Russia if the West's important rival and a great temptation all rolled into one. The European Union and United States are helplessly drawn to Russian riches. They are particularly itching to have a try at managing these riches. Not by confiscating them or anything, but by channeling the use of these resources in the direction they will point out. Friction inevitably begins when Western politicians encounter Moscow's determination to have them treat it on an equal footing. Or at least to have them acknowledge its right to pursue an independent policy.  As a matter of fact, Russia's attitude with regard to the West is faulty too. Analogous ambiguity permeates it. The Russians are annoyed by the readiness with which countries of the West mind Russia's own businesses and by their ill-concealed willingness to tell it what to do and how to do it regardless of whether or not their advice is sought. The Russians are disturbed by the policy of the international community aimed to reasonably (from its standpoint) contain Moscow and the part it is playing in international affairs.

U.S. Congress held annual hearings on security issues, based on the report by National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. Along with al-Qaeda, Iraq, and Iran, U.S. intelligence officials listed Russia and China among the outer threats. Moscow and Beijing are charged with using their growing economic influence in the world for advancing their own political goals, and with cyber-terrorism.

Dmitry Medvedev's first 100 days began when he, barely registered as a candidate for president, was addressing the civil forum. This moment marked the beginning of the 100 days of the alliance of the rulers, i.e. Medvedev's tandem with Putin. Medvedev the candidate is President Vladimir Putin's minimum, premiership is maximum. The minimum identified with Medvedev began taking shape with his very first tours of the region and speeches in Moscow. Medvedev outlined his future program at the civil forum. Accustomed to reforms and reformers though Russia is, Medvedev's speech took it by surprise as something only a progressive globalist could deliver.

Presidential elections in Serbia may give Brussels and Washington a false sense of security about Kosovo. By a narrow margin, Serbs on Sunday re-elected Boris Tadic, who wants to bring the country closer to Europe, over the pro-Russia candidate. But his government already staunchly opposed Kosovo independence and stonewalled in handing over war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. The EU's indulgent offers of possible membership for Serbia aren't likely to change that. Belgrade was so eager for Russian backing on Kosovo that it gave Gazprom its national gas company, strategically far more important for Serbia than the small, poor, province in its south.

Moscow has warned that it has ready "a range of steps and measures in the event that Kosovo declares independence." At the same time the Russian Foreign Ministry has cautioned against the deployment of a European Union mission in the region without a UN mandate. The game being played out over the rebel territory's status is moving into its final phase. But how could Russia actually respond to a proclamation of sovereignty by Pristina and its rapid recognition by a couple of dozen European countries plus the United States? We can confidently expect a series of tough statements from the Kremlin and Smolensk Square (the Foreign Ministry). The move will be called a flouting of international law fraught with the the most serious consequences not only for the Balkans but for all regions with a disputed status.

From this morning Serbia faces up to a bruising battle over how to react to the looming secession of its southern province of Kosovo, after President Boris Tadic, a pro-western liberal, won a renewed five-year term in a close election last night. Tadic's victory, by a projected 2.6 percentage points, or 100,000 votes, over the extreme nationalist Tomislav Nikolic puts him in a strong position to push for an alliance with the European Union, despite the EU's support for Kosovo independence.

An Italian member of the European Parliament is not the first person you expect to meet in Charleston, South Carolina, but there was Monica Frassoni last week following the twists and turns of a remarkable U.S. election. When I inquired what brought her to Dixie, Frassoni, a Green, responded: “We’ve learned that a good or bad U.S. president can make the difference between war and peace. A good or bad Italian prime minister makes no difference at all.” Italians are not the only people feeling they deserve a vote on Nov. 4. Nor is Frassoni isolated in her interest. German and French TV crews scurried about. A Brazilian journalist behind me was screaming into a microphone as Barack Obama gave his victory speech after last Saturday’s primary. There are several reasons for this passionate international focus on things American, which comes paradoxically just as the most fashionable global intellectual pursuit is the prediction of inevitable American decline. Why, it’s fair to ask, should a fading imperium — or so the conventional wisdom has it from Davos conclaves to Pew opinion surveys — so rivet the world?

 Edelman, an American public relations agency, released the results of its annual Trust Barometer survey in Russia yesterday. This survey covers 18 developed countries, and sums up the opinions of elites about the authorities, business, the media, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This is the second year that Russia has been part of the survey. Compared to other countries, Russia's results show an extremely low level of trust in the media and NGOs.

Practically every conversation about civil society inevitably comes down to a discussion on activity of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Notably, not all NGOs, not just any NGO, but several dozen large and well publicized ones specializing in human rights protection, environmental protection, and the protection of consumers' rights and interests of individual social groups. In purely theoretical terms, the term "civil society" covers organized activity of people in the social, cultural, legal, and other areas that is not intended to gain profit and is not subject to direct control of the state. Correspondingly, civil society components are not only and not so much officially registered NGOs, whose names are frequently mentioned in public, as numerous "interest groups," which permanently emerge and fall apart, usually attracting no public attention.

Anatoly Kucherena, Chairman of the Board, said the idea of the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation had been fomented by consultations with American and European colleagues.  Kucherena is convinced that reports on the state of affairs with human rights published by organizations like Freedom House "are always ideological." The Institute of Democracy and Cooperation intends to do better.