Despite the latest summit meeting between presidents Bush and Putin, relations between America and Russia are shaky, writes Mona Khalil from Moscow Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War post-Soviet Russia and the United States are still far from being allies. The euphoria of the 1990s -- the mutual love between "Boris and Bill" -- faded as Vladimir Putin replaced Boris Yeltsin and George W Bush replaced Bill Clinton. Russian-US relations were moved to a pragmatic basis. It might have been rosy, if not for one thing: Russia remains the only country in the world, with its huge and usable nuclear arsenal, capable of posing a mortal threat to the United States. This simple fact is at the heart of unstable and neurotic relations between Moscow and Washington. Recent months have seen a deterioration of these relations. Influential bodies on both sides are peddling the idea that there is no need to preserve a friendly bilateralism. In the US, some believe the process of the USSR's disintegration is not yet complete. A CIA report predicts that by 2015 some six to eight sovereign states will appear in present Russian territory. It is not clear what relation this prediction has to US strategic policy, but Bush is coming under significant pressure to harden his stance towards Russia. Then on the eve of the recent summit both Moscow and Washington announced plans to invest further in modern, sophisticated arms. Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that in the near future the Russian army would be furnished with a new type of nuclear weaponry, underwriting the security and sovereignty of the Russian Federation. Almost simultaneously, US media reported that American scientists had started working on a new generation of nuclear weaponry, supposedly more reliable and durable than the existing one. Mutual irritation has its grounds. Instead of obediently dealing with its internal problems, Washington sees in Russia a weak country that dares to speak out in disaccord with US policy. Moscow, for its part, cannot rid itself of superpower psychology and as such is especially allergic to US messianic hegemony. It seems, however, that these general divisions are deepening. Recently US media together with US officials launched a wide-ranging anti-Russian campaign, concentrated on criticising President Putin for his "authoritarian" and "non- democratic" style of rule. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- notably a specialist on the former Soviet Union -- stated that the Russian government, while constructive in many areas, was too centralised; that "the concentration of power in the Kremlin to the detriment of other institutions is a real problem." In Russia, Rice continued, "we see that the path to democracy is uneven and that its success is not yet assured," further underlining that "the protection of democracy in Russia is vital to the future of US-Russian relations." The American press, meanwhile, continues to raise the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the Yukos oil empire, in 2003, though it is well known that Khodorkovsky not only skillfully avoided paying taxes but was planning on selling Yukos to the Americans. Any such deal would have enslaved the Russian economy. Chechnya has also been a familiar stalking horse in the US media, despite relative improvements in the republic. Freedom of speech issues and the spectre of anti-Semitism in Russia are said to be further points of US concern, despite the plain reality that in comparison to America, Russian media is a model of pluralism and that many of Russia's leading businessmen, and current Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, are Jews. Moscow has responded by accusing Washington of interfering in the affairs of sovereign, post-Soviet states under the guise of democratisation, pointing to the questionable democratic credentials of the US itself. At a press conference a couple of months ago President Putin was stark in his choice of words: "We're also not too happy about what's going on in the United States. Do you think that the electoral system in the United States is without problems? Is it necessary to recall how the elections went this time and the previous time?" Putin, who refused to join the military coalition against Iraq in 2003, recently started using the term "occupation forces" when referring to US troops in Iraq. Tensions have risen to such heights that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to ward off suggestions of "a new cold war". Even on points of accord, tensions have appeared. The so- called strategic partnership is grounded in two shared concerns; the fight against terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Though Bush and Putin both won second terms in part through anti-terrorism rhetoric, they are using that fight in different ways. Putin has used anti-terrorist sentiment to strengthen his own power base. Bush, on the other hand, is using anti-terrorist pathos to consolidate a unipolar world order. Though the language is shared, the ends are conflictual. On the non-proliferation issue the hottest case in point is that of Iran. Washington's criticism of Iraq's neighbour is escalating every day. CIA Chief Porter Goss recently accused Iran of continuing efforts to build long-range ballistic missiles while Secretary of State Rice left nothing ambiguous in stating that Tehran "desires to exterminate Israel and supports terrorism". Israeli officials say Iran will have nuclear weaponry within six months. Russian-US relations cannot have been improved by the deal signed at the weekend between Russia and Iran on the supply of fuel for Iran's new nuclear reactor in Bushehr, despite the clause that Russia insisted upon for the return of spent fuel -- which could otherwise be used for arms production -- to Russia. A US-instigated war against Iran would test Russia to the limit. Iran is located near Russian Federation territory. US military action would mean war approaching Russian borders. Further, a US war on Iran could potentially destabilise the entire Central Asia and Caucuses region, with no one able to predict where this would lead. Finally, Moscow sees Tehran as a stable and trustworthy partner, developing requisite economic, political and even strategic relations between the two countries. Trade turnover alone has reached $2 billion a year with 90 per cent of it Russian export of airplanes, cars and lead technologies. While Russia took no part in the war on Iraq, a war on Iran may force Moscow to be involved, and not on the side of the US. "Latest actions on Iran's part convince us that Iran is not intending to produce nuclear weapons and this means that we will continue cooperation in all spheres including the sphere of nuclear power," Putin stated after meeting Hassan Rouhani, secretary of the High Council of National Security. The two discussed current and future plans for Russian-Iranian cooperation. Whether Russian Federation Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov's statement that Moscow intended to stick by all existing international norms and obligations -- implicitly referring to non-proliferation -- made Washington feel any better is open to question. Another painful subject in Russian-US relations is the future of post-Soviet, CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries. The first attempt to put a pro-US man into a CIS presidential chair was successfully realised in Georgia in November 2003. American spin-doctors skillfully staged a media spectacle under the inspirational name "a revolution of roses", the result being that former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevartnadze was replaced by 36-year-old pro-American Mikhail Saakashvilli. A fanfare followed under the banner of democratisation. The same power-changing scenario was carried out last autumn during presidential elections in Ukraine. This time the event was even better organised and more sublimely decorated. Following the advice of Western election technicians the Ukrainian opposition adopted the colour orange as its symbol: henceforth everyone spoke of the "orange revolution" as the pro-American Viktor Yuschenko came to power. The fact that the CIS region has traditionally been Russia's local sphere of influence makes for Moscow American efforts to place puppet regimes in oil wealthy and geographically strategic CIS countries all the more maddening. Until now there existed an unspoken agreement between Moscow and Washington that Russia not attempt to influence countries of the Western hemisphere while the US refrain from the same in territories that were part of the USSR. Losing influence in CIS countries compromises Russia's ability to remain a regional, never mind global, power. The Bush-Putin meeting in Bratislava, in which the leaders traded definitions of democracy and freedom, was a signal that much remains to be worked out between these two powers in world politics.
