On Monday, dozens of world leaders gathered in Red Square in Moscow to commemorate the 60^th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. Russia's President Vladimir Putin had intended for the day, which included a fly-over by Soviet fighter jets, an elaborate military parade, and numerous hammer-and-sickle banners, to be a recognition of Russia's glorious past and its future, but a diplomatic row over the Soviet Union ’s history overshadowed those goals.

The United States and Russia have disagreed publicly about a number of policies in both countries in the recent years, on the war in Iraq, the centralizing of power in Russia, and the merits of each country’s justice system, for example, but the most recent spat began when Bush, in preparation for his tour of the Baltic countries before arriving in Moscow, sent a letter to the Baltic leaders in which he said that the end of World War II “marked the Soviet occupation and annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the imposition of Communism.”

The Russians took umbrage at the use of the term “occupation,” replying that the Soviet Union was invited into the countries. Then, on Friday, the Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga stepped up her demand that Russia apologize for the decades of occupation and, in an interview with ABC, claimed that the Russians were “lying through their teeth” about relations with the Baltics, the New York Times reported.

Things became even more heated on Saturday, when Bush, in Riga, Latvia’s capital, claimed that the Yalta Accords, which established the partitioning of Europe, were a “mistake” and that the captivity of millions of people in central and eastern Europe was “one of the greatest wrongs of history.”

Putin, needless to say, begged to differ. In his view, the Soviet Union brought freedom, not occupation and servitude, to Europe . “Our people not only defended their homeland, but also liberated 11 countries in Europe”, he said.

The two presidents, in expressing such starkly contrasting interpretations of the Soviet Union ’s past in Eastern Europe, have used the anniversary in two different ways. Bush has used the occasion to remind the world, and Putin, that the end of Nazi oppression was the beginning of another type of oppression, that of the Soviet Union. In visiting the Baltic states, who are some of the United States ’ closest allies in Europe, Bush wants to emphasize his awareness of their sufferings. If Bush the straight-talker does not go so far as to recognize the ambiguous nature of that victory, he does acknowledge that the defeat of one evil led to another.

Putin, on the other hand, has chosen to focus on the positive. Some have talked about his attempt to rehabilitate Stalin, but that tyrant’s face was noticeably absent on Monday. Instead, Putin focused on the courage and determination of Russians in the face of the Nazi war-machine. The lesson he draws from the 60^th anniversary of the liberation of Europe is that “indifference, temporizing and playing accomplice to violence inevitably lead to terrible tragedies on a planetary scale.” Instead of using this moral to shed light on Russia ’s past, Putin uses it to show the way forward, especially in the war against terrorism.

The differences between Bush’s and Putin’s public proclamations call into question the relations between the two countries. After all, they were not always so far apart.

After their first meeting in 2001 in Slovenia , Bush emerged to say that he had looked into Putin’s eyes and seen his soul. He found him “straightforward and trustworthy.” Recently, however, Bush has been more critical. After a February meeting with Putin, Bush said, “Democracies have certain things in common: a rule of law and protection of minorities, a free press and a viable political opposition... I was able to share my concerns about Russia ’s commitment in fulfilling these universal principles.”

Expressing doubt in an ally’s commitment to democracy is a strong gesture. Even more so when the spread of democracy is the administration’s self-proclaimed foreign policy goal. But this fits in with the broader theme of Bush’s presidency. He likes to style himself as a man who says what he thinks and does what he says. His comments have often jarred with the personal styles of other global leaders. In the world of diplomacy, nuance and spin are an essential smoothing ingredient in daily relations, and many people complain about Bush’s direct style.

However, it is hard to honestly criticize the Bush administration when it makes an effort to introduce some transparency into foreign relations. From their insistence on multi-party talks with North Korea to their disagreement with Europe over the arms trade with China, the administration has demanded that things be dealth with in the open. In a time when public statements have to translated from “diplomatic code” into English, this is a welcome development.

The real rehabilitation that is taking place in world politics today is not of Stalin, but of Woodrow Wilson and his 14 points. In addition to his demand that individual countries be able to determine their own fates (think Eastern Europe), Wilson also proposed “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.”

In the context of Russia's democratic retreat, including restricted media freedom, the abolition of regional governor elections, and the seemingly arbitrary prosecution of its richest oil executive, Putin’s historical omissions are a cause for worry, as they have already proven to be a cause of tension. Bush was right to call him on it.

Roma, 15 maggio 2005