Dealing with the Russians: imagine you're sitting in the Oval Office. What advice would you offer George W. Bush?

• Position: A Symposium Of Views

Background:

Earlier in his administration, President Bush pronounced that he had looked into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and taken a measure of his soul. Since then, the international community has assumed that this increasingly intimate "George/Vladimir" relationship would help provide a sense of long-term stability to the global scene. Has the official Russian response to the Iraq War compromised this sense of stability, or was the Russian leader never really much in control of his government--particularly his foreign ministry--to begin with? To what extent will the development of oil resources continue to play a role in the U.S.-Russian relationship? If President Bush asked you for a quick word of advice on how best to deal with the Russians from here on, how would you respond?

ANDERS ASLUND

Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

For the past four years, Russia has achieved an average annual economic growth of 6 percent, and this expansion continues apace. The growth comes from a broad range of Russian-owned enterprises and it has been driven by radical tax reform and fiscal adjustments, while foreign investment or aid have been inconsequential. Since 1993 the United States has promised to abolish the discriminatory Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974, but it has still not managed to do so.

On September 11, 2001, President Putin immediately supported President Bush in his war against terrorism, but the United States gave Russia nothing in return, while withdrawing from the bilateral Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and enlarging NATO. By being so friendly to the United States, President Putin started looking weak and foolish. The Russian mood turned anti-American before the war in Iraq, which benefited the communists, and this is an election year in Russia. Mr. Putin had to go along with the public mood, which has strengthened the old anti-American Soviet security establishment, and WTO accession has been delayed. Today, Russia does not ask for anything from the United States, and the United States has nothing to often

Ironically, the United States has become dependent on Russia in three important regards. First, the embargo against Iraq could not be lifted without Russia's consent in the UN Security Council. Otherwise, ships trading with Iraq could be legally seized on the high sea. Second, Russia's assent is also needed for any debt relief for Iraq in the Paris Club. If not, international financing to Iraq would be encumbered. Third, Russia has a strong interest in selling peaceful nuclear technology to Iran, which the United States firmly opposes because of Iran's endeavors to develop nuclear arms. President Bush needs to make a credible commitment that the United States can deliver something that is worthwhile for Russia, but what could that be and how can he establish any credibility?

PETER AVEN

President, Alfa Bank, Russia

First and foremost, President Bush needs to take steps to add depth to U.S.-Russian relations. Over the past two years President Bush has built a very solid relationship with President Putin, but it is not clear that this warmth and trust extend much beyond this personal relationship. The farther one gets from the Bush-Putin relationship, the more ties tend to be conducted on the basis of old, dated models of U.S.-Russian relations. President Bush needs to insist that his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials take a more active interest in Russia, arranging regular visits and developing agendas for cooperation which can build a more comprehensive basis for future ties. We Russians firmly believe that we understand the United States better than the Americans understand us, and it would serve the relationship well if more senior-level U.S. figures--both government and private-sector--spent more time in Russia meeting with our experts and learning that old models no longer fit the "new Russia." The recent visit of U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a good step in this direction, but we need further exchange and understanding in the trade and economic areas as well.

Second, President Bush should understand that Putin has taken a substantial risk in aligning his policies, and his political future, with the West. The forces of nationalism and potential anti-Americanism are never far from the surface in Russian politics. As we prepare for legislative elections this year, and presidential elections next, powerful voices in the Russian body politic will be asking what President Putin is getting in exchange for his bold opening to the West.

Thus far the answer to this question is not immediately obvious. In the coming year President Bush needs to take more aggressive steps to offer concrete benefits to the Russian government, steps such as more active support for Russia's bid for membership in the World Trade Organization, immediate and unconditional repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and more encouragement of Western investment in Russia.

JAMES SCHLESINGER

Senior Adviser, Lehman Brothers, and U.S. Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford

Russia is no longer a superpower--but even in its reduced state, it remains a major player.

Russian cooperation in combating international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is both crucial and in the U.S. interest. Also, as demonstrated by disagreements over Iraq, Russia can limit America's ,ability to use the United Nations to pursue important foreign policy objectives.

Good personal chemistry between Presidents Bush and Putin is helpful to the U.S.-Russian relationship. Nonetheless, it is clearly insufficient to get Russian acceptance of our priorities. While President Putin has obviously been appreciative of President Bush's warmth, he has not yet commented about the soul of his American counterpart. To the Russian president, who is a product of the Soviet and Russian bureaucratic systems, pragmatic calculations are likely far more important than emotional connections. In the case of Iraq, those calculations--or miscalculations--resulted in Russia taking a position not only different from, but even defiantly opposed to, the position taken by...