It's a policy which aims to review the American role in world affairs and largely involves talking to people with whom you have differences rather than at them. The policy has not made much progress so far in containing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, has made some progress with Israel-Palestinian peace process and good progress in resetting U.S.-Russia relations. Where the last leg of this drive takes Washington and Moscow is difficult to say because, though the relations have thawed out, there still remain several sticking points.

Earlier, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden had said they wanted to press the 'reset' button with Russia. Also, in their first face-to-face meeting in April on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in London, Obama and Medvedev had identified a new nuclear arms reduction treaty and more Russian support in U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan as thrust areas for bilateral cooperation. They were able to deliver on both these counts at their summit in Moscow on July 6 and 7.

The two leaders signed a framework agreement to reduce their countries' nuclear arsenal from 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675 warheads and from 1,600 to between 500 and 1,100 delivery vehicles. The cuts are to be formalised in a new legally binding treaty that the two sides are to sign by the year-end and before the expiry of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) on December 5. The Time magazine has noted that START, which restricts the number of nuclear weapons both countries can deploy, 'led to 80 per cent reduction in the worldwide number of strategic nukes. A follow-on treaty would probably trim the arsenal further.'

But there are doubters on that score. The 2002 Treaty of Moscow, signed by George Bush and former Russian president Vladimir Putin, had limits of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads that could be deployed. Says Charles Ferguson, an arms control expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, 'that's only twenty-five warhead difference from what we had with the Treaty of Moscow; so in that sense it's rather modest. But what's important here is both sides agreed to have a legally binding treaty, in contrast to the Bush administration, which only had a very flexible, informal kind of treaty.'

Not long ago Medvedev and his Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, had said nuclear weapons reductions are possible only if the U.S. were to drop plans to expand its missile defence shield into Eastern Europe. Washington says such defences are necessary to protect the West from possible missile strike by Iran and North Korea. But the Russians don't buy the logic. For them the plan, which includes installations of missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, is only to give the U.S. a strategic advantage over their country. It's a plan, if perfected to infallibility, which will most certainly tilt the strategic balance in favour of Washington.

At the Moscow Summit, however, the Russians agreed not to link the two issues. On his part, Obama has ordered a review of the missile defence system to be completed by the end of this summer. He says once the review is complete they will provide the Russian government with their assessment of how to resolve differences over the project. The U.S. missile defence plan remains one of the most divisive issues between the two countries.

But does the review of missile defence system means dropping the plan? It's possible. Obama had made it clear even during his presidential campaign that he wants to make sure the system is feasible, that it works. He also wants to clearly understand the threat perception and how it would impinge on his plans for nuclear disarmament. Dropping the plan is definitely an option. The other option will be to go ahead with another plan in collaboration with Russia.

Obama and Medvedev also agreed on a joint statement on nuclear security cooperation that seeks to achieve the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. Together the two agreements, one on reducing the nuclear arsenal and other on securing nuclear material, are part of Obama's vision of a nuclear-free world.

In another major agreement signed during the summit, Russia has allowed a total of 4,500 U.S. flights a year to fly over its territory into Afghanistan, free of charge. These flights are allowed to carry American troops and weapons. Up until now the U.S. was allowed to transport only non-lethal supplies across Russian territory. This is a major achievement for the U.S., what with the supply routes from Pakistan being constantly targeted by Taliban, and will go a long way in helping Washington conduct its war against the insurgents. The agreement will allow Pentagon to move troops and supplies to Afghanistan more quickly and also save up to $133 million a year in transit cost.

There's no love lost between the Russians and Taliban, but apart from that Moscow supports the U.S.' Afghan strategy, particularly because it seeks to stem the illicit flow of opium and heroin from Afghanistan. Moscow is also deeply concerned over the spread of Islamist extremism in the former Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan.

The U.S. and Russia have also re-established an inter-governmental commission that was constituted in the 1990s but later abolished as relations went downhill. It will be under the personal charge of the two presidents and will oversee all areas of bilateral cooperation including nuclear issues, arms control, drug trafficking, science and technology and civil society. It will also seek to boost trade, which was only $36 billion last year, and help resolve trade disputes.

Notwithstanding all the advances made during the summit, there remain strong differences over issues like the U.S. missile defence, Nato expansion, Georgia, Ukraine and Iran.

Americans say their ties with Georgia and Ukraine (former Soviet satellites) are based on shared values and strategic interests. The two countries are democracies and host vital oil and gas supply routes. The Russians have no problems with the U.S. having friends in their sphere of influence but will not countenance Georgia and Ukraine joining Nato. If the two were to become Nato members (and to say both are keen will be an understatement), it will bring the Western security alliance right next to Russia's borders, which Moscow views as a security threat. During the summit when Obama took up the cause of Georgia and Ukraine as independent countries whose sovereignty should not be violated it did not go down well with Russia.

The Russians are already peeved over the fact that though the Cold War ended some 20 years ago, the Americans still persist in treating them as adversaries, constantly pushing Nato closer to their borders and supporting anti-Russia leaders from the former Soviet bloc. As a former superpower and one with the largest number of nuclear warheads, Russia has a sense of the past, of history, and expects some respect, which the successive U.S. administrations have denied it, treating it instead as a defeated power.

By talking about equality and mutual respect, which Obama did in an interview to Russian media before his Moscow visit, the U.S. president is trying to change that, much to the gratification of the Russians.  

On Iran, while the U.S. and Russia agreed to jointly reassess the threat posed by Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Kremlin did not offer any help to Washington, as the latter had expected.

top