Vladimir Putin's Visit to US

[december]

Washington's moment of truth


18/ 06/ 2007



MOSCOW. (Military commentator Andrei Vasilyev for RIA Novosti) - The United States has a lot on its plate.

It has to come up with a position on the statement issued by the North Atlantic Council after its meeting in Brussels, negotiations in Vienna on the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's announcement of his country's intention to join NATO.

Will the U.S. stance include a commitment to European security?

Defense and security issues are among the few in the system of international relations that hold out the promise of learning the truth about the parties' real goals and intentions. It is extremely difficult to attain this moment of truth, because real interests are the most tightly guarded secret in politics. You can speculate or guess, but only very rarely can you find out the facts.

For example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has calculated that the U.S. defense budget reached an astronomical $528 billion in the past few years. Washington and its NATO allies, which account for 66% of the world's defense spending (Russia's share is 3%), do not believe this amounts to a resumption of the arms race. They explain their growing defense allocations by pointing out the "fight for democracy" in Iraq, the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and other "peace" programs.

One can talk about the "militarization of the U.S. administration's mentality," but Washington will never admit that NATO's eastward expansion threatens Russia's security and is disrupting the alignment of forces in Europe. This is part of American pragmatism, which ignores the national interests of other countries as insubstantial and unimportant.

Russian officials have more than once reminded the United States and NATO about their commitment not to expand the bloc, but to no avail. Therefore, when President Vladimir Putin said he considered the CFE treaty obsolete and favored a moratorium on it, a true strategic partner would have accepted his words as a logical reaction to its actions, but not Washington.

The United States believes Moscow must withdraw its troops from the self-proclaimed republic of Abkhazia and Moldova before the West ratifies the CFE treaty.

Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, made it clear in Vienna that Russia had met the requirements of the United States in Georgia, a country on Russia's southern border, but had not complied with its wishes in Transdnestr.

"They're almost there with respect to Georgia (but) with respect to Transdnestr - no, I'm afraid they're not there," Fried said. "Well, if it is a peacekeeping function, maybe we ought to consider how a modest peacekeeping function could be properly internationalized," he said, apparently referring to American involvement.

Washington's growing claims to a more active presence in Europe jeopardize the CFE treaty by violating its fundamental principles of maintaining a safe military balance and imposing limits on the amount of conventional military equipment in the area extending from the Atlantic to the Urals. Thanks to the CFE treaty, the number of troops in the area has been cut by 700,000, to 3 million servicemen.

How will the proportion change if Ukraine joins NATO? And what should Russia do about the U.S. plan to deploy elements of an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense system near its borders?

Boris Gryzlov, speaker of the Russian parliament's lower house, said: "The intention to expand NATO and build up its armaments near the Russian borders is unjustified and contradicts the spirit of partnership." He added that Russia would cut its conventional forces in Europe only if NATO acted likewise.

In effect, solving the CFE and ABM problems depends on the United States. The other NATO members know very well that the Iranian and North Korean missile threats are hypothetical, as Chris Prebensen, secretary general of the Norwegian Atlantic Committee, recently acknowledged in an interview he granted to the Ukrainian newspaper Den.

Prebensen said the Norwegian government viewed the American plans to create an anti-missile shield in Europe as damaging to the principle of a strategic balance, since such systems would spur an arms race, which is a bad idea.

There are even harsher opinions of the matter. On June 6, The Financial Times published a letter from Robert Skidelsky of Britain's House of Lords, who speculates that the [U.S.] anti-missile program is aimed at Russia and that the purpose of this (...) strategy is to neutralize Russia's nuclear capability.

He writes: "What may have started out as President Reagan's bluff to force the Soviet Union into arms control agreements has evolved into the doctrine of American military unilateralism. If this is the game, the Russian response is understandable. Russia is playing the only card it has."

Therefore, Putin's proposal that Russia and America use the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan as an alternative to the U.S. plans to base the system in Poland and the Czech Republic could be a solution for those who are against starting a new cold war.

It could be also a chance for Europeans to check on the purity of Washington's intentions. Does it really intend to protect Europe from Iranian or North Korean missiles, or does it simply want to strengthen its presence in Europe?

Nobody expected that question to be answered at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council. According to a source in NATO headquarters in Brussels cited by Russian news agency Itar-Tass, Russia and the United States should first tackle the issue bilaterally.

