E. Wayne Merry offers an unusual criticism of the “reset” with Russia:

We need to work on building something resembling normal relations with a Russia that is no longer a global or ideological competitor. More trade and investment would help, as will Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Serious progress in Russian rule of law would do even more.

With Mr. Putin back in the Kremlin, we should maintain perspective and recognize that Russia today is a great regional power like Indonesia, India and Brazil, but no longer a global rival. Washington does not need a special agenda with Moscow, but rather balanced and realistic normal relations.

I couldn’t agree more with this, but what Merry is describing is the development of a more permanent, constructive relationship. It’s correct to think of the “reset” as a temporary improvement that could easily be reversed if the gains from it aren’t consolidated by pursuing “balanced and realistic normal relations.” At present, the far greater risk is that the “reset” will be undone by those that preferred our Russia policy during the Bush era. Merry is right that “resetting” relations to the Clinton years wouldn’t be any better, which is why we should drop the “reset” language, and we should ask whether we want U.S.-Russian relations to be more constructive or more adversarial than they have been in the last three years. Most critics of the “reset” prefer the latter, and they very much want to treat Russia as an ideological competitor. If the U.S. can avoid going back to that failed approach, the next step would be to follow the advice that Merry is offering here.