Generally speaking, even the closest of partners in the international arena have distinct interests and perspectives; in democracies, governments must also take into account differing public views of world events. Perhaps Russia and the United States could have cooperated more effectively with respect to Iraq if our partnership had been more mature – perhaps not. Whatever the case, we must work with the relationship we have. And if we are to work together effectively, we must draw the appropriate conclusions from current events.

First, our partnership is not yet mature, and even when it is, some disagreements will be unavoidable. Nevertheless, we should be prepared to look to the future, to our long-term collaboration on important issues, to ensure that our relationship is not disrupted. I can assure Americans that in expressing the Russian position on Iraq, our government and its officials have acted without calling into question continuing cooperation with the United States.

Second, while we have made enormous progress in establishing a positive atmosphere between Moscow and Washington in the past two years, we have not yet succeeded in building a solid foundation that can guarantee the ongoing improvement of our bilateral relationship even through periods of crisis. Understanding "at the very top" has never been as close or as advanced as in recent years, but this has not been translated quickly enough into the language of practical efforts, whether in bilateral trade, investments, visas, or other matters.

Third, these past two years have not been for nothing. At a minimum, the strength of our relationship at the highest level has ensured that the tension over Iraq will not send Russian-American relations into a slide. I believe that our governments have also succeeded in creating an important positive tone, positive spirit that has no analog in the history of our relationship.

Fourth, we will not be able to further develop Russian-American partnership without learning to trust one another. This is the only way to give practical content to our joint declarations. President Bush has said he trusts President Vladimir Putin, and I know that my president trusts his American counterpart. But we constantly hear claims and accusations, sometimes prosecutorial in tone, about the activities of this or that Russian company. Regrettably, these claims and accusations are in most cases not accompanied by concrete information. If the Russian government is asked to trust these statements and to investigate them, they should consist of substantial information, not empty allegations lacking in real detail. This is quite a contentious ground, and we have been stuck in it since the early 90-s. It relates to the broader issue of nonproliferation and how to deal with it. We believe that cooperation in this sensitive area should move us beyond problems and not create new ones, and that special closed channels established for this purpose should be used more actively.

Moving forward, I believe that we should sit down together and conduct a joint inventory of the bilateral relationship. We need to see where there have been successes, and where there have been failures, in our cooperation. The most important aim of this exercise should be to determine what we can do together to achieve our common goals.

In my view, this process should take place simultaneously on two tracks, involving both our governments and nongovernmental specialists and experts in each country. On the government track, it should be possible to have a confidential and very candid discussion, with regular reports to each leadership. We need to prepare a list of questions and develop a concrete plan of action to move the Russian-American relationship forward. This plan to enhance our relationship could then be approved by our presidents. Such an effort could help create some necessary perspective on our relationship and would confirm our cooperation "on the ground" and not only at the highest levels.

Fifth, the situation surrounding Iraq demonstrates that there are still some in both our countries who are skeptical of, or even opposed to, a strong Russian-American relationship. For instance, the very existence of the moss-covered relic known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment is a reflection of anti-Russian sentiment still-existing in America. But Jackson-Vanik is in fact not a practical problem for us; on the contrary, it is the United States' problem, and it is up to the United States and no one else to remove it, provided that it is genuinely interested in developing our cooperation.

I find it encouraging that while public opinion polls show a majority of Russians concerned about current American foreign policy, three-quarters of Russians view the American people positively. Still, Americans should also understand and accept that public opinion in Russia, as in many other European countries, is firmly opposed to the war in Iraq. This is especially so among the many millions of Muslims living in Russia. Americans want us to adhere to democratic standards, but at the same time they often pressure the Russian government to ignore public opinion when it is not convenient for the United States.

Finally, no one has yet labeled us "old Russia", but judging by events, that time may be close. Let me say in advance that we are not "old Russia" or "new Russia" – we are what is, old and new, and we cannot simply be remade. It is necessary to move away from this kind of discussion, as Russians must move away from talking about America as better or worse than it is. The United States is a fact: it is large and powerful and cannot be brushed aside or ignored. Nor is there any need for this. Russia is deeply interested in moving forward in the relationship with its American partner. I hope that Americans have a similar sentiment, because we truly need one another to counter many real challenges and threats.