BRUSSELS — A decade and a half after the end of the Cold War, NATO has embarked on its first country-wide roadshow of Russia to convince a sceptical public the former foes have much to gain by working together.But even if the nine-city charm offensive proves a success, the Western alliance may struggle to deal with a Russia newly emboldened by energy wealth and its diplomatic clout on major issues such as the Iranian nuclear dispute, analysts say.

“In the past, NATO was able to ignore the Russian voice,” Dana Allin of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said of post-Cold War dealings.

“But there is no consensus within NATO yet on how to deal with a new, assertive Russia.”

NATO delegates taking part in public debates and exhibitions across Russia this month have run the gamut of the complex emotions that still exist in Russia towards the Western military alliance 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Small bands of anti-Western protesters chant “Fascists”, “Killers”, “Spies” outside events.

Inside, curious students ask whether NATO, founded in 1949 with Moscow as its declared ideological and military enemy, wants to take over the United Nations, or use Russian soldiers as cannon-fodder in military operations.

“We do not expect any immediate impact from the events. But they are a way of clearing the air. There is a real hunger for information,” said one delegate returning to Brussels after the first week of events.

Mutual incomprehension, stretching to outright suspicion, goes to the very top of the West’s relations with Russia, which will be put to the test at a meeting of Russian and European leaders today and July’s G8 summit in St. Petersburg.

US Vice President Dick Cheney raised hackles in Moscow this month by cheering on the efforts of more east European states to join NATO, and accusing President Vladimir Putin of using energy reserves to blackmail Russia’s neighbours.

While fears of a return to Cold War sparring may be overdone, both issues could chill ties in coming months.

The alliance, which has already overridden Russian objections to two eastward expansion waves since the fall of communism, has said Ukraine and Georgia can expect to see their entry prospects nudged forward at a NATO summit in November.

Such a step would position the two ex-Soviet states to join a new wave of enlargement with other hopefuls Albania, Croatia and Macedonia as early as 2008 or 2009.

The plan caused friction at talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and European parliamentarians in Brussels last week, with Lavrov blasting NATO’s expansion plans as unnecessary and “out of step with the times”.

While NATO insists Russia has no veto over its enlargement decisions, there is plenty of scope for Moscow to make its voice heard — particularly as a number of European countries are less convinced than Washington of the case for more expansion.

There is particular concern that Moscow might end up calling the shots over the entry ambitions of Georgia, where Russian goodwill is seen key to solving so-called “frozen conflicts” in the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“We cannot give the Russians the key to the sustainability of Georgia as a candidate. The risk is that they inflame the frozen conflicts and make them hot,” said one NATO diplomat.

Russia’s veto on the UN Security Council could make it crucial to any resolution of the stand-off with Tehran over Western suspicions it seeks nuclear weapons. IISS’s Allin said that could give it additional leverage in dealings with NATO.

Western concern over Russia’s control of energy supplies has emerged as a new complicating factor in relations. The gas pricing dispute between Russia and Ukraine this year led to disruptions of supplies to Europe and heated exchanges at at least one closed-door NATO-Russia session, diplomats say. An agreement under which Russian ships are due this year to join NATO anti-terrorist patrols in the Mediterranean is cited as one of the most tangible fruits of the partnership.

NATO and Russian foreign ministers agreed last month on a project to tackle the Afghan narcotics trade and push efforts to make their armies technically able to run joint operations. Yet even if the roadshow performs miracles, the prospect of Russian soldiers serving under NATO commanders in Afghanistan <\m> scene in the 1980s of the Soviet army’s most humiliating debacle — seems some way off. History sets its limits. — Reuters