Tension Between Moscow and Washington: Dramatic Turn of Events or a Simple Maneuver?

Held yesterday in the seaside resort of Sochi in Russia, bordering the Black Sea, the summit between Putin and Bush seems to have led to unexpected results, considering the tension between the two major powers only two days ago at the NATO summit in Bucharest where they clashed over the proposed admission of Ukraine and Georgia, two former Soviet republics.

This connection between the two leaders is particularly important because it deals with a matter of great friction between the two countries – establishing an American anti-missile system in Europe.

While President George W. Bush was encouraged by European agreement for this extremely expensive project which includes, notably, the deployment of a battery of ten missile interceptors in Poland and an ultra-sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic that would be operational around 2011-2013, he was also forced to provide additional guarantees for his Russian counterpart to reassure him and to wrest an agreement in principle.

So is it a surprise twist ending a long tension between Moscow and Washington, or a simple Russian maneuver to buy time until the end President Bush’s term? Still, the two men appear to have found common ground on the creation of a defense system shared with Europe and in which the three parties would be involved in “equal parts,” according to a public joint statement.

The two leaders, however, remain guarded about the final outcome of this agreement. “This is a significant breakthrough. I have been very involved in this case and I know how things have advanced,” said the US president, while the Russian president said he was, “Cautiously optimistic about a final agreement. I think it is possible,” before adding that, “the most important thing is to work together…. ”

This bright spot, though the details are yet to be worked out, came at a moment when tensions seemed to be the highest since the Cold War. It has given a breath of fresh air to the confrontational relations between Russia and the United States, which are opposed on many issues, including the Iraq war and the Kosovo’s independence.

Analysts believe that the two presidents were willing to clear the ground so that their future successors might reorganize bilateral relations. However, if the USA’s foreign policy stance does not undergo significant changes, other than of the name of the occupant of the White House, question marks arise as to the next course of action of diplomacy in Moscow.

Although Putin and Medvedev are reversing titles in the Russian capital, will they be reversing roles as well? Or will Vladimir Putin, the likely next prime minister, remain the strong man and chief? Evidence suggests that the latter is more likely, especially since observers don’t hesitate to argue that the Medvedev’s term will simply be a short interlude before Putin’s probable return to the post of the highest office in his country.

The Russians are indebted to Putin as the architect of their country’s revival as an international economic and military power and would cast a rather benevolent eye on Putin. It was he who extracted their country from its moping lethargy under the presidency of Boris Yeltsin who, along with Gorbachev, oversaw of the collapse of the Soviet bloc and accelerated the dismantling of the former Soviet republics “empire.”

Let us not forget that this was a decisive turning point in the contemporary history of nations, and future investigations will clarify the mystic forces that contributed to the crumbling of this bloc, which only the United States and Israel have greatly benefited from.