There may be quite a few technical problems involved, but the political difficulties engendered by Washington's desire to create a unipolar world are much more dangerous. They could prevent the two sides from reaching an equitable agreement, and Russia will neither accept anything less nor agree to play the part of Europe's "poor relation."

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070618/67397293.html

[december]

A Summit of Diminished Expectations

Few Hopes for Bush-Putin Meeting

http://static.flickr.com/53/190127387_9c86e05541_o.jpg

A week from now, Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet U.S. President George Bush at the oceanfront summer retreat of the Bush family at Kennebunkport, Maine. The setting implies a relaxed atmosphere of boating and deep-sea fishing, which would be quite suitable for an informal discussion of global affairs. Of course, George H.W. Bush will drop by for a fireside chat with the two most powerful men in the world, one of whom is his eldest son.

No specific agreements are scheduled to be unveiled at Kennebunkport. This is not accidental: the two presidents will find little substantive to agree on. They are meeting to vent their grievances and mask with a show of camaraderie the gaping void of differences.

Bush invited Putin to his family home in early June, when Moscow and Washington were engaged in a war of rhetoric that was doing considerable damage to the bilateral relationship. The intention was to change the tone and possibly make progress on a thorny issue or two – like Kosovo or U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe.

Then, after the G8 meeting in Germany during which Putin made his surprise offer of shared use of the Russian ABM radar station in Azerbaijan, it seemed for a while that the tide had turned and that Russia and the United States were reverting to a more cooperative mode.

But the missile defense breakthrough appears to be fizzling out. Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have stated quite plainly that they want to use the Gabala radar as a complement, not a substitute, to the systems planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.

Moscow’s calculation that by offering Gabala it might derail entirely the construction of U.S. missile defenses in Europe is not working. The statements from Russian officials reflect this growing realization that things are not going according to plan. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov again talked of Moscow’s “response at the strategic level” if U.S. missile defenses are deployed in Europe.

Another idea that Moscow appears to be pushing is to turn the proposed missile defense into a multilateral international project that would deal with missile threats if and when they emerge. Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces General Yury Baluyevsky and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak made it clear at their joint press conference last week that Russia does not see a missile threat from Iran as realistic and continues to hope that the use of the Gabala radar would dissuade Washington from the need to deploy radar and interceptors in Europe. I am afraid that this is not a viable basis for a strategic compromise at Kennebunkport.

The most that could be expected from the summit on missile defense is a decision to form a joint task force to discuss the issue. Moscow’s strategy then would be to stall the work of the task force until there is a change of government in Washington – which is still nearly 20 months away, while the U.S. strategy would be to rush the deployment in Europe as soon as possible, since the next U.S. administration may quash the missile defense project. After all, it is a multibillion-dollar system of dubious effectiveness. But if this happens, it will be for reasons largely unrelated to Russian actions.

On Kosovo, even less progress should be expected. For a while, there was some hope in a proposal by the newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy to give the Serbs and Kosovo Albanians some more time to come to a negotiated divorce before the Ahtisaari plan comes into effect through UN Security Council resolution. But then Russia publicly threatened to veto the draft Security Council resolution that incorporated the Sarkozy plan, since Moscow envisaged the Ahtisaari plan coming into effect if the two sides failed to reach an agreement in the specified period of time. On a visit to Albania after the G8 meeting, Bush wasted no time declaring that “independence (for Kosovo) is the goal.”

It is still possible that Putin will come to the United States with another surprise proposal, but this prospect appears unlikely. To yield on Kosovo now, while the West has shown little effort to take Russia’s concerns into account, does not make sense. A much more preferable strategy for Putin would be “to agree to disagree,” just as he did on Iraq in 2003 when he told Bush that the invasion was a mistake.

Interestingly, Putin is trying to win some unusual allies with this position. He told Georgian President Mikheil Saaskashvili, who has long sought to regain control of his country’s breakaway regions, that it is inadmissible to forcefully cut out a piece of sovereign territory from a country and legitimize this land grab with a Security Council resolution. Saakashvili found nothing to object to. It makes complete sense for Putin not to budge on Kosovo; almost everything he might do would work against him. Domestically, he cannot make a concession on Kosovo for fear of appearing weak and inconsistent, and internationally he knows that any compromise on Kosovo would be pocketed without a thank you note. He gains everything by waiting until the Kosovo project goes awry.

