Seldom has East-West misunderstanding been so stark. Western leaders have tended to dismiss what they see as Moscow's meddling in a distant European territory. But Russian experts from across the political spectrum complain that the West has refused to listen to Moscow's concerns while pursuing their own interests – and that Russia will reap the whirlwind as ethnic secessionist movements throughout the former Soviet Union grow stronger.

Twenty years ago today, the ghosts of history stirred in Europe and a conflict that no one had paid attention to since the Treaty of Versailles re-erupted in the depths of the Soviet Union. The Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Armenians and Azerbaijanis was the first bonfire in a series of ethno-territorial conflicts that burned through the Caucasus and the Balkans. European Union enthusiasts had thought that the only conflicts left on the Continent were about sheep and cod quotas -- but they were dead wrong. In the week when Kosovo embarks on a path of EU-guided independence and Serbia and Russia voice angry resistance, it's worth asking whether the nationalist gunmen or the European dreamers will win the argument.

After Sunday's Kosovar independence declaration comes President Bush's stamp of approval for a Republic of Kosovo and the nod of the four major European Union powers: France, Germany, Britain and Italy. In all likelihood, the result will be Europe's 46th legally sovereign government, with a population that is 90 percent Muslim. What is far less clear is whether a weak, perpetually dependent Kosovar statelet — and make no mistake, this will be a toothless, weak and impoverished state — is in the United States' best interest.

THE DECLARATION of independence yesterday by the Balkan province of Kosovo was both inevitable and long overdue. Kosovo, whose population is more than 90 percent ethnic Albanian, has been governed by the United Nations since 1999, when NATO intervened to stop a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Serbian army. That campaign and the years of repression that preceded it forfeited Serbia's right to hold on to the province; as a practical matter the Albanian majority would never have peacefully accepted renewed rule from Belgrade.

Vladimir Putin said yesterday that Russia was not interested in a return to the cold war. We are all glad to hear it, but it was the Russian president himself who let this particular hare out of the trap. A year ago, at a security conference in Munich, he accused the US of trying to dominate the world "with no restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force". Two months later, at a Victory Day parade in Moscow, Mr Putin said the world faced a threat to peace similar to that posed by the Third Reich. If Mr Putin is now saying that Russia will work "towards the construction of a positive dialogue" with whomever becomes the next US president, that is a change in tone we should welcome.

After the Revolution, thousands of wealthy White Russians fled the Bolsheviks and settled in exile in Paris. Ninety years later, thousands have fled the new authoritarianism in Moscow. This time, however, they have arrived with their riches, often ill-gotten, in London. Britain has become the home of the new Russian diaspora – many of them oligarchs evading government attempts to claw back their wealth or political opponents seeking shelter from President Putin’s crackdown on dissent.

What is the key to Russia's successful development? Boris Yeltsin used to talk of democracy and the market. No one's arguing against that these days - not even Communist leader Gennadi Zyuganov. Putin, especially in the early years, emphasized rebuilding strong government and economic growth. These problems have largely been solved. Medvedev, without rejecting the priorities of his predecessors, is emphasizing building up human capital and creating a civilized legal environment. The human dimension of politics is Medvedev's trademark. In speaking of the 1990s, he expresses less regret for Russia's geopolitical losses than for the human tragedies of that era: impoverishment, higher mortality rates, lower birth rates. He regards his current task - the national projects - as a way of raising the quality of life and opportunities for people in the 21st Century. The law is Medvedev's profession and calling; he emphasizes the need to overcome Russia's centuries-old tradition of legal nihilism, as a precondition for developing democratic institutions.

Over the past year, we have seen that Iraqis are committed to affirming their own sovereignty. The Iraqi army and police are taking the lead in providing security over much of the country. Iraq is building relationships with other nations in the Middle East. The Iraqi people want to meet their own needs and control their own destiny. And they desire a more normal relationship with the United States.

The reason why Putin says that "a new phase in the arms race is unfolding" is because this is how Russia sees US proposals to site anti-missile installations in poland and the czech republic. As Putin argues, Russia gave up forward positions at the end of the cold war - not that it had much choice; it had no means to continue stretching its military power that far - but the US and Nato have not done anything similar. It should also be noted that Nato has been somewhat reticent about the US plans to station its missile interceptors in europe (because it is divided over it). The US has been pursuing agreements bilaterally with the countries concerned, outside the framework of Nato - which the European members of Nato should be concerned about.

Russia on Sunday proposed a new strategic dialogue with the United States with the aim of re-starting arms control talks and establishing closer cooperation in combating terrorism. The proposals, outlined in a speech by Sergei Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister and a former defense minister, marked a shift in tone and content, compared with a speech last week by President Vladimir Putin and a speech Putin delivered at the Munich Security Conference here a year ago. In both cases, Putin had spoken of a new arms race, laying the blame squarely on the United States, particularly its plans to base pieces of an anti-ballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe.