History witnesses the fact that the great powers at any point of time are obsessed with the desire to extend their sphere of influence which involves over-stretching of military and economic resources. They conduct foreign policies with two objectives in view, first, to strengthen their strategic dominance; second, to weaken and isolate their rival. During the Cold War the relations between the US and the USSR remained strained for most of the times with some occasions bringing the two nations on the brink of nuclear war. The disintegration of the USSR presented the US new challenges which included the determination of contours of US relationship with the defeated Russia and the pattern of its ties with newly emerged ex-communist East European states. The US handled both challenges maladroitly and the outcome was that the USSR developed resentment against the status quo. During the decade of 1990s, Russian interests were ignored by the US in East Europe and NATO's incorporation of former Soviet states showed the US could not liberate itself from Cold War thinking and continued with policy-formulation in terms of 'us versus them'. NATO's decision to launch bombing in Serbia annoyed Russia to better economic conditions and regain its geo-strategic influence. Bush's ambitions of establishing missile defence project near the borders of Russia and the western recognition of Kosovo's independence caused further bitterness in US-Russia relations. Last year in August the unprovoked aggression of Saakashvili provided Russia an opportunity to pay the US back in the same coin by recognising the establishment of two breakaway regions of Georgia-South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This move attracted severe criticism of Russia from the US and the analysts began talking of the start of the New Cold War. The military cooperation between the two countries came to an abrupt end but Russia had decided to put its foot down. In this way the hawkish and bellicose agenda of neo-cons set the US and Russia on collision course and their mutual relations sank to Cold War lows. Obama has recently visited Moscow to herald a new era in battered Washington-Moscow relations with the purpose to explore grounds for cooperation. Medvedev has consented to let the US fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan. The earlier agreement between the two countries only allowed the transit of non-lethal supplies by rail. The US has welcomed the concession by Russia as a significant contribution in war against terror. It will provide the US breathing space as the existing supply routes through Pakistan have become vulnerable because of continuing military operation against militants in our north-western areas. Both leaders, Obama and Medvedev, have signed another agreement that stipulates the substantial reduction in their nuclear arsenal lowering the long-range missiles and nuclear warheads by up to third from current limitations. The said framework document will pave way towards conclusion of a successor pact of START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) set to expire in December 2009. Moreover the resumption of military cooperation has been agreed on by the two countries. Given all avenues of cooperation, there is no denying the fact that the causes of friction are present and the possibility of confrontation is not remote. The thorniest issue likely to plague the relations of two powers is the basing of a proposed US missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic. Medvedev has unequivocally said the issue remains far from settlement. The US has not changed its mind on the issue of bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. It has also nurtured plans to expand American strategic power into former Soviet Central Asian Republics. But the US does not realise that the leaders in Kremlin will not be ready to concede ground on this front anymore. In February 2009, Russia gave US$ 2 billion in aid to support staggering Kyrgyzstan and the latter appeased Russia by announcing its decision to expel Manas air base. Recently Bishkek has reversed its earlier decision by allowing the US to maintain its base in return of increased payoffs. As a reaction Russia has clinched a new deal with Kyrgyzstan that allows the former to build its second base on the soil of Kyrgyzstan. Washington seeks Russia's help in finding a solution to Iran's nuclear programme. Russia has close economic and strategic ties with Iran whereas the US has been hostile to Iran for the past three decades. Moscow fears that if it joins the West in pressuring Iran to resolve nuclear imbroglio, it might push Iran towards reconciliation with the West clearing the way for new western investments in Iran's energy sector. Presently Moscow is a major beneficiary of isolation of Iran as it remains the only supplier of gas for the European continent. Russian foreign policy experts are of the view that the non-resolution of Iran's nuclear stand-off with the West will keep Washington's attention distracted from working in East Europe to the detriment of Russian interests. Indubitably Washington pursues a contradictory approach as it wants Russia to join hands with the West to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions but itself goes ahead with encroaching upon Russia's traditional sphere of influence in East Europe and Central Asia. Therefore mere change of tone will not be enough but a paradigm change in thinking patterns is necessary in Washington to undo the damage done to US-Russia ties. The writer is an advocate. E-mail: naumanlawyer@gmail.com