"Some at the CIS would like to bring Moscow and Washington into conflict"

Regarding Bush’s visit to Moscow as symbolic rather than truly formal is smarter. The symbolic thing is very much important in this case. However, if this is it, nothing would have justified the visit of Condoleezza Rice to Moscow recently. It is obvious that there is a will to reach a common understanding of the current problems such as the attitude of our two countries in the former soviet zone, the dispersion of mass destruction weapons or the dialogue about the energy resources - a field in which much is talked but little is done.
There is no conspiracy between Bush and the Georgian and Ukrainian presidents. Nonetheless, there are in the United States influential groups that would be delighted if something similar existed. Within the administration, there is a tendency to enhance democracy in the post soviet area. Some leaders, especially the GOUAM members, want to take advantage of this tendency to call forth such logic development, which the White House itself is not ready to. They would like to separate Russia and the United States, bring their interests into conflict and win the American favor thus showing their excellent loyalty to the U.S.

The perception that Americans and Russians have about Saakashvili is not the same. In spite of all his deficiencies, to the United States he is on the side of the «angels» as he favors the cooperation with the U.S. On the other hand, Moscow considers that he is a man who wants to take political advantage of his opposition to Russia. I consider that there is no point, neither for us nor for you, in being upset about this difference in positions.