducing everything to "good and evil" also opens discourse wide open to logically fallacious "appeals to authority," whereas we put added weight to what a "good" country says, even if it is patently false, and completely dismiss what an "evil" country says, even if it happens to be true. And, after all, what are we to do with "evil," except annihilate it? "Wrong," at least, is inherently open for disciplinary action, correction, and possible redemption.
In other words, the difference between "right vs. wrong" and "good vs. evil" is mainly the difference between a conventional war and the Crusades; the latter becomes more preposterous, more cumbersome, ideologically loaded, and nearly impossible to resolve pragmatically short of genocide. The former allows for responses to actual facts, events, and leaves room for changes as they are known.