THE GROUP OF 20: "Promises of a 'Fresh Start' For U.S.-Russia Relations," by Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2 April 2009.

INTERNATIONAL: "Russia Keeps Some Troops In Georgia, Defying Deal," by C.J. Chivers, New York Times, 3 April 2009.

Let's not pretend that Obama had anything to prove to the Russians. This is not JFK meeting Nikita--please. Russia's ability to cause us problems or harm is vastly lower now than back then, and it won't be getting stronger in the future.

Yes, a reset would be nice. While Bush said nice things about Putin, the U.S. mostly blew off any Russian concerns about our national security policy post-9/11, meaning we pretty much ignored Moscow.

When oil revenue puffed up Putin's chest, Moscow got more assertive, displaying its own, rather pathetic version of "shock and awe" in Georgia last August.

Since President Obama's new course neatly removes most of the ill-will between us, the chance now is simply to see the Russians for who they are--an oligarchy business masquerading as a government and a regime that craves respect for its perceived, near-abroad interests.

Obama's need to regionalize AFPAK should address Moscow's ego-needs nicely, but within that context, we should go back to being sticklers on deals that are signed. Moscow signed a cease-fire on Georgia and hasn't lived up to its details. In a world where the U.S. walks away from the ABM treaty and plans to park a missile shield in former Warsaw Pact states, Russia is easily excused from some legal niceties.

But if Obama is serious about establishing a new climate in which America is seen as adhering to standards beyond those of its own, opportunistic choosing, then he needs to press the Russians on Georgia.