The US and the then USSR held each other in check, and the world was pretty much divided into client countries responsive to or controlled by one or the other of the two superpowers. Without the threat of a nuclear clash between Washington and Moscow, the nations of the world have become more disparate, more restless, and sometimes more volatile, with many different agendas.

Russia has shed its empire of satellite nations that made up the Soviet Union. It has undergone an internal political revolution that largely revoked communism. It is no longer a nuclear threat to the US. For a time, it faded to the outer edges of Washington’s concerns. But suddenly awash in oil, it has become an economic force to be reckoned with. Under Vladimir Putin, it aspires to again become a major player in world politics.

The just-concluded G-8 summit illustrates the tensions and contradictions that continue to cloud the new policy of coexistence between Russia and the US. Both nations understand there is much to be gained from it, but President Bush, who once looked into Putin’s eyes and thought he understood him, is now a little more circumspect. The US needs Russia’s help in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But Russia has major trade relations with Iran and will cooperate in toothless UN statements admonishing Iran but balks at any tough action. Russia and the US both declare themselves against terrorism, but Russia invited a delegation from the Islamic terrorist organisation Hamas to visit Moscow. Bush, making the quest for democracy a cornerstone of his foreign policy, privately and publicly tweaks Russia for lagging in this regard. The two proclaim that their friendship prevails. It is an alliance of mutual necessity.

A recent Council on Foreign Relations task force declared that Russia is less open and less democratic than it was a few years ago. Though professing to oppose terrorism, Russia has tried to curtail US access to bases in Central Asia that support military operations in Afghanistan.

Russia has used energy exports as a policy weapon, intervening in Ukraine’s politics and curtailing supplies to the rest of Europe. Its policies toward the states on its periphery have become a recurrent source of friction with the US.

Anders Aslund, a senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, says that Putin succeeded during his first term in office because he tried to satisfy a broad public opinion. The goal of his second term has been to remove all centres of power but his own to the point where his regime is now “utterly dysfunctional.”

The world is no longer run by two powers. Bush must nurture ties with China because China can bring leverage on North Korea. The president must cultivate India and Japan, as counterbalances in Asia to China’s growing power. And he must maintain an agreeable relationship with Russia because Russia may be able to bring influence to bear on Iran and Syria. Diplomacy today is more complex than it was in the Cold War. — The Christian Science Monitor