The alarmists are wrong when they see a new Cold War emanating from an increasingly autocratic Russia.

But those of us who had such high hopes for a European community "whole and free" are entitled to be disappointed that this vision has been taking it on the chin lately from tinhorn dictators in the old Soviet satellites, with Vladimir Putin's seemingly eager encouragement.

At Princeton, where I now teach, I tell a seminar on the Cold War that when I was a freshman here in 1959 there were air raid alerts when everybody in America had to clear the streets when the sirens sounded at noon and stay out of sight until the all-clear.

A few years after this, I remember watching the contrails of B-52 bombers over New Jersey as they headed for rendezvous points near Cuba, while the rest of us white-knuckled it through the missile crisis.

I can also remember, as a Canadian diplomat, sitting in NATO headquarters in December 1991 when the U.S.S.R. representative returned from one of many phone calls with the Kremlin that day to inform the meeting that he had instructions to remove the nameplate Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the council table.

One can debate exactly when the Cold War ended, but that was when the U.S.S.R. did.

Today, probably only a few die-hard retired intelligence agents miss the Cold War. But, sadly, some miss the U.S.S.R., including Putin who has called the end of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century."

That's hyperbole, even in his shoes. Still, it is a tremendous disappointment to witness what has become of the independent republics created out of the old hide of the former Soviet Union.

Welcome to the family

As the Cold War ended, there was every effort not to identify winners and losers. But there was a clear thematic winner — democracy. The deal we all made at the Paris summit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in November 1990 was that member states of the CSCE would all be democracies.

In that spirit, the CSCE family welcomed all the new ex-Soviet republics. They later co-signed a pledge at a similar summit in Copenhagen that they would choose leaders by free and fair elections and that the CSCE would observe the process for fairness.

No one, by the way, pretended that mere elections in themselves constitute democracy. As someone once said, elections are to democracy what weddings are to marriage. But obtaining the consent of the governed does seem like a pretty essential starting point.

Of course, changing from totalitarian socialism to democracy is as big a change as any society has had to endure. That Russia has not become Sweden in the space of a few years should not surprise.

What's more, in fairness to Putin, he is trying to bring a layer of security to a transition that had become pretty chaotic, and his approach is supported by most Russians.

Still, the CSCE, which later became the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, resides in good intentions and from those we built an optimistic architecture of democratic aspirations that we called from "Vancouver to Vladivostok."

Boy, did we get that wrong.

What about the 'stans'?

As I recall our early discussions, there were second thoughts about the "stans" of Central Asia. Were they even European, we asked ourselves?

A more essential point would have noted that the five republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan had been taken over by communist-era thugs who had no intention of playing by democratic rules. Nor, as it turned out, did a bizarre man subsequently elected in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko.

Of the five stans, Turkmenistan was ruled by a statue-building dictator, Saparmurat Niyazov, who took to calling himself Turkmenbashi and who seemed to be plain nuts.

Tajikistan broke into a long war among clans and is only now trying to put itself together. Picturesque little Kyrgyzstan hesitantly tried a bit of democracy, lost its way and is currently taking another stab at it.

Uzbekistan is still ruled by a flat-out tyrant, Islam Karimov, whose repression of opponents, human rights defenders and democracy activists is appalling. Only a few weeks ago, Voice of America contributing journalist Alisher Saipov was gunned down, not the first critic of the regime to die violently.

As Canada's Ambassador in Moscow in the early 90's I was accredited to most of these countries but did not go to Uzbekistan to present credentials because of the regime's brutality (and because it had expelled Globe and Mail correspondent John Gray and shut down independent media outlets).

The embassy sent personnel to look after our interests but I was damned if I was going to accept from Karimov's hands the patented gold-threaded vest he liked to hand out to pet ambassadors.

I may feel better, but he's still there.

Putin's plan

With his country's oil exports on the rise, the smoother if not softer Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev is more courted in the West these days. He rules by phony elections. Not one has been judged by the OSCE as fair.

In parliamentary elections a few months ago, Nazarbayev's party won all the seats.

He is adjusting the Kazakh constitution in order to be president-for-life, joining Karimov and Lukashenko in this endeavour. Putin doesn't dare go this far though his ploy of running for prime minister after his two-term limit as president has expired is pushing the envelope.

All of this would just be saddening were it not for two things.

Putin is pushing a plan to limit the activities of OSCE election observers. He would cut their numbers drastically below what they need to get a reading of whether an election is free and fair.

This would start with the Russian parliamentary elections in December.

He also aims to delay the announcement of the findings of OSCE observers until all 55 members of the OSCE would meet to approve them. In practical terms, this would give Russia or any of the stans a veto on these findings and would mean they would never be announced.

Is this a real problem? Yes, because through its office of democratic institutions and human rights, the OSCE has probably become the most effective elections watchdog in the world.

Elections rigged to keep the government in power were exposed as stolen by OSCE observers in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. Fair recounts and reruns ensued.

Who are Russia's co-sponsors for the OSCE elections initiative? You guessed it: The five stans, along with Belarus and misguided Armenia.

A sad comment

Putin is unlikely to succeed with this plan because the OSCE is a consensus-driven organization and requires unanimity to make this kind of change to its raison d' ê tre.

But it says sad things about him, like his thin skin, his assumptions and instincts, the company he chooses, and the role he plays with his $200 billion in energy revenues.

Instead of becoming a positive international leader with his new found heft, he has become an international spoiler, with a chip on his shoulder. He is trying to fence the Russian elections off from view.

And there's more. I mentioned two things. The second is that, believe it or not, Kazakhstan is lobbying hard for the OSCE rotating presidency in 2009.

One would think this is a new joke-definition of "chutzpah," except that it has considerable support in Europe, notably from the German government.

A few countries are opposed, including Canada, the U.S., Britain and the democracy-focused Czechs. But there's pressure to give in to Kazakh oil power at the OSCE meeting in Madrid at the end of the month.

It makes you wonder. Wasn't the end of the Cold War about democracy? How come the Germans, of all people, have forgotten this? Wasn't it on their very primary democratic behalf that we all deployed troops and planes and everything else for so long, to keep them out of the clutches of the Soviet Union?

It really is pretty sad.