There are, of course, important areas where U.S.-Russian cooperation continues to grow and progress is being made. Russia has been instrumental in bringing pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear program – Moscow has all but abandoned the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant citing missed payments from Iran. And Russia helped arrange the transfer of North Korean funds through a Russian bank, a key North Korean demand before it starts to roll back its nuclear program. An agreement to extend the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program until 2013 has just been reached.

But U.S.-Russia relationship is still heading south and the rhetorical race to the bottom continues.

President Putin took another veiled swipe at the United States at a recent meeting with history teachers: "We have not used nuclear weapons against a civilian population," he said. "We have not sprayed thousands of kilometers with chemicals, (or) dropped on a small country seven times more bombs than in all the Great Patriotic (War)." Putin’s point – don’t impose on us an inferiority complex of guilt.

President Bush, inaugurating the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, compared Communism to Nazism, prompting a furious response from Moscow. Chairman of the House International Affairs Committee Tom Lantos (D-California) compared Putin to Popeye, eating the spinach of oil revenues and seeing his muscles bulge big enough to threaten his neighbors. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried stated at a Senate hearing: “Russia's current political situation is influenced by the lack of a free media or robust opposition that would critique and critically analyze the government's performance. Russian citizens who want a wider view must make an extra effort to find such opinions in the remnants of the free press and local electronic media or on the internet.”

Obviously, all of this is unhelpful. But such is the reality the two presidents will have to deal with.

Putin and Bush are meeting in very different political circumstances. Bush is a highly unpopular president with approval ratings below 30 percent in a country stuck in a war it cannot win. Putin is the unquestioned leader of a resurgent nation with personal approval ratings around 70 percent. Bush will not be able to leave a successor to continue his policies; all the viable Republican presidential contenders are distancing themselves from Bush and his war in Iraq as much as possible. Bush will never again be president. Putin has that option should he so choose. He is in the process of setting up a system that will continue his policies long after he leaves office.

Since there is little practical business to discuss at Kennebunkport, Putin and Bush might just as well talk about their legacies.

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Politics&articleid=a1182857690

[december]

Bush-Putin summit may start missile defense dialogue - analyst


| 28/ 06/ 2007

MOSCOW, June 28 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian North America expert said Thursday this weekend's U.S.-Russia summit could pave the way for a dialogue on missile defense, an issue that has sent bilateral relations to their lowest point in years.

Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush are to hold informal talks Sunday and Monday at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine.

"Even if they fail to find any solutions on the CFE [Conventional Forces in Europe] and ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] treaties, they will at least instruct their representatives to launch serious discussions on the possibility of Russian-American cooperation in missile defense," Sergei Rogov, President of the Russian Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies, said during a RIA Novosti video link.

Russia is staunchly opposed to U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe, and has declared a moratorium on its compliance with the CFE treaty until the NATO signatories ratify its updated version.

Rogov also dismissed speculations that the two nations were on the brink of a Cold War.

"The presidents of the two countries are determined to develop bilateral relations, and have no plans to crown their terms in office with a new Cold War between Russia and the U.S," he said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070628/68009012.html

[december]

Bush-Putin summit to address differences, highlight positive legacy


29/ 06/ 2007



MOSCOW, June 29 (RIA Novosti) - Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and George W. Bush of the United States will meet this weekend to try to relieve tensions between their countries before they both leave office in 2008.

Bush will receive the Russian leader at his family's estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, on July 1 and 2, a Kremlin aide told reporters at a preview briefing Friday.

"Given that the presidents are in for a detailed conversation on a whole range of topical issues and an international agenda, the American side's choice of the venue seems ideal: the leaders' informal talks in an unofficial setting will create the right conditions for [a high level of] efficiency we are hoping for," Sergei Prikhodko said.

While at Kennebunkport, Putin and Bush will try to overcome differences that have sent the U.S.-Russian relationship to its lowest point since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The meeting may be the two leaders' last opportunity to reverse the decline before their presidential terms expire next year.

The presidents are also expected to emphasize the positive legacy of their seven-year contacts, especially since 2007 marks the bicentenary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between their nations.

"The two leaders are to talk about the foundation of Russian-American relations with an eye to the future, about ways to consolidate the assets accumulated by the George W. Bush administration in the past seven years and to ensure a long-time continuity."

Putin and Bush will use the summit to follow up on their discussions of a controversial U.S. missile defense plan in Europe, Prikhodko said.

