The author utterly hits the nail on the head with his analysis of modern Russia. The current administration's Russia policy was to treat the country as a failing democracy as opposed to a emerging one. Russia will likely never be a pro-U.S. country in the sense of an Australia or Japan, it sees itself as a great power that should at least be on equal terms with the most advanced nations on Earth. Putin's frustration & anger & that of many Russian's is understandable. Bush Sr promised not to enlarge NATO and Clinton moved Nato to their doorstep. The current government feels encircled by hostile American interests. High oil and gas prices have allowed the Putin camp to restore a measure of economic stability to the country when compared the chaos of the Yeltsin years. Yet the minimum wage was just raised to $88 a month. At least half the population lives in poverty. The author is correct in that the West needs to look at Russia in new terms of a re-emerging capitalist society not in the old Soviet term. The biggest threat to Russian stability is economic. So much of the GDP of the country is related to Oil & Gas, as was seen during the late Breznhev and Andropov years, prices for both can suddenly become depressed without warning. The West needs to do more to help Russia diversify it's economy. As in Soviet times Russian manufacturing is at least 70 years behind other G8 nations, the country's infastructure is falling apart. Hillary will have to formulate a realistic policy to Russia one that is based on a solid working relationship based on mutual respect for the other's interests. I doubt Russia & America will be allies in the sense America & Europe are but the relations need not be so hostile either.