On the eve of the first meeting of the Russian and US presidents in London on Wednesday, it is time to review the lessons of recent events in the relationship between Russia and the west. Let me remind you that after the 9/11 attacks Russia was the first to express full sympathy and support to the American people. We joined the fight against international terrorism. This is why we had the right to expect at least verbal support from our western partners when, last August, our citizens in South Ossetia were brutally attacked. But we received quite the opposite.
Russia is still seen by the west as a threat and a rival. This is what the shared position of the US and Europe over South Ossetia was really about. During that crisis, we came to understand that "cold peace" without trust or co-operation is in no way better than "cold war".
Today, our dialogue with Nato is being restored and the US administration is sending clear messages about a new era in relations, based on mutual respect and equality. So there is enough ground to expect the recovery of trust and the expansion of co-operation, particularly in the security sphere. The new philosophy of partnership, defined by President Medvedev as the concept of "united Euroatlantic space from Vancouver to Vladivostok", has attracted the support of many western leaders.
Constructive, respectful relations with Russia without Russophobe myths and cliches are the only correct lessons of both the cold war and the recent crisis in our relations. We can see that our key western partners understand this, as their recent initiatives confirm.
But there is a black sheep in every family, and some of the countries that have recently joined Nato and the EU are afraid that they cannot thrive on confrontation with Russia anymore. This was obviously the motivation behind Lithuania's attempt to obstruct the decision of the alliance to resume relations with Russia. This is ideological tunnel vision. The Baltic states used to take their cue from the US. But now, when Washington is on its way to good relations with the Kremlin, the Lithuanian demarche looks particularly strange.
Such attitudes prevail in eastern Europe, though the cold war is long over. We certainly do not want to repeat history, nor do we want to plunge into more cold peace. There are better alternatives for the future, especially now that Russia and the west have been united by our problems. We both face a world financial crisis and the threats of terrorism, WMD proliferation, piracy and the drug trade. In today's globalised and interconnected world, there is no way but to co-operate with each other.
Respect and mutual trust are the foundations of practical co-operation, and it goes without saying that those are things we should work on first. We are fully committed to working with the west on common challenges. In order to enhance both our co-operation and its legal framework, we are promoting a new initiative - a treaty on European security. This is not intended to undermine any of the existing international structures, but is geared to revisiting mutual engagements and working out a binding code of conduct for states. It is the legal framework for a new era in the relationship between Russia and the west.
It's still a pity that the eastern Europeans continue to use Nato as a personal shrink and try to sort out their inferiority complexes through the medium of international organisations. There is no basis for that complex anymore; times have changed. They too should learn the lessons of both the cold peace and the cold war.
Dimitry Rogozin, the Permanent Representative of Russia to Nato.