The coterie of Cold Warriors in George W. Bush's foreign policy team have upped the voltage in their bid to make National Missile Defense (NMD) more palatable. They have launched a furious PR campaign against Russia, painting it as a serious U.S. national security threat.

The campaign wrongfully resurrects the image of Russia – one of the greatest opponents to NMD – as an Evil Empire with a Soviet-like single-minded desire to undermine world stability. It depicts the Kremlin as a calculating back-alley gunrunner, intent on supplying Washington's most hated regimes with deadly weaponry. And it casts Russian leaders as a bunch of reckless militants bent on brinkmanship and ready to shuttle nuclear missiles to Europe's doorstep the instant diplomatic obstacles arise.

On Feb. 9, before a Senate intelligence committee, CIA Director George Tenet described Russia as a roguish country prepared to trample on state sovereignty and human rights in its quest to reclaim "great power" status. Three days later, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that Russia was "a threat to the West in general, and our European allies in particular," while Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued much the same on American public television.

Then, last Thursday, unidentified and retired U.S. national-security and intelligence officials leaked through the Washington Times that spy satellites confirmed the move of Russian tactical nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad – a story first reported by that paper (with equally sketchy sources) in December, and one that Moscow continues to reject.

"The fact that the Russian government denies it … is probably an affirmation that it's true," former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the paper, betraying his own doubts about the satellite reports. Nevertheless, he added with absolute certainty: "It tells us something about the dogged attitudes of the Russian military and political leaders," and shows how they behave in ways "you would not expect from a responsible government."

Similarly, ex-CIA Director R. James Woolsey explained that the alleged missile transfer was "Russia deciding to deal with the West after a fashion of the Soviet Union in the early 1980s, namely to bluster in order try to prevent an American strategic overture, in this case missile defense."

Taken together, these comments underscore three simple messages that the Bush administration is trying to communicate: 1) The Kremlin cannot legitimately criticize American NMD development, because by selling its arms technology to outlaw states, Russia is "part of the problem," as Rumsfeld puts it. 2) Western European countries sympathetic to Russia's concern over NMD should be wary of siding with such an erratic and aggressive partner. 3) The more Russia tries to demonstrate that NMD will force it to flex its muscles, the more it proves U.S. claims that Russia is a threat.

This last point appears to have completely missed Russia's hawks. While there is no respectable evidence yet of nuclear missiles being nudged into Kaliningrad, the Russian military has been generating a fair amount of bluster by dispatching fighter planes into Japanese airspace and bombers off the coast of Norway – moves reminiscent of the pointless buzz of the USS Kitty Hawk late last year, which in turn was reminiscent of similar Cold War engagements.

President Vladimir Putin – who has rightly called for positive dialogue on the subject and has assured that Russia "will in no way take a confrontational tone" despite its firm position on the NMD issue – should rein in this kind of behavior. This would give Russia more political capital, not less, especially in trying to garner international anti-NMD support.

Meanwhile, Team Bush is wrong to play up Russia as a threat to the system of U.S. and European security. "Russia is an active proliferator," says Rumsfeld. But, even though Russian arms exports have peaked over the last decade, they still remain a small fraction of Soviet-era exports (as well as current U.S. exports), and many analysts predict that this figure will soon dwindle for lack of proper investment and research and development. In any case, the bulk of Russian weaponry and related technology goes to China and India, two countries that already have nuclear capabilities.

Moreover, Rice, Rumsfeld and Co. neglect to point out how America is also "part of the problem," regarding its new class of enemies. After all, Washington's No. 1 bad guy, Osama bin Laden, along with the Taliban regime that currently gives him shelter, were arguably the product of U.S. funded operations. Iraq's notorious leader, Saddam Hussein, was able to build the base of his elusive arsenal with American support.

True, Russia has shown a disturbing willingness to commit atrocities against its own people, as in Chechnya, and meddle in the internal affairs of its former satraps in the C.I.S., notably Georgia. But beyond that boundary, it has been a relatively benign player – so much so that Condoleezza Rice has collapsed the Russia desk at the NSC in with the rest of Europe.

Several weeks ago, Putin confirmed that this was likely to continue when he outlined his foreign-policy priorities to the Foreign Ministry. There, the president is reported to have said he would like to see Russia integrated with the world community, come to terms with NATO, and boost Russia's world image in the "struggle for public opinion." Previously, his courting of foreign leaders, from Western Europe to the Far East, has demonstrated his desire to see Russia as a respected and active member of the world community. The United States should encourage those instincts; a participating Russia is much better than an alienated one.

Instead, overtly treating Russia as a menace only strengthens the most hard-line elements in the country's defense and foreign-policy establishment – people who agree with none of Putin's recent priorities and who could transform the country, along with its nuclear arsenal, into a real hazard. Ultimately, isolating a country like Russia won't work, and reviving Cold War rhetoric, by either side, comes with dangerous costs.