During his latest meeting with Bush on the sidelines of a Group of Eight summit in Germany, Putin suggested Washington deploy its European missile shield on a Russia-rented base in Azerbaijan rather than in Central Europe.

The U.S. leader described the proposal as interesting and promised to consider it at length, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates later said the U.S. was unlikely to use the Azerbaijani base as a substitute for its prospective missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which is allegedly intended to protect the country and its European allies against potential strikes by Iran and other rogue states.

"The fact that President George W. Bush has responded to the proposal positively and with interest gives hope for a denouement that will enable our countries to counter actual missile threats without endangering each other," Prikhodko said.

Nuclear arms control and cooperation in the nuclear industry will also be high on the summit agenda, he said.

Specifically, the presidents will discuss a possible replacement for the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START), expiring in December 2009.

"We expect the presidents to take up the topic, bearing in mind that [during the G8 summit] in St. Petersburg last year, they instructed experts to review the treaty and determine which of its [provisions] should be taken into a future agreement," he said.

Less controversial issues, such as collaboration on civilian nuclear programs, are also likely to come under discussion, the Kremlin aide said.

"One can predict with certainty that the presidents will continue their in-depth discussion [of civilian nuclear cooperation issues] with an emphasis on the fact that Russia and the U.S. could consolidate their leadership in organizing collective measures to promote civilian nuclear engineering for all interested states to benefit - provided their strict compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of course."

Cooperation in that area should be based on Russia's initiative to set up an international uranium enrichment center in Siberia and on the U.S.' proposal to use civilian nuclear power as part of a Global Energy Partnership program, Prikhodko said.

"These initiatives are mutually complementary, and could together form an attractive alternative to states seeking to develop a nuclear industry without creating any proliferation risks."

In the leadup to the summit, U.S. authorities are tightening security in the Kennebunkport area. Airspace over Bush's estate has been shut for flights within a radius of 16 kilometers (10 miles) since late Thursday, and the ban will remain in effect till midday July 2.

Measures are also being taken to ensure coastal security for the oceanfront compound.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070629/68042208.html

[december]

Russians test ballistic missile

Russia has successfully tested a new, sea-based ballistic missile from a nuclear submarine, officials have said.
The weapon, capable of breaching anti-missile defence systems, flew almost the whole length of the country.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42439000/gif/_42439782_russia_kamchatkathisone.gif

US plans to build a missile defence shield in Europe have angered Russia, which sees the proposal as a challenge to its influence in the region.

The Russian test comes as President Vladimir Putin heads for the US to meet President George W Bush on Sunday.

'Key component'

The Bulava missile was launched from the White Sea off Russia's north-west coast.

The intercontinental missile hit its target on the Pacific Ocean peninsula of Kamchatka.

Three earlier tests of the weapon in recent years had failed.

The Bulava is designed to have a range of 10,000km (6,200 miles) and carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the missile as a key component of Moscow's future nuclear forces, saying it can penetrate any prospective missile defence system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6251082.stm

[december]

Issue of European missile defense should be clarified at Putin-Bush meeting


29/ 06/ 2007


MOSCOW. (Alexander Karavayev for RIA Novosti) - Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and George W. Bush of the United States will meet at Bush's family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, on July 1 and 2. They will most likely discuss Russia's proposal to jointly use the Gabala radar in Azerbaijan.

Washington's acceptance or rejection of the offer will mark a major watershed in bilateral relations and the structure of global security.

If the United States rejects the Russian offer for a technical or any other reason, the Kremlin will see this as one more proof that Washington's proposed anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system in Eastern Europe will be aimed at Russia.

If it accepts the offer, Moscow will have to either accept the American ABM plans for Europe or revise its Gabala offer. At best, the Gabala radar would then be used as an additional element of the European ABM system and serve as a political symbol of Russian-American friendship on the former Soviet-controlled territory.

One way or another, Washington will not abandon its plans to deploy a nuclear missile shield around the globe, part of which will be close to the Russian border. The important points will be the system's boundaries and the conditions on which Russia will be able to monitor its elements. There are very few chances of convincing Washington not to deploy the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

There are two ways to solve the problem which have not been broadly discussed yet.

Russia and the United States could sign a new ABM treaty modeled after the 1972 ABM Treaty between the Soviet Union and the U.S., from which the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew in 2002 after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

Or they can decide to fully cooperate on missile defense as equal partners.

