Before and during the NATO summit in Prague George W. Bush went out his way to mollify Vladimir Putin. The Russian president has been consistently opposed to further NATO expansion eastward, particularly against including the three Baltic states. Putin has many times questioned the claim that NATO expansion helps strengthen security in Europe. On the contrary, it solidifies the "sanitary cordon" effectively dividing Europe into two parts. It helps exacerbate the issue of Kaliningrad - Russia's western enclave deep in NATO territory. Some new members, including the Baltic states, are not part of arrangements limiting conventional arms and there are no legal restrictions on deploying nuclear weapons there. In short, NATO expansion is a minus for Russia's national security, whichever way one looks at it.
To show his opposition Putin refused to attend the Prague meeting. Later he instructed foreign minister Igor Ivanov to be present and participate in joint Russia-NATO committees. But that does not change Kremlin's basic negative attitude. In political parlance, the West has to pay for Moscow's decision not to raise hell.
Bush apparently understood that need. In his recent statements he stressed the fact that Russia is not an enemy any more, but a friend. "I am going to Russia to make it clear to Russia and to Vladimir Putin they have nothing to fear from NATO expansion: Russia is not a threat, and therefore the military strategies of NATO need to be changed to recognise that new reality: The Warsaw Pact does not exist, but there is a threat to all of us in the form of international and global terrorism, which we must be able to deal with".
Whether these assurances will be trusted in Moscow is doubtful. There are two opposite views in the Russian political and military elite on these matters. One is the traditional approach according to which the country has to keep an effective defence shield capable of deterring NATO and the US. Another is that Russia should do everything possible to promote integration into NATO and treat it as a kind of protector rather than a potential enemy. The trouble with this second approach is that it is not realistic. While there is some co-operation with NATO, mutual integration is certainly not on the books. Even if Russia wanted to, NATO does not.
Russia might be a newly found friend to Bush but not, for instance, to the Baltic political elite, which still thinks in terms of the "Russian Bear". Also Havel of the Czech Republic, the Polish and Hungarian leaders would hate to integrate with Russia in one military alliance. Therefore, Bush's friendly escapade towards Russia should be most rightly addressed to the new NATO members, not to Vladimir Putin.
Bush did make an important point when discussing Chechnya. For the first time, his accent was not on making peace with the separatists, but on fighting terrorism emanating from that republic. He noted that Osama bin Laden in his recent audiotaped message had praised the latest terrorist attacks, including the one in Moscow. "To the extent that there are al-Qaida members infiltrating Russia, they need to be dealt with, they need to be brought to justice". Bush offered support to Putin for his handling of the hostage crisis in a Moscow theatre. "He made some very tough decisions. People try to blame Vladimir, they ought to blame the terrorists, They are the ones who caused this situation, not President Putin".
Saying that on the eve of going to Saint Petersburg can be considered a statement of principle and a major shift in US policy versus Chechnya. It will certainly be appreciated in the Kremlin.
Bush said very little about Iraq, and his tone was not too aggressive. That does not mean that he has changed plans for a military take-over in Baghdad. As a stated US policy objective, it is only a matter of time before it happens. For some reason, Bush badly needs Putin to be on his side when it happens. His friendly gestures towards the Russian president are certainly meant to induce him to support America.
As stressed in this column a number of times, Russia is opposed to war in Iraq not only for economic, but mainly for geopolitical reasons. It wants to maintain a belt of friendly nations on its southern fringe. Iraq was an American client a few decades ago when the Baghdad Pact under the US aegis spread from Turkey to Pakistan. Not any more. A comeback would be highly undesirable.
To convince Putin that Iraq is a real threat Bush had to bring to Saint Petersburg hard evidence that Saddam is indeed close to producing a nuclear bomb. Even then, Russia would prefer to dispose of the threat by political means. Working together with the US, that should not be difficult to achieve.
But at this writing we do not even know whether Bush is prepared to discuss Iraq with Putin in such terms. Perhaps, he still wants to act unilaterally. Why then pretend he values Putin's views?