Bush hoped to show the world, and especially Russia, that our superiority gave us options that other countries did not have in shaping diplomacy and world policy. However, this was new ground for any U.S. president, and the Bush administration seemed tentative in their dealings with Russia. Another writer notes, "For those issues that were beyond the cold war, such as profound change engulfing Europe and Russia, the Bush administration was usually quite tentative and cautious, allowing others to take the foreign policy initiative" (Scott 36). Thus, the Bush administration was strong on the Middle East and terrorism, but soft on Russia and the Soviets. President Clinton's foreign policy was strong, because the U.S. held the clear advantage in weaponry and manpower after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Another author notes, "No one could remotely challenge U.S. military and economic capacity and insofar as America's 'core concepts' were driving the technological, social, and cultural dimensions of globalization American values were deemed ascendant as well" (Oliver). Thus, American became the dominant world power once again, and it would take on a more "global" aspect rather than zeroing in on one or two important areas, such as the Middle East or Russia. He attempted to blend foreign and domestic policy to create a more globalized vision of diplomacy and accord. Historian Oliver continues, "The substantive focus of American foreign policy was to be, therefore, on the North American-European-Japanese core and the international economic regimes, institutions, and arrangements designed to foster trade" (Oliver). Thus, Russia was not the dominant player in foreign policy that it had been. However, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was still much negotiating and diplomacy to work out, and Clinton's administration, while creating a more global outlook, still had to deal with arms control and proliferation, and creating a workable liaison with the Russians. This was difficult with the Russian president Boris Yeltsin, known more for his drinking bouts than his foreign policy skills.

Bush's foreign policy is far different from the policy of presidents such as Nixon. His main concern in foreign policy is the Middle East and terrorism, while Russia has become more of an ally in many foreign policy decisions. There is still difficulty with Russia supporting insurgents and supplying nuclear materials to the Middle East, but essentially, Russia is taking part in the mission in Iraq as part of a group of multi-national forces, so they are more of an ally now than they ever have been. Bush's policy is surprisingly close to Clinton's when it comes to globalization and the economy. It becomes increasingly important to forge lasting relationships with Russia and China, which the Bush administration is attempting to do. However, the Bush foreign policy is now also built not on containment and deterrence, but on the ability to strike against enemies preemptively, which can only make a country like Russia nervous, if they step on the wrong side of foreign policy.
In conclusion, who was the best president when it comes to foreign policy regarding Russia? Perhaps it was Reagan, who worked to bring a breakup of the Soviet Union and a more democratic government to the Soviet block countries. The worst was probably Carter, who had little real world experience in world policies. While Nixon opened up China and created ties there, his policies on nuclear disarmament, while still building up multi-warhead weapons, was duplicitous and dangerous. He too could qualify as the worst when it came to dealings with the Soviets during his administration.