Russia would be unable to monitor American ABM systems in Eastern Europe or elsewhere in the world without becoming an equal partner. But is such partnership possible?

In March this year, the White House hinted that there was a possibility of cooperation, although observers were unclear about what form such cooperation would take. The Russian Defense Ministry and General Staff said Russia could not join the United States' ABM initiative in Europe, at least not now. Indeed, a Russian-American crew manning a missile facility in Poland sounds incredible by all counts.

Putin, apparently believing that if you can't beat 'em, you should join 'em, put forth the Gabala initiative. He might discuss a joint ABM project with Bush in Kennebunkport as a logical continuation of the Gabala initiative. If Russian military personnel are deployed in Eastern Europe not as observers but as active players, the situation will change radically.

There may be some disagreement about the make-up of the command and operational control levels and about expenses. It will of course be very difficult to sort out such issues for a new military system operated jointly by two countries. The idea could be implemented as a long-term project, which would bring large political benefits to Russia sooner than it would bring military benefits to the U.S.

This would allow Moscow to return to the former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet republics as an equal partner of Washington, surprising Poland and the Czech Republic and shocking anti-Russian Georgia. This would also improve Putin's image in the West, and create a good example of military-strategic cooperation between Russia and the Untied States in the former Soviet Union.

As of now, the Kremlin's statements show that Russia does not believe it can join the American ABM system as an equal partner. Therefore, it can only try to convince Washington to abandon the idea of a global nuclear missile shield, and to embrace instead the idea of mutual control and monitoring. However, Russia's status as an ABM-monitoring observer must be formalized in a top-level international agreement.

Memoranda and gentleman's agreements between presidents or defense departments would not be practical, creating grounds for a repetition of an old situation. As Putin said at the security conference in Munich last February, the West had promised not to expand NATO, but now the bloc is standing on Russia's doorstep.

Without a formal agreement, the situation in the ABM sphere would change daily, and the granting of permits to ABM facilities for Russian specialists would depend on political sentiments and considerations.

In other words, the Gabala initiative is part of a larger problem of future strategic security, which the two sides are now already scrutinizing.

The new treaty should stipulate legal guarantees of unhindered control of the ABM system, as well as the boundaries for its deployment. If attempts to limit American plans for a global ABM network fail, there should at least be procedures for bilateral coordination that would slow down their implementation.

The situation now looks hopeless. It is not as hopeless as the Kosovo problem, but it is the first nuclear deterrence hitch in Russian-American relations since the end of the Cold War. Considering the cooling of bilateral relations burdened by negative rhetoric, the ABM issue is not a short-lived PR trick.

Russia and the United States so far seem unable to find a common language to discuss ABM defense. Debates can go on forever, but the Putin-Bush meeting in Maine should clarify the issue somewhat. This is especially important ahead of the next stage of the September-October talks on the START-2 strategic arms reduction treaty, which expires in 2009.

No matter what turn the developments take, they will provide very many interesting stories for modern history textbooks.

Alexander Karavayev works for the news and analysis center at Moscow State University.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070629/68071360.html

[december]

Russia's Putin begins two-day visit to U.S.


01/ 07/ 2007


MOSCOW, July 1 (RIA Novosti) - President of Russia Vladimir Putin begins Sunday his two-day visit to the United States amid strained relations between the two countries.

The talks between the Russian leader and U.S. President George W. Bush will be held July 1-2 at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport in the state of Maine, said Sergei Prikhodko, a presidential aide.

Differences between the two countries have sent the U.S.-Russian relationship to its lowest point since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The summit may be the two leaders' last opportunity to reverse the decline before their presidential terms expire next year.

The summit will focus on the problem of the Serbian province of Kosovo, the situation in the Middle East, the nuclear issue of Iran and North Korea, democracy and human rights and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) expiring in 2009, Prikhodko said.

Both leaders are also expected to discuss the U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland as part of its European missile shield allegedly against "rogue" states, such as Iran and North Korea and the Russian proposal to Washington to deploy its shield on a Russia-rented base in Azerbaijan rather than in Central Europe, Prikhodko said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070701/68118299.html

[december]

The BBC article about Putin's visit. What did they try to say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6258012.stm

[december]

Russia, U.S. to discuss Iran at UN Security Council - Putin

http://img.rian.ru/images/6570/35/65703517.jpg

02/ 07/ 2007


KENNEBUNKPORT, July 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and the United States will continue discussing the controversial Iranian nuclear program at the United Nations Security Council, the Russian president said Monday.

