Bush And Putin Agree To Agree

WASHINGTON -- It's good for world peace that President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin are warming up to each other as they did once again at the summit in Genoa, Italy.

Putin, apparently caught in the spirit of the moment, said he was impressed by Bush's "intellectual powers," adding that Bush's "mental reasoning is very deep and profound."

That was Putin's payback for Bush's gushy statements in Slovenia last month when he praised what he saw in the Russian leader's "soul" and invited him to his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, in November.

Bush added another layer after meeting with Putin in Genoa on Sunday. "I was struck by how easy it was to talk to President Putin, how easy it is to speak from my heart, without, you know, fear of complicating any relationship," he said.

Aside from their mutual lavish assessments of each other, the U.S. and Russian leaders also did some important business, though we're still trying to figure out what it means.

After their meeting, reporters wrote that Putin had bent a bit to permit Bush to proceed with planning his new missile defense program. It also means that the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would have to be modified or jettisoned.

In turn, Bush left the impression that the United States would not act unilaterally to build a missile shield.

The ambiguity of the dual positions, however, became even more manifest after the leaders left Genoa.

Once away from the rarified summit atmosphere, both leaders seemed forced to revert to their former hardline positions to please their respective domestic constituencies.

Putin returned to Moscow and was hit with a barrage of accusations that he had caved in to U.S. insistence that the ABM treaty be cancelled. Putin backtracked and told reporters: "Of course there has been no basic breakthrough."

"We confirmed our commitment to ABM," he insisted. "Nevertheless there has been considerable progress."

He referred specifically to the U.S. agreement to discuss a reduction in both nations' nuclear stockpiles, a concession Russia had sought.

Traveling on to Rome, Bush talked passionately about the need to move ahead with testing missile technology even if it meant breaking the ABM treaty. "Time is of the essence," he declared.

Furthermore, Bush told reporters, "We signed an agreement," referring to a three-line statement that he and Putin issued after their meeting. That paragraph said both men had agreed to hold U.S.-Russia talks about what Bush vaguely calls a new strategic framework. So far, he has not disclosed the details of his future defense plan. So we're all flying blind.

"Since I feel it so strongly," he said, "if we can't reach an agreement, we're going to implement" the testing program. "It's the right thing to do."

Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser and his mentor in dealing with Moscow, has made it clear that Bush hopes to make the missile shield his legacy in history.

"Presidents," she explained, "only have a limited amount of time to leave a legacy to their successors." Bush, she added, "feels very strongly we've lost a lot of time" in not forging ahead with the anti-missile screen, which was first proposed in the Reagan era.

The president argues that his missile defense program, which will cost some $100 billion and take years to develop, is needed to protect the United States against "rogue" nations. Membership in that dubious category keeps shifting. At its most expansive, the roll call consists of North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria, though the next ice age will be sending glaciers to Detroit before some of those nations could build a nuclear weapon and put it atop an intercontinental ballistic missile that actually works.

Rice is adamant that both nations will engage in "consultations" or discussions, not formal negotiations.

Rice and other top Bush advisers have convinced him that the United States can go it alone in international affairs. Part of this philosophy allows the United States to back out of arms-control accords that have kept stability in the world for so many years. She argues that the Cold War is over and the United States should not be hamstrung by the geopolitics of the past.

The problem is that Bush and Putin haven't provided details about their goals for nuclear stockpile reduction or even how the new talks will proceed. We got a big dose of warm and fuzzy rhetoric, expressions about their new friendship, their souls and their hearts -- but nothing about what the next step is.

We are in an era of personal diplomacy with the Russians. We have moved from the era of "Bill" (Clinton) and "Boris" (Yeltsin) to that of "George" and "Vlad." But the new guys still have to show the world audience that they can deliver results that go beyond loving platitudes. They seem to be feeling their way. But we are not sure where they are headed.