THE President of Poland, Mr Alexander Kwasniewski, summed up the Helsinki summit far more bluntly than either Presidents Clinton or Yeltsin. Russia, he said, had finally endorsed the eastward expansion of NATO.
The leaders of other applicant nations and the NATO secretary general, Mr Javier Solana, also made statements indicating that the Atlantic alliance had done well out of Helsinki.
The Russian and American leaders preferred to stress the image of a successful summit in which both sides made concessions and in which a willingness to compromise led to a historic agreement.
On the NATO issue, however, there were no concessions from the United States side, and Mr Yeltsin, to the dismay and anger of his opponents at home, simply dropped his country's major demand that a future charter between Russia and NATO be legally binding.
The result is that NATO rather than the Organisation for Security and Co operation in Europe will be the cornerstone of what is termed the "New European Security Architecture", that the Western European Union's links with NATO will be of greater weight than the WEU's links with the EU and that the foundations of the new architecture will have been laid by the United States rather than the EU.
For Ireland this means almost total isolation from any role in European security if it does not join the NATO sponsored "partnership for peace which now includes every European country except Ireland and Malta. Russia's membership does not prevent it from expressing its negative attitude to NATO expansion, nor did Sweden's membership stop the supreme commander of its armed forces, Gen Owe Wiktorin, expressing a similar view following the Helsinki summit.
The most trenchant criticism of the results of the summit, however, has come from the lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, whose power on the domestic scene is extremely limited. It does, however, hold a strong card in that it can refuse to ratify the START-2 arms-reduction treaty which is a key part of the Clinton Yeltsin deal.
THERE is little doubt now this is what the Duma will do and that Mr Yeltsin's promise that it would act on his advice was a hollow one.
The Duma's powerful speaker, Mr Gennady Seleznyov, a communist whose thinking has often been more in line with the Yeltsin administration than with his own party, reverted to type at the weekend, saying: "Plans to expand NATO eastwards will inevitably lead to new lines of division in Europe and the revival of a psychological climate of suspicion and hostility."
His party leader, Mr Gennady Zyuganov, was far stronger in his criticism, describing Helsinki as a "Russian Versailles" and a crushing defeat for a once proud nation. Significantly the results were seen in a similar light, though expressed less dramatically, by many western analysts. Mr John Steinbrunner of the Brookings Institution in Washington expressed concern about "the endurance and stability of a result that is not equitable".
From the summit Russia got promises of US investment, a seat at the G-7's next summit, American support for membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Paris Club as well as a derogation from the destruction of nuclear warheads under START-2 until 2007. Of these the last is likely to be of the greatest economic benefit as Russia's military is extremely hard pressed financially, and the burden of complying with an earlier deadline would have been too great.
As the G-7 meeting, now termed the "Summit of the Eight" and fixed for Denver this summer, Russia's upgrading to "full membership" appears temporary, and its own economic situation precludes it, in any event, from playing a full role.
Russia's chances of WTO membership will be enhanced by American backing but will also be governed by the extent of its own willingness to abide by the WTO's rules and regulations, something that cannot by any means be taken for granted at a time when protectionism seems the only measure to safeguard some of Russia's major industries.
As far as US investment is concerned this will depend on the willingness of the American private sector to put its money into a country where legislation safeguarding property rights is, to say the least, dubious.
Mr Yeltsin may have some difficulty in convincing domestic opinion that he has got a decent deal out of Helsinki, although it is likely that his control of national television will be quickly brought to bear on the situation.
THE attacks by Mr Seleznyov and Mr Zyuganov will be painted as jealous attacks from those involved in a futile attempt to push Russia back towards its old ways, but Mr Yeltsin has other forces to contend with.
While the world's media converged on Helsinki, Russia's former security chief, Gen Alexander Lebed, was rallying his forces in the Russian provincial city of Kirov, and announcing to those who would listen that he would be president of Russia before the year is out.
There were three reasons why early elections, in which he would be the victor, would fake place. In the first place the Kremlin administration was so corrupt and rotten that it would collapse secondly, 80 per cent of the population has living in poverty and would refuse to accept the current situation; and thirdly, Mr Yeltsin was simply physically incapable of continuing.
There appeared to be some truth in each point he made. Mr Yeltsin may have looked fit and well at his press conference on Friday with Mr Clinton, but a day later in his meeting with Finnish President, Mr Martti Ahtisaari, he walked stiffly and with difficulty, spoke slowly and appeared to have some difficulty in holding his train of thought and generally appeared to have been thoroughly exhausted by the summit.
There is undoubtedly a number of corrupt politicians in Mr Yeltsin's entourage, but this appears likely to strengthen their resolve to hang together rather than hang separately.
As for the tolerance of the Russian public, this will be tested on Thursday when a general strike has been called to protest against non payment of wages and pensions.
