Nato last week set back the hopes for Russia's progress towards democracy, justice and international partnership. It was a geopolitical blunder that will surely come to be regretted in the West, but the biggest losers are ordinary Russians. By caving into most of President Bush's demands, the United States' European allies have supplied the Kremlin with the perfect pretext for continuing to govern Russia in the authoritarian fashion that took hold in the late Nineties, after that brief dalliance with liberal democracy.
Vladimir Putin, who steps down as President in May, hardly bothers to pretend to be a democrat any more. When standing for election in 2000 and 2004 he ensured that any serious rival candidate was vilified. He did the same on Dmitri Medvedev's behalf this year. They showed an almost ridiculous zeal to assure their victories. This was no Mugabe-style situation. Russians vastly prefer them to what they remember of being ruled by Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. All the opinion polls suggested they could win by a landslide without their supporters resorting to the black arts of what is called 'political technology', the monopolising of TV airtime, the killing of troublesome journalists and the bullying of media magnates.
Benefiting from the geyser of revenues from Russian energy exports, Putin has done the minimum needed to improve general living conditions. Pensions were paid reliably. State employees such as teachers and doctors have received their salaries on time. Small shops and businesses made profits out of servicing the needs of the entrepreneurial elite.
Even so, Russians are anything but content with conditions in the country. Elections are only one method of testing public opinion. As surveys have shown during the eight years of Putin's presidency, he has disappointed most people by failing to resolve their problems. Whole regions have suffered neglect while Moscow and Putin's own St Petersburg have prospered. Manufacturing industry has collapsed, agriculture has languished and the law courts have favoured the rich and corrupt. Street robberies have increased. If criminals want possession of an apartment in a central district of town, it is dangerous to refuse to sell up on their terms. Those who have refused to co-operate have sometimes been found dead after a mysterious fall down their stairs.
Where Putin scored mightily was in his handling of international relations. In the eyes of Russians, he restored the country's power and dignity. When Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on the table at the United Nations General Assembly in 1960, he brought ridicule on the USSR. Russian people like their rulers to be 'cultured'. When Mikhail Gorbachev went cap in hand for a foreign loan to bail out the Soviet economy in 1991, Russians felt demeaned by the image of their leader as the beggar at the banquet. In 1994 when Yeltsin drunkenly cavorted at a concert in Berlin, his citizens covered their faces in shame. Even Putin is not as refined as he might be, occasionally using the language of the streets. He once promised to flush terrorists down the toilet. Medvedev, with his polished manners, is less likely to offend the sensibilities of his electorate.
But Putin never disgraced his country abroad. He cheered up the Russians by lecturing on Chechnya, democracy and global politics to George Bush and Tony Blair. He said that Russia is fed up at being talked down to - and his entire nation applauded. He played upon the folk memory of the appalling dangers endured by their country in the 20th century. Russians lost wars against Japan in 1904-1905 and against Germany in 1914-1918. They came close to national extermination by Germany in 1941. They were threatened by the constant perils of the Cold War through to the end of the Eighties. The Russian people see the history of the last century as an existential struggle for survival, peace and independence. Conspiracy theories are readily and widely believed.
It is against this background that the Nato summit, held last week in Bucharest, must be assessed. Washington has proposed to build a Nato 'shield' in Poland and the Czech Republic against a putative Iranian missile attack. In both these countries a sizeable minority questions whether the geostrategic need is genuine or urgent. Washington also desires to induct Ukraine and Georgia to Nato membership. Many Ukrainians, especially in the eastern provinces, are reluctant to endorse this initiative. And although Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili is the darling of the American media, Georgia is hardly less corrupt as the result of his ministrations.
What is more, Russians, from their present and future Presidents downwards, can see no justification for the US to turn states on Russia's borders into engines of American regional power. Trouble last came to Russia from Poland when the Germans were in occupation of Warsaw. Now George Bush wants to place advanced military technology on Polish soil, expecting Russians to accept his word that he has only Iran in his sights. With that susceptibility to conspiracy theories, the image conjured up in the Russian mind is a picture of Hitler reassuring Stalin in 1940-1941 that Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft were only overflying Soviet territory by accident. America's Nato allies have by and large believed and supported Bush. Their sole display of resistance came through German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She successfully sought a delay in the induction of Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance.
Former judo champion Putin is deft with the feints and hand-grapples. Ably wrestling with Bush at the Nato summit, he gained a lot to be pleased about. Bush is providing the Kremlin with exactly the international atmosphere for Putin to tell Russians that the existing 'security state' must be conserved. A siege mentality can now more easily be justified. Ex-KGB functionaries such as Putin can parade themselves as the country's greatest patriots. The chauvinistic youth organisation 'Nashi', funded by the Kremlin, can acquire popular respectability. If Russian ministers say that the British Council is a subversive agency, they have a greater chance of being believed. If the assets of foreign companies operating in Russia are sequestered, Russians will more probably accept their government's case.
So a seismic shock has been delivered to European politics without preparatory discussion in parliaments or the media. Western leaders, the media and the public remain preoccupied with Iraq, for understandable reasons. But at least in the case of the Iraq war there was a long debate beforehand about international law and weapons of mass destruction. It did not stop the war, but it had the effect of delegitimising and eventually ending the premiership of Tony Blair.
Now we are blundering into trouble with Russia by choosing the wrong ground to confront its anti-democratic leadership. The Nato summit has bothered too little about genuine Russian concerns. A better strategy for handling Russia is possible and desirable. Russia's rulers should be nailed down to the international obligations they have signed. Murmurings about the onset of a new Cold War help nobody. Ordinary Russians will only suffer if a rupture with the West were to occur.
I am not advocating gentle diplomacy. Russia badly wants to do more business in Europe and badly needs European finance. In return it has solemnly agreed to European standards on the rule of law and human rights. Russian dissenters have made use of this. They have taken their grievances to the European Court of Human Rights and won their cases. It is in everybody's interest to sustain this process. The scorched shoots of democracy, justice and international partnership inside Russia need to be tended.
· Robert Service is professor of Russian history at Oxford. His latest book is Comrades: A World History of Communism, soon to appear in paperback.