It was, after all, Russian democrats who initiated a partnership with the West and constantly pressured the Russian President and his administration to establish and develop partnerships with the United States and Europe throughout the 1990s as well as during the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the article says. Despite the clear personal rapport between Presidents Putin and Bush, it is difficult to imagine that the first Russian-American summit in Ljubljana in June 2001 would have yielded a declaration on a new partnership between Russia and the United States without this positive pressure, the WSJ reports.

Indeed, it is unlikely that President Putin would have declared his support for President George Bush shortly after the September 11 tragedy had it not been for the influence of the liberals and democrats in the presidential entourage. The active contacts between Russian liberals and George Bush's team have also allowed Russian-US relations to emerge from the Iraqi crisis intact, the WSJ says. Would these relations have been the same if the parties that won the December elections dominated the Duma, asks the newspaper. What would have happened to the partnership with the West, had Vladimir Lukin and Irina Khakamada from the Yabloko and the SPS not been vice speakers of the Duma?

One does not need to be an expert in Russian affairs to understand that the rise in influence of Sergey Glazyev and Dmitry Rogozin, leaders of the Rodina (Motherland) party - a pro-Kremlin, nationalist block - have implications for Russia's relations with the West, the article says. Mr. Rogozin has chided US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow for commenting on Russia's parliamentary elections and criticizing the unequal competition between different parties and the obvious advantages of the pro-presidential United Russia party. Mr. Glazyev repeatedly said during the election campaign that Russia should withdraw from international organizations where its policy is criticized.

The new Duma can be expected to further Russia's isolation from the international community. However, this position will only exclude Russia from the community of democratic nations, increase tension in relations with other countries, give rise to espionage and suspicions inside Russia and create a deficit of trust in international affairs, the article stresses. In the opinion of the newspaper, the US administration will be facing new demands from Russia. A new generation of Russian politicians will be outspoken in their criticism of US positions on the entire spectrum of traditionally contentious issues, including the Jackson-Vanik amendment, anti-dumping, "unbalanced cuts" of nuclear arsenals and missile defense.

The new parliament will be more anti-American and anti-Western. The question is, what effect will that have on the Kremlin, the real wielder of power in Russia, the WSJ notes. President Putin has long recognized the importance of a strong, working relationship with the United States. His all-but-assured re-election in March will perhaps give him more freedom to pursue a closer partnership and confront the growing nationalist lobby in his own Duma, the article says.

But maintaining a steady schedule of bilateral contacts and head-of-state meetings will not be enough. There will need to be concrete measures - opening trade ties, cooperating on nonproliferation issues and on terrorism - to bring the two countries closer together. And Vladimir Putin must use his position to communicate to the Russian people and parliament the interests shared by both the US and Russia and the need for cooperation, the Wall Street Journal concludes.