Iran currently faces more stringent international sanctions after failing to halt uranium enrichment by the May 24 deadline set by the UN Security Council.

"Until now we have managed to work within the framework of the Security Council, and I have no doubts that this work will continue," Vladimir Putin said.

After discussing domestic issues Sunday on the first day of their two-day informal talks, the presidents of Russia and U.S. addressed Monday the most pressing issues.

Differences between the two countries have sent U.S.-Russian relations to their lowest point since the Cold War. The meeting at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, could be the last opportunity for both Vladimir Putin and George Bush to reverse the decline before their presidential terms expire next year.

George Bush said in turn that Russia and the United States have both devoted a considerable amount of time to the Iranian issue.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070702/68202056.html

[december]

Putin offers Bush to play "one and the same game"

03/ 07/ 2007

http://img.rian.ru/images/6815/94/68159437.jpg


MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Vladimir Simonov) - Russian President Vladimir Putin's two-day stay at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, was more fruitful than the press and political analysts expected.

They thought the two presidents would mainly discuss ways to maintain good relations between the United States and Russia after they step down. They thought Putin and President Bush would at best prevent them from going sour and restart a constructive dialogue.

But the two presidents have done something more important. They peered into the common future of their countries.

Strangely, this common future may be based on a new global early-warning system embracing Russia, the United States and European countries. Putin advanced the idea as an improvement on his previous proposal on the joint use of the Gabala radar in Azerbaijan.

He suggested setting up centers for exchanging missile-defense data in Moscow and Brussels, where NATO headquarters is located, and jointly using a radar that is being built in southern Russia, in addition to the early-warning facility in Gabala, in real time.

Putin believes this will gradually turn relations between Moscow and Washington into a strategic partnership. He said that these new relations in the sphere of international security will encourage closer political ties between the two states, and eventually have a beneficial effect on their economic contacts.

"The deck has been dealt, and we are here to play. And I would very much hope that we are playing one and the same game," Putin said at a news conference in Kennebunkport.

Bush described it as "a very constructive and bold strategic move." However, this did not prevent him from saying that "the Czech Republic and Poland need to be an integral part of the [anti-ballistic missile] system."

This idea is very promising, but, unfortunately, Putin and Bush have no time to help to make it come true. They are leaving office, and no departing leader in political history has ever attained breakthrough results at the final stage of his career.

At best, the two leaders' speeches in Kennebunkport can be regarded as advice for their successors.

Bush is in a worse situation than Putin. His contribution to American history has been marred by the Iraq war, which can end only in defeat or deep disappointment. No wonder he does not want to go down in history as the man who also lost Russia.

This is exactly how it looked before the presidents' meeting in Maine. After the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the Bush administration developed very good relations with Russia, which had moved quickly to offer its help in the fight against international terrorism. But today, six years later, we hear more about what divides Russia and the United States than what unites them.

There are many reasons for that. For one, the two countries failed to develop a strategy for bilateral relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another reason could be Washington's wariness of Russia's economic and political revival as an influential international player.

I don't think Putin and Bush wanted to squander their time on looking for the reasons behind the current cooling of bilateral relations, which is sometimes described as "a new Cold War." Instead, they worked to assuage tensions and stop relations from going downhill.

They mainly succeeded, I would say, thanks to the magic - or chemistry - of their personal relations. Bush, who "looked the man [Putin] in the eye [and] was able to get a sense of his soul" in 2001, still believes that his first impression was correct.

As he said in Kennebunkport, he doesn't like everything Putin says, "and I suspect he doesn't like everything I say. But we're able to say it in a way that shows mutual respect."

Putin and Bush know that the upcoming presidential campaigns will add zeal to the arguments of the nationalist Russia- and America-haters in their respective countries, who will try to benefit from a policy of mutual hostility. Therefore, the two presidents have agreed that they must prevent Russian-American understanding and partnership from becoming a hostage to internal political struggle.

I am glad that they discussed these problems during lunch in a resort town in Maine, rather than over the telephone from their cement bunkers. This inspires the hope that they will be able to pass on to their successors the vital goal of promoting harmony and cooperation between Russia and the United States.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070703/68268248.html

http://img.rian.ru/images/6815/98/68159862.jpg