With the United States fixated on crime and corruption in Russia, Russians obsess about two other dramas: upcoming parliamentary elections and the war in the Caucasus region. The first drama might well have a happy ending, rare for Russian dramas these days. The second is almost certainly a tragedy in the making. Worse, the war in the Caucasus may eventually subsume elections altogether, resulting in their cancellation, civil resistance and even civil war. Before such a scenario gains more momentum, U.S. officials should look beyond Russian corruption and do what they can to lower the probability of democratic collapse in Russia.

All countries have the right to defend their people from terrorists. Russia is no exception. The Russian military campaign in Chechnya, however, has moved well beyond the earlier limited objective of combating terrorism. The new strategy and the means being deployed to execute this strategy suggest a new ulterior motive - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's presidential election campaign.

According to conventional wisdom, the United States "lost" Russia in the 1990s. This

assessment can be found on the pages of The Nation, The Washington Times, The New

York Times magazine, or foreign policy issue papers prepared for presidential candidate

George W. Bush. These attacks fall into two contradictory categories. One school holds

that the policies pursued by the United States over the last decade have failed to establish capitalism and democracy in Russia, and instead have fueled corruption, crime, and ill will towards the United States. The other school argues that the United States was wrong to try to engineer domestic change within Russia in the first place.

Like almost every discussion about Russia in the last ten years (and the Soviet Union during the preceding seven decades), the debate about Russias upcoming parliamentary election is polarized simplistically between "optimists" and "pessimists." Optimists believe that the election is a "good thing." People are voting, parties are participating, and everyone is happy. Pessimists believe that the election is a "bad thing." People do not care, parties dont matter, and everyone is sad.

Every day, democracies all over the world change governments in accordance with some predetermined constitutional process. Yet, when Russian politicians decide to change their government, the event is framed as a "constitutional crisis," a "period of instability" or evidence that Russian president Boris Yeltsin has gone mad.

To the Editor:

You quote President Clinton as saying that ''Russia and China, where the shackles of state socialism once choked off enterprise, are moving to join the thriving community of free democracies'' (news article, May 19). Both are moving to join the community of market economies, but only Russia has taken steps to become a free democracy.

Although flawed in many ways, Russia is an electoral democracy. China is an authoritarian regime. In Russia, leaders are elected, people can assemble, worship and travel freely, and the press can criticize the Government. In China, none of these freedoms exist.

Perhaps Mr. Clinton made a slip of the tongue. But for those who worry that he too often ignores violations of democratic rights in pursuit of market opportunities, this did not look so innocent.

IF MANY technical questions still linger regarding how and why the crew of the Kursk perished, the tragedy has provided some fairly definitive political answers about Vladimir Putin as a leader and the Russians as a people.

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.