When presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin meet in Moscow next month, issues such as

START II, NATO expansion, trade with Iran and Iraq, and Russia's new draconian law on

religion are likely to dominate the agenda. To historians of US-Soviet relations, this agenda

should sound familiar as arms control, European security, regional conflicts, and human rights were the main components of most summit agendas between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This old agenda suggests that the promise of a new post-communist strategic partnership between the United States and Russia has not been realized. Especially as Russia continues to struggle in reforming its economy, many in the US have now concluded that engagement with this "basket case" is not worth the trouble--better to walk away from the failing project of internal reform and prepare instead to contain future external aggression.

On September 11, 2001, Russian president Vladimir Putin was the first world leader to speak with President Bush. He offered his unwavering support to combat our common enemy, terrorism. That same day, I received dozens of calls and e-mails from friends in Russia expressing support for my country. This outpouring of support from Russia has convinced me that Russians and Americans share common values and have the potential to be part of one international community. What unites us is much more important than what divides us. Polls that I conducted with Harvard professor Timothy Colton last year provide hard data to support my emotional, unscientific reading of Russian attitudes toward the dreadful September day. Our surveys show that two-thirds of the Russian people embrace democratic ideals and practices.

Russia's Government has come up with a new cure for the country's economic ills: higher taxes. A chorus of Western officials, including International Monetary Fund bureaucrats and Vice President Al Gore during his trip to Moscow last month, have praised the Government's new financial plan, which includes big tax increases, as important steps to advance reform.

U.S.-Russian relations offer one bright counter to the otherwise gloomy and complex set of issues facing American foreign policy makers after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Russian President Vladimir Putin was one of the first foreign leaders to speak directly to President Bush to express his condolences and offer his support for the American response. He followed these rhetorical pledges with concrete policies, including military and humanitarian support to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and Russian acquiescence to American troops in Central Asia.

In supporting President Bush and the war on terrorism, Russian President Vladimir Putin made the boldest decision of his short tenure.

The improvement in Russian-American relations is one of the few positive factors in the muddled picture of international relations today. Russian President Vladimir Putin's support for the American struggle against international terrorism has elevated communications between two former enemies to a new level. The upcoming November summit will be yet another sign of this. Politicians on either sides of the ocean are even calling the US and Russia "allies." Noting the decisiveness with which President Putin supports the US and Washington's extremely positive reaction to this, many Russian politicians and public figures have began speaking openly of Russia's entry into Western organizations and unions. Membership in the World Trade Organization is discussed in Moscow as an obvious reward Russia should receive for supporting American military actions; entry into the European Union is brought up as a relatively near goal, and so forth. The hopes are great, but do they reflect reality? Inflated expectations and skewed assessments of the speed and character of Russia's integration into the West are dangerous.

Most Americans believe that President Clinton faces the most consequential moment of his career on Monday when he is scheduled to testify before Kenneth Starr's grand jury. In fact, a much bigger day for Clinton and the rest of the world comes just two weeks later when the president meets with Boris Yeltsin in Moscow. By this time, Russia very well may be in the throes of a major market meltdown, which in turn might trigger political upheaval on a scale similar to Indonesia. Different from Indonesia, however, Russia still has 10,000 nuclear weapons. The gravity of Russia's crisis makes this September summit one of the most important foreign policy missions of Clinton's presidency and an event of much greater importance than his grand jury testimony.

From both the right and the left, critics of U.S. policy toward Russia have had a heyday in recent weeks asserting that the Clinton administration got Russia wrong. The refrains are by now familiar: "Clinton became too close to Yeltsin." "The IMF was naive." "The West funded crony capitalism." "Russians are not culturally predisposed to markets," etc. The policy conclusion from these observations is that the United States neither can nor should do anything more to aid Russia but instead should reconstruct a firewall around this basket case of a country and try once again to contain the Russian threat to markets and democracy around the world.