Michael A. McFaul - Ten years ago, President Boris Yeltsin and his newly minted government launched a set of revolutionary changes comparable in scale and scope with the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution. Like these earlier social revolutions, Yeltsin and his band of revolutionaries sought to transform the fundamental organization of the polity and economy within Russia. Their aim was to destroy the Soviet command economy and replace it with a market economy. They also aspired to crush Soviet dictatorship and replace it with a democratic polity. Unlike their counterparts in France in 1789 or Russia in 1917, Russia's anti-communist revolutionaries added an additional task -- the dissolution of the Soviet empire. In some respects, then, the agenda of change introduced a decade ago in Russia was even more far reaching than that which the Jacobins or Bolsheviks sought to achieve.

Michael A. McFaul - Jackson-Vanik -- as currently constituted -- no longer addresses these new strains of democratic infringements. It is time for Congress to "graduate" Russia from Jackson-Vanik -- while at the same time initiating new legislation to deal with these new forms of abuse. The moment for action is the May summit between Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin. The Jackson-Vanik amendment is obsolete for several reasons. First, there is little evidence to suggest that the current Russian state restricts Jewish emigration. Thirty years ago, the Soviet state imposed all kinds of draconian rules and regulations to prevent Jewish emigration, and viciously punished those Jews who even applied to leave. Today Jews living in Russia must endure several new threats, but state-sponsored restriction on travel is not one of them.

Michael A. McFaul - President Bush is poised to have a terrific trip on his first visit to Russia. He will sign an agreement with President Vladimir Putin that will eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons. He and Mr. Putin will celebrate a new, closer relationship between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia, paving the way for an uneventful expansion of the alliance this fall. Mr. Bush will proclaim Russia a market economy and urge Russian integration into the West. Finally, Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin will make joint statements about their shared commitment to the war on terrorism.

Michael A. McFaul - During campaign 2000, candidate George W. Bush called for sanctions to punish Russia for its military campaign in Chechnya, expressed concerns about Russia's contribution to the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and was openly skeptical of President Vladimir Putin's commitment to market democracy.

%people1% - Like [Mikhail S. Gorbachev] and [Reagan] in 1988, presidents Vladimir V. Putin and Bush have a budding friendship, one that has fostered U.S.- Russian cooperation on important strategic matters like anti- terrorism. Yet, there's a disturbing difference. Some of the same people who attended Reagan's luncheon are again fighting for basic human rights and democratic practices in Russia -- and Bush seems indifferent to their fate.

Michael A. McFaul - First, the collapse of the old regime left a vacuum of state power. The anarchy, looting and interruption of state services that we see in Iraq are predictable consequences of regime change. Second, after the fall of the dictator, expectations about "life after the dictator" exploded. People who have been oppressed for decades want to benefit from the new order immediately. The urgent and angry questions last week from Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress leader now back in Iraq, about why the Americans have not provided more relief faster is typical. The first leaders after the departure of the king in France, the czar in Russia or the communists in Eastern Europe knew Chalabi's situation well. Paradoxically, society's expectations inflate at precisely the same moment when the state is least prepared to meet them. Third, the coalition that opposed the dictatorship dissolved. While the dictator was still in power, this united front embraced one ideology of opposition -- "anti-king," "anti-czar," "anti-shah" or "anti- communist." In doing so, these coalitions consisted of economic, political, ethnic and religious forces with radically different visions for their country after regime change. Unity ended after the dictator fell. In Russia, Bolsheviks and liberals in 1917 and nationalists and democrats in 1991 went their separate ways. In Iran in 1979, Islamic leftists, liberals and militant clerics celebrated their shared goal of removing the shah. Just a few years after the collapse of the old order, many of the coalition partners who brought down the shah were out of power or in jail. Soon after the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan fell, the anti-Soviet coalition forces were killing each other.

Michael A. McFaul, et al - At a time when relations between the United States and some of its traditional allies are strained, President Bush must be looking forward to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's visit this week. The two men seem to have genuine rapport, and although Putin did not endorse the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, he does speak from Bush's script on the global war on terrorism. Bush also knows that Russia is in a position to offer real help in tackling critical security threats to the United States. The president hopes to secure commitments from Putin for Russian troops in Iraq and for cooperation in attempts to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons and for help in defusing the standoff with North Korea.

Michael A. McFaul - In a recent speech to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), President George W. Bush made a compelling case for the United States continuing to engage in promoting democracy worldwide. In a speech of strategic vision that both Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson would have been proud to deliver, Bush stated that "the advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country." He asserted that "liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history... and freedom--the freedom we prize--is not for us alone, it is the right and capacity of all mankind."

Michael A. McFaul - The results of the parliamentary vote on 7 December suggest that Russia has entered a new political era. For the first decade of post-communist politics in Russia, the central cleavage was between left and right, communist and anticommunist, or "reformers" and non-reformers. The central issue was the economy and policies to reform it. The vote tally from the election suggests that a third parameter -- nationalism -- has overtaken these earlier divides and debates. The long-term consequences could be terrifying.

Michael A. McFaul - The results of the parliamentary vote last Sunday suggest that Russia has entered new political era. For the first decade of post-communist politics in Russia, the central cleavage was between left and right, communist and anti-communist, or ''reformers'' and non-reformers.