The press is really running away with the symbolic importance of Dmitry Medvedev’s first trip to Asia rather than Europe. “Medvedev trip east sends signal to west,” goes the headline from the FT. The AP reports that the China visit “is a sign of how the two resurgent giants have buried Cold War rivalries and built a ‘strategic partnership’ intended to serve as a counterweight to U.S. dominance.” A piece from RFE/RL has a similar analysis, quoting Masha Lipman, who says that this is Russia’s way of saying “we’re not in a rush to go West to begin Medvedev’s presidency as a foreign-policy maker.” These conclusions are all fine and well, but also problematic. Aren’t these the same journalists and experts who have told us over and over again that Medvedev has no power or influence, and that this is still Vladimir Putin’s game? Therefore wouldn’t it be more important to watch which country he visits first? Or perhaps we are beginning to see evidence that the new president does actually matter – a view I’ve been holding for a while.