At the time of the democratic regime, the progress and changes in global economic, political and culutre area certainly leading position take two countries which are the two strongest in all areas of life. Relations between Russia and USA is a dynamic process, which always marks the change. Russia is a country of its wealth to develop large natural resources located within its territory. In addition to Russia during the term of Vladimir Putin connect great changes in the field of Interior. It is suitable territory for acquiring wealth and arriving to politce authorities. With the arrival Obaraka Obama to place president USA, made a big step towards improving the image of the position of blacks in the USA. His Politics led to major changes in various area. If see political power links between Russia and USA in future it can be very strong. Russia has the raw materials for which USA void wars in the Middle East. So the next cooperation may be through diplomatic channels to the economic benefit of both countries. Barack Obama said he wants to end the war in Afghanistan. In this way they will show their supremacy in those territory m reduced. I’m not telling oil that Russia has in the seas but also other raw materials that are in its territory necessary for the development car industries , IT, communication and other industries in which the USA is strong. Also a connection between the two presidents is a refreshment on the political scene. Also a connection between the two presidents is a refreshment on the political scene. Both represent the new snow. Russian President Medvedev is a continuation of Putin’s reforms, and Obama is for “disappearance borders. Strength of the U.S. economy depends on its industry. Unlike Russia, which has deep behind the roots of America include royal family traces its history to the actions of people that fought for their rights. They recorded the entire history of the people that were building something new. And that difference can become a link is certainly the opposite of the connection between East and West by culture The whole world is in the process of Americanization, so that the wave swept Russia.

In my opinion in the distant future relationship between these two countries can become stronger and stronger, because both countries have an economic into a political benefit from one another. Is the foundation of the new policy, a policy of its president lead to new times. Perhaps we are on the path of oblivion cold war.

Europe has traditionally been at the epicentre of Russo-American relations. What people tend to forget, is that this relations do not begin with the conclusion of the Russian Revolution, or even the beginning of the 20th Century. Russia and America have a complex relationship that stretches many, many years back into history. At various points in history, they have been cordial, like at the onset of the Crimean War, or downright hostile, like the 1950′s. In both of these situations, the desire to influence and guide the shape of Europe was at the core of this relationship.

Within the recent scope of Russian-American relations, the years of the Bush presidency took a heavy toll on what had been a significantly closer relationship, following the end of the Cold War. It was not unheard of, on both sides of the Atlantic, to hear talk of the possibility of Russian membership in NATO, or less commonly, the EU. It was seen by many as an opportunity for rapprochement on a grand scale; the fact that there were so many tangible benefits for everyone involved was icing on the cake.

The Presidency of George W. Bush eliminated these possibilities rather quickly. Underlings and the President himself, time and time again misjudged Russian intents, and were completely unaware of a logical way to deal with a newly capitalist Russia. Rather than comfortably bringing Russia into the Western fold, Bush’s “hands off” approach with it allowed non-democratic sentiment to fester, forced Russian leaders to attempt to compete for the world’s attention, and ultimately, gave rise to the hyper-nationalism that we see gripping the nation today.

Furthermore, when these trends began to take hold in Russia, the President’s actions did little to help the situation. Occasional and half-hearted criticisms only inflamed the ultra-nationalists and conservatives, and allowed further anti-democratic sentiments to sweep over the nation. The rise of the Nashi and gradual reigning-in of civil liberties can be seen as a direct result to these two groups perceived threat of the West.

President Bush had the opportunity to ensure that the principles of the rule of law and democratic freedom were protected in Russia, not directly, but through the marginal use of diplomacy and the building of a lasting friendship. But at all turns, these opportunities were wasted, ignored, or so poorly applied, that they result in abject failure.

Following the dismal drop in relations between Russia and America under President Bush, there was the entrance of the new American President: Barack Obama. Obama has shown, preliminarily, that he has the more nuanced touch needed for dealing Russia; but only time will tell if he is able to wield it effectively to turn Russia away from the direction it was, and it could be argued, is, headed. The cancelling of the US-European Missile shield is an interesting development here, and it leaves many people asking whether it was done to help unfreeze relations with Russia, or simply because of a lack of money. Whatever the reason behind it was, the simple fact is that it did improve relations significantly. With that thorn out of Obama’s side, the world watches with anxious eyes to see if Obama can now do the improbable and bring Russia into, or closer to, the Western camp on issues like the Iranian nuclear programme.

In the end though, what this means for Europe is divisible into two possibilites: one, the United States is successful in convincing Russia of its shared traditions and interests with the rest of Europe and the West, and brings measurable increases in the co-operation between these three entities; or two, the United States is unsuccessful, and depending on the level of this failure, Europe could experience anywhere from uncomfortable tension, to outright, vocal hostility from its large neighbour to the East. Warmer relations give many hope, but it remains in the hands of the leaders to see what comes of it.

Being a silent watcher, torn between East and West, you are left no choice-you can either swim in two currents coming from different sides or get drown. What happens when two currents are longing to become one?

In the world changing very fast there is a desperate call for action. Europe saw its need for unity, will the rest of the world?

And they all looked up to a man and placed their hopes in him. The man who has a vision, the one who has the strength to make his vision come true. But no man is an island and in now times it’s more then obvious that he can’t be. Obama’s foreign policy brought him Nobel Prize for peace but the peace is still far away from coming. Can Russia be equal potential partner to America in placing the world on its four?

Global climate change, fighting violence, extremism and terrorism, economic crisis, nuclear disarmament are ties that hold the world together. But is it enough to overcome the differences between nations and if not who’s going to play on broken strings?

