President Putin's apparent success in getting the Israeli prime minister, Mr Ehud Barak, and the Palestinian leader, Mr Yasser Arafat, to talk to each other once more, will be signalled by the Kremlin as a major diplomatic achievement. While Russia's superpower status has all but evaporated it still has strong influence in certain geographic and political areas. The Soviet Union's sphere of influence was a broad one and Russia has managed to maintain at least a portion of that important diplomatic resource.
Although NATO has claimed a major success in bringing about the end of Slobodan Milosevic's rule in Belgrade, it should not be forgotten that the Kremlin also played its part in bringing about change in the Balkans. As the bombing campaign continued Mr Milosevic appeared ready to brazen it out against NATO opposition. But when former prime minister, Mr Viktor Chernomyrdin, informed Mr Milosevic that Russian support would not be forthcoming, the Yugoslav president had little option but to capitulate.
The Kremlin has had contacts with - and influence over - Mr Arafat and his supporters since the Soviet era. Russia, with its southern territories reaching almost to the frontiers of Turkey and Iran, considers itself, with some justification, to have a vital interest in the Middle Eastern region. It was this interest which spurred Mr Putin to invite Mr Arafat to the Kremlin yesterday and to urge him to make contact by telephone with Mr Barak. Both leaders have now pledged to work towards bringing two months of bloody violence to an end and as a confidence-building measure the leaders announced their intention to resume operations at joint liaison offices. Israel had on Thursday ordered operations at these, the last set of security links between the two sides, to cease following a bomb blast which killed an Israeli soldier at a liaison office in Gaza.
The move is a small one in the context of restarting serious efforts to bring about a resolution to the complex Israel-Palestine problem. The dreadful cycle of violence must first be broken and the re-establishing of the liaison centres will be of some help in this area. In this context yesterday's agreement is strongly to be welcomed. The double pressures, from Moscow on Mr Arafat's administration and from Washington on Mr Barak's, may also be more effective than initiatives from Washington on its own.
Despite all this, hopes of a lasting agreement between the sides are slight. A great deal of attention will now focus upon the ability of the two leaders to deliver. Both men, it should be remembered, have to look over their shoulders at the activities and the opinions of the hawks in their own communities. In this respect Mr Arafat is probably under greater pressure than Mr Barak. His ability to deliver on promises has been called into question on a number of occasions already. The recent spate of violence has strengthened the hand of the militant Hamas groupings and reduced his effectiveness as a political leader. Mr Barak's opponents may be less revolutionary in their intent but they can provide a strong challenge to the fragile support for the peace initiatives.