This year marks the 200th anniversary of the establishment of US-Russian diplomatic relations. However, the relationship, instead of getting warmer, has been set back by an exchange of rhetoric over two reports from the United States.

On April 5, the US Department of State released a report entitled "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The US Record 2006". The report viciously attacked Russia, accusing it of "violating human rights" and "breaking away from the principal of democracy". It also claimed that US support for some Russian organizations last year had yielded initial results. That support will continue so as to influence the State Duma and presidential elections scheduled for this year and next. On April 16, the Department of State and Agency for International Development (USAID) issued its "Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 to 2012", which put countering Russian "negative behaviors" as one of Washington's diplomatic priorities over the next five years.

The two reports are quite provocative. This is the first time since the end of the Cold War that the US has openly admitted to giving financial support to anti-government groups within Russia, as well as the first time it has openly made coping with challenges from Moscow a diplomatic focus.

The two houses of Russian parliament issued statements on April 13, accusing Washington of "meddling in Russia's internal affairs". The Russian government responded with much more restraint. Security Council chief Igor Ivanov said on April 17 that currently there is no possibility of a Cold War between Russia and the US, as differences between them are on "tactical" levels such as press freedoms, human rights and political process of some CIS states; there are no principle disagreements at strategic levels such as anti-terrorism, and the relationship has good prospects in the long-term.

Restraint from the Russian government reflects its pragmatic diplomatic strategy. Russia refrained from colliding with the US head on because of two considerations. Firstly, the country is focusing on developing economy, and therefore needs US funds, technologies, markets and managerial expertise; secondly, as Russia counts down to its WTO accession, the government hopes to end all negotiations as soon as possible so it can join the organization in the year of presidential elections. Despite a bilateral agreement signed with the US last November on Russia's WTO membership, Washington has recently refused to grant Russia permanent normal trade relations status, saying the country had not been doing enough to that end. It is possible that Russia would reach a certain kind of compromise with the US to ensure its WTO accession on schedule.

Ivanov's remarks, in a sense, reflect the real mentality of Washington. US strategies in the Middle East and larger Central Asia to tackle its problems �C disturbances in Iraq that are spreading to the Middle East; the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan; and the protracted Iranian nuclear issue �C have met with setbacks. The US' conflict with Russia over energy interests in areas including the Caspian Sea have intensified �C the US has had to rely on the Russian influence. The US presidential campaign has begun, and the State Department attack is aimed chiefly at showing what good deeds it has done in an effort to win more support for the Republican Party.

The core of the US-Russian oral spat is an interest conflict. Naturally, both countries want maximum benefits. That explains why the US supports anti-government forces within Russia, promotes "democracy" �C a one-sided wish �C on foreign lands, continues to support the eastern expansion of NATO, and asks for missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe, while Russia exercises a measured US policy. It can be predicted that, facing US attacks, Russian-US ties featuring both contention and cooperation will not change in the short term.

By People's Daily Online