To Our Readers
	The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number. Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters. Email the Opinion Page Editor

There has always been an acute shortage of optimism in Russia. It could be because of the country's harsh climate or its troubled history. Nonetheless, optimists do emerge from time to time. If he is a politician, he is traditionally dismissed as a populist. If the optimist is an average citizen, he is suspected of having a few screws loose. Pessimism, on the other hand, is viewed as a sign of a sharp mind and independent thinking.

It is thus no wonder that just as U.S.-Russian relations have started to take a turn for the better, the voices of optimistic enthusiasts have been drowned out by a cacophony of pessimism. Newspaper and television reports warn Russians not to suffer from delusions, not to entertain excessive hopes for a thawing of relations between Moscow and Washington, and not to close their eyes to the fundamental differences on each country's policies and worldviews.

It is interesting that Russia's conservative "patriots" and the diametrically opposed liberals are in many respects equally pessimistic. The patriots hold that it is naive to think there could be a new detente with the United States, because those in Washington's ruling circles always have been and always will be antagonistic toward Russia -- no matter who occupies the White House. They believe that Russophobia is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. This explains, for example, why the U.S. media is full of articles, editorials and opinion pieces that are biased against Russia and, more specifically, why NATO military exercises are being held on Russia's border in Georgia.

The liberals are pessimistic for a completely different reason. They have no faith in the sincerity of the Kremlin leadership. In their opinion, the country's political elite is simply not ready for a serious dialogue with the United States because it has a vested interest in portraying the United States as an enemy, in encouraging anti-U.S. sentiment and maintaining the "besieged fortress" mentality.

The specter of hostile enemies surrounding Russia has traditionally made it possible to divert attention from domestic problems, give legitimacy to those in authority and provide cover for their mistakes and abuses of power. That is why, according to liberals, Russia will continue to provide support to enemies of the United States, from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It also explains why the Kremlin hawks will fight to control what they consider their "zone of privileged interests" in the former Soviet republics and do everything in their power to drive a wedge between the United States and European countries.

There is an element of truth to both the liberal and patriotic positions. Without going into detail, it is safe to say that there is a tremendous amount of inertia that guarantees that U.S.-Russian relations remain strained, despite brief respites of optimism. The worsening of relations has a history dating back years before the fallout over the Georgia war in August. The breaking point might have been NATO's war in Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, the war in Iraq or the Kremlin's bankruptcy of Yukos and the criminal case against the company's former CEO, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Whatever started it, the negative trend has been gaining momentum for years. For many people in Russia and the United States, confrontation has become a natural state of affairs, despite the fact that both sides repeatedly agree that the Cold War ended in 1991. This confrontational mindset shapes their psychology, habits, personal idiosyncrasies and bureaucratic institutions. It also has an impact on the elite who construct foreign policy in both Moscow and Washington.

But does that mean that no efforts should be made to improve relations? Would it be right to decide beforehand that Russia and the U.S. are doomed forever to butt heads on most global issues?

Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Italian Communist Party and member of the parliament in the 1920s, once said, "I am a pessimist because of intelligence but an optimist because of will." Only political will from both sides is capable of breaking the negative dynamic in U.S.-Russian relations. Efforts by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama alone are not enough. Coordinated and determined efforts on the part of politicians, corporations, journalists and political analysts on both sides are required. Only by working together can the United States and Russia build relations worthy of two great countries. This is not the time for the clashing of personal ambitions or for picking at each other's weak spots. The stakes in this game are far too high for this.

Both optimists and pessimists should note that Obama has assembled one of the best "Russia teams" that we have seen in a presidential administration for a long time. The most prominent members are former ambassadors to Russia William J. Burns and Alexander Vershbow, former director of the Carnegie Moscow Center Rose Gottemoeller and Stanford University professor Michael McFaul. These are people who know Russia well, who have dedicated a good part of their lives to improving relations with Russia and who can be considered potentially good partners and allies.

We have not seen such a knowledgeable Russia team in the White House for years, and it is unlikely that a better one will come along in the foreseeable future. What this means is that Obama's top Russia advisers are people with whom Moscow can establish a dialogue. Now Russia has to be able and willing to talk to them as partners, not as opponents.

Andrei Kortunov is president of the New Eurasia Foundation in Moscow.