7 April 2008: Following the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush spent the weekend in Sochi, Russia, at the summer house of Russia’s outgoing president, Vladimir Putin. This meeting is one of the last tête-à-têtes between the two leaders with Mr. Putin stepping aside for his protégé and president-elect Dmitry Medvedev in May. Mr. Bush’s administration comes to an end in less than a year.

The encounter highlights how much relations between the leaders have changed since the two came to office at the turn of the millennium—particularly when looking at Eastern Europe.

The organization and alignment of Eastern Europe was one of the defining characteristics of the twentieth century. Eastern European countries struggled with the problems posed by sitting at Europe’s edge—with Russia to their east and Europe to the west. The tug-of-war by their larger neighbors has left its mark on the region, which was embroiled in wars for German living space and later slipped behind the Iron Curtain. During the cold war these countries, whether by choice and/or by diktat, very much followed the beat of Moscow’s drum.

Yet, following the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the centripetal forces of western integration increasingly gained traction with the European Union (EU) expanding to include former-Bloc countries like the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, and Poland in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania became full members of the alliance in 2007. NATO also made inroads with the inclusion of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. From the Kremlin’s perch, it appeared that the West was not only ignoring Russia on important issues like NATO’s air strikes against Serbia, but was encroaching on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. However, given the country’s fragile economic state, Moscow could offer little resistance.

Then oil prices began to climb. Russia’s economy went from being in debt to posting massive surpluses. The Kremlin began to centralize economic power in the hands of a few monopolies—the most important of which is Gazprom, the natural gas giant—and pushing out foreign companies that stood in the way. As analysts have pointed out, Mr. Putin was the chief architect of Russia’s revival and placed particular importance of energy resources.

Now it is Russia that is in the ascendancy and the old Bear is assertively pressing back against the West’s advances—most notably in Eastern Europe. Gazprom has signed pipeline agreements with a number of Eastern European states in an effort to undermine the EU’s plan to diversify its energy portfolio; Russia currently supplies 40% of the EU’s natural gas. Moscow has also used its “energy whip” to put the squeezed on Ukraine and Belarus to ensure that they heel to the Kremlin’s demands.

The Kremlin still sees the alliance, which was created to counter Soviet influence, as one of its primary antagonists. At the NATO summit last week, it was anxiety over Russia’s reaction that blocked the memberships of Ukraine and Georgia, as Germany and France were both wary of invoking Moscow’s ire. During his speech at the summit Mr. Putin acknowledged that “our concerns have been heard.”

The more pressing issue, though, is the U.S.’s plan for a missile defense system, which has the stated aim of neutralizing the threat of rogue states like North Korea and Iran. NATO endorsed the U.S.’s proposal to place parts of the systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, over Russia’s objections. During the two leaders’ meeting in Sochi, Mr. Putin again pressed his concerns about the proposed system, pointing out: “Our fundamental attitude to the American plans has not changed.”

The Bush Administration has acknowledged these concerns and made attempts to assuage them by implementing “confidence-building measures” that would give Moscow some observational or oversight role. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has even hinted that the system could be built, but remain offline until the threat of a nuclear Iran was realized.

These developments stand in stark contrast to how the U.S., and the West more generally, treated Moscow during the 1990s and Mr. Bush’s first years in office. Mr. Putin has realized his goal by making Russia one of the world’s “great nations” again largely through the use of its energy resources. The country is no longer a side note or an irritation, but a true power whose interests and concerns must be taken into account. The West looks to have come to terms with this fact and is in the process of determining how to proceed with its relations with Russia, both on a country-to-country basis and as a group.

Accordingly, will the West continue to press its advantage in Eastern Europe when the new leaders take their places in the Kremlin and Pennsylvania Avenue, respectively? Or has the eastern advance of NATO and the EU reached its extreme?

Send us your thoughts at editors@diplomaticourier.org.