I guess it depends on what you mean by "changed significantly at the institutional level". Russia has changed radically several times. Starting with that pesky fall of the Soviet Union bit. (Sorry for the snark.) Yes, Russia has changed. And changed.
The US? No and we're seeing very severe consequences of that refusal to change...
More importantly, their relationship has changed as well. Not nec. in the way either would have preferred... Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
you are the media you consume.
But if something like the fall of the Soviet Union is just a "meet the news boss, same as the old boss" scenario on your book, I sincerely do not know what would constitute actual change. And entire empire collapsed. And entire economic system was destroyed. And ideological war was lost. The government was actually disolved at one point. (maybe more.) All the laws on the books became nullified, either literally or through lack of enforcement. Yes, the people in power were from the same elite group as those in Communism, because that was the ONLY system before. It's not as though democrats were waiting in the wings. Communists became democrats. Anyone with any qualifications to run any government entity got those qualifications from going through the Soviet system. People use this fact to suggest that nothing really changed between Stalin and Putin. It's like looking at a family and complaining all the children had the same parents. Where else were they supposed to come from? Outerspace? There were lots of Westerners coming into the country to advise the newly democratic government. And as a result, the bloody country crashed. People starved to death. So you can understand why they don't really trust us to tell them how to run their country. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Is this a series of interesting typos (And for An), or a literary construction just unfamiliar to me? *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Also, modern Russia is quite rich, at least in parts. The USSR was always shabby and poor, with a few token exceptions like the occasional marble metro. With its energy reserves Russia has the potential to be richer than either Europe or the US a decade or two from now, and that's not making Washington happy.
So the US needs a Cold War. The first Cold War was started knowingly and deliberately with the usual bullshit massively exaggerated claims of Soviet nuclear capability.
The MilInd people really only have just the one pony, and they keep dragging it out over and over painted a different colour each time. But really - it's always the same animal with different stick-on horns and a dogwhistle around its neck.
So now that Bin Laden has ascended to heaven, or hung up his beard and moved to Florida, or wherever, it's time for a new enemy. Calling out China would be a little too intimate, so Russia makes a good a target as any.
By 1990 the USSR had run out of options, so it wasn't a serious possibility any more.
The US will probably go through the same process, but it's looking more likely it will try to collapse outwards in a very messy way rather than collapsing inwards as the USSR did.
You could probably make a case for suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan are parts of the process. Aside from the oil, they're about trying to prove that it's still possible to project force successfully.
But that didn't work so well for the USSR in Afghanistan, and it's not working so well for the US either. So if Obama wins I wouldn't be totally surprised to see some serious military cutbacks - especially if he gets a second term.
