There’s an interesting letter to the editor in today’s Wall Street Journal, responding to a recent Garry Kasparov column. The reader argues that it would be extremely unwise for the West to question the legitimacy of Dmitry Medvedev’s election, as this would cause panic among the elite, and result in a further clampdown on domestic rights and freedom. I remain unconvinced by the principle that Moscow needs to be treated any differently from any other government, and I believe that engendering authoritarian trends out of fear won’t succeed in advancing East-West relations. Also, with regard to the Iran issues raised in this letter, the reader fails to consider the fact that the last thing Russia wants is a solution to the problem – yet neither will they stand for a nuclear-armed Tehran.

Garry Kasparov’s op-ed (“Election Season in Russia,” March 4) was well-taken, but misses the subtle difference about what the West can and should do. Is it more important to see a country governed democratically, or to conduct the practice of international relations democratically? With Russia, these currently stand in opposition. While the case of Hillary Clinton’s slip-up in the Cleveland debate concerning the Russian president-elect may show that Russian domestic politics have fallen off the American radar (as Mr. Kasparov states), it would be a mistake to say that Russia’s importance internationally has declined.