With many problems popping out each day and waiting to be solved, many centuries long fires still burning it’s obvious we can’t afford the world being split in two. And also we must be aware there’s no room to stay undefined. Will the giant from the east swallow its gigantic pride and the lion from the west pull back its claws?

With Russia sharpening its foreign politics and becoming more aggressive under Putin’s administration and USA trying to fix the mistakes of old administration and come clean and both countries power basing on natural reserves which are everyday getting thinner will the two countries be able to find the common ground and be a good example to the world how issues from the past must be left behind in order to go forward and start a race with more and more ambiguous future?

If we want to get “the world we seek” our answer to all these questions must be “YES!”

But when you are a small fish in a tumultuous ocean you can just question and swim…

Since the end of world war 2 there was a constant rivalry between the 2 superpowers which were trying to exercise their powers. After the collapse of the communist regime in Russia, USA remained the undoubtedly only standing superpower maybe at that point Russia was underestimated until Vladimir Putin elected president of the Russian federation and a new era started for the transatlantic relations. Russia demanded to be treated as equal and with incidents like the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign states, the invasion in Georgia and by providing uranium to Iran wanted to state that is rebuilding its power and that the terms has changed.

The Bush administration holds a hostile approach towards Russia and even though Russia participated in the operation active Endeavour to fight terrorism the relationships between the two states were at stake.

The recently elected Obama administration adopted a more talkative approach towards the ex most serious enemy but still we should keep in mind that when a carrot is offered the stick follows and that’s why where no dramatic changes in the American policy are in the values it is constituted but just the person in charge. At this period Obama has to face a lot of issues; Iran’s nuclear program, war in Afghanistan and Iraq the conflict between Palestine and USA’s staunch ally Israel as well as internal issues and he is looking for allies.

On the one hand Russia and USA have common interests in most of these areas and they don’t wish for the status quo to change Europe on the other hand seems reluctant to continue participating in the war in Afghanistan and though it is depended from Russia for oil and gas keeps a more neutral position.

The question lays on what each country has to gain from this renewed friendship and how long will it last…

Post-war history of diplomacy provided a broad range of policies and doctrines, starting with containment, to détente, pactomania, Truman doctrine, Sonnenfeldt doctrine etc. What we observe now is just the beginning of another relief, however, it is not going to be a long-lasting one. Russia’s authorities are always ready to forge their international image by manipulating temporary policies in a way that lets them achieve particular profits.

As a matter of fact though, their mentality has not changed significantly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Being a regional leader, invading the sovereignty of the neighborhood states and realizing own businesses behind their backs constitute Russia’s spécialité de la maison. Recognizing this country as a democratic and law-abiding is always an abuse, however, the aim of it is to keep mutual relations decent, since the Russian administration is always getting irritated easily, when someone questions their point of view.

Policies are what determine the general direction the world is heading. And also this time pacifist enthusiasm seems to be strong and peace-oriented. However, a great doze of vigilance is essential, since the attitudes developed by Russia are usually extremely fragile.

Russia’s protests against the missile shield were absolutely expected and must always have been taken into account by the American administration. Moscow is ex officio jealous about every initiative which bridges a gap between the Western countries and the countries from the former Eastern Bloc (e.g. it opposed Polish accession to NATO in 1999), which are still treated in a bit patriarchal manner.

Acting as a self-appointed international gendarme is inevitably connected with supporting one’s businesses and denouncing the others. The United States, though, seem to grope their way by succumbing to Russian diplomatic maneuvers.

According to the international news headlines the future of American-European relations appears bright. We can read in the media that Obama emphasizes more consultations and multilaterism and his policy is popular throughout Europe.

Although, we can ask the question: Is it the same in both sides of Europe? Just an example, I lived in a Western-European country when Obama became the president. According to my experiences his inauguration was like a carnival, everybody watched him and listened to his speech. I asked my friends in Hungary, was it the same? It seems no, it was not a big deal at all. Eastern-Europeans were less concerned by this inauguration.

On the other hand, the US- Russia relationship is still an important question for Eastern Europeans. We are still divided over how to deal with Russia as we are also dependent on Russia because we get our energy (gas and oil) from there. There were problems last year what we do not want to experience again. The question of energy is part of the ‘game’ between the US and Russia even when the subject is foreign policy.

As I see it, Central European countries will have to accept what the two big states propose about their role and place in their plans, even if we talk about energy or foreign policy.

From the great Cold War to the current approach of better relations between the two countries, the relations between US and Russia were always a hot potato. If we take a closer look at the strategies been followed by the two countries, we can clearly see their need for domination and control at a local and international level.

In the case of the US, the Obama administration is using a more diplomatic approach by visiting other countries, providing humanitarian support and talking with officials from those countries. This demonstrates that: a. the administration itself wants to offer its people a view of ‘good old American values’ and b. showing a friendlier face to other countries doesn’t mean that you are losing face or are less powerful.

After the 9/11 attacks and the following wars in Middle East, the US needs to re-considerer its place in the world and the way of contacting countries and forming relationships. Besides, Russia has now been building a strong profile in its region and is becoming a strong ‘businessman’ from Europe to the East. Having diplomatic talks between countries can only provide peace of mind to citizens and perhaps offer a better diplomatic relationship in the long term. However history has shown that many diplomatic relationships were ruptured by using force or in pursue of power. What will really happen in next depends on the strategy that the countries want to follow.