Conventional wisdom treated Dmitry Medvedev's inauguration as president of the Russian Federation as a continuation of President Vladimir Putin's two terms of Kremlin dominance and assertive foreign policy. A visit to Moscow with an opportunity to meet leading personalities of the political world, as well as representatives of various age groups in business and intellectual circles, convinced me that this judgment is oversimplified and premature. For one thing, the emerging power structure in Moscow seems more complex than conventional wisdom holds. It was always doubtful why, if his primary objective was to retain power, Putin, at the height of a popularity that would have allowed him to amend the Constitution to extend his term, would choose the complicated and uncertain route of becoming prime minister.

George W. Bush had pushed for the world's premier military alliance to crack open its doors to Georgia and Ukraine. His inability to get NATO to stand up to Russia (and its enabler – Germany) tarnishes his one indubitably positive legacy in Europe.

It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.  At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans -- and understandably so.

Present day Russia and what it was in the 1990s have recently been thoroughly compared. And until the last few years Russia’s public opinion was likely to criticize the first period of post-Soviet existence and praise the present state of affaires. Now we often come across such ideas that there were some positive moments (who would have thought?) during the Lihie 90s in Russia, what used to occupy a central position but now have been driven away from the main scene.