The title of a Yahoo! article released on October 13 is "Clinton FAILS to win Russia pledge on Iran sanctions". This is the latest indicator that the Obama administration will be judged and evaluated on concrete achievements, not hype. And "failed" has very negative connotations. This is certainly a word that we did not EXPECT to associate with the Obama administration.

Before the talks, a senior State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the obvious sensitivity of this situation, said that the Secretary of State wanted to know "what SPECIFIC forms of pressure Russia would be prepared to join us and our allies in". Evidently, this did not get very far.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, "ALL FORCES should be aimed at supporting talks". This statement seems to be lukewarm. Yahoo!'s take paints a starkly different picture: "BUT (a BIG contrast word), Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov restated at a news conference (with Clinton by his side) that ANY TALK of sanctions against Iran at this stage are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE". Translation: Russia ISN'T COOPERATING. The tone of this remark is sharply negative.

According to another statement by an anonymous US official (perhaps this is the same "State Department official" who spoke earlier), "They said (that) THEY WEREN'T READY in this context to talk specifically about what steps they were willing to take", which, again, is not good.

Clinton hailed her meeting with Lavrov as "VERY comprehensive and productive", adding that "I FEEL VERY GOOD about the SO-CALLED reset" in diplomatic relations. Boy, it sure doesn't sound like it. "WE DID NOT ASK FOR ANYTHING TODAY" except to ask Russia to join us in calling for tougher sanctions against Iran, which they clearly REFUSED to do. "We reviewed the situation and where it stood which I think WAS THE APPROPRIATE TIMING for what this process entails". Clinton is A DIPLOMAT and she is trying to put a positive face on a negative situation.

The senior State Department official again: "That was a clear statement of the Russian position that we found reassuring". Hm.

For his part, Lavrov did acknowledge "considerable progress" in reducing nuclear weapons capacities. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE if this is indeed true.

Although Clinton did not mention "human rights" directly, she made several indirect references: "A society cannot be truly open when those who stand up and speak out are murdered. And people cannot trust in the rule of law when killers act with inpunity" or with BRUTE FORCE. This can also be done with VERBAL force (like Donald Tsang does to anyone who disagrees with China), which is OUTRAGEOUS.

Finally, Lavrov "was NON-COMMITTAL on US proposals (that) the two sides should cooperate on missile defense", which, again, is expected because of our different political systems (Russia still has some Communist elements. while we are a predominantly capitalist country). He would only say that "The more we know about this concept, the sooner we will come to an understanding of WHETHER we can work together on A PROJECT", i.e. anything.

So Secretary Clinton got no concrete/tangible guarantees or pledges on her first trip to Russia, a former Cold War foe.