Although neither Russia nor NATO wanted confrontation, none of them has discovered a mode so far in which they would coexist, he said.

"NATO wants to render Moscow as its ally in Afghanistan, in coping with the so-called nontraditional threats like disaster relief operations. But Moscow seems not quite comprehend how the Atlantic bloc might execute functions of the global 'emergency ministry,' what the purpose of the anti-missile defense is if it is not targeted against Russia," said Khramchikhin.

"So far, Afghanistan has been the only spot where they cooperate on the ground, not in the realm of wishful thinking," the expert noted, citing Lavrov's words "this (Afghanistan) is our common vital interest."

Lingering political divergences

It was obvious that NATO and Russia wanted to march closer toward each other, Moscow-based defense analyst Pavel Felgengauer said.

"NATO eyes Russia as a partner in its worldwide operations, in the Eurasia at the first hand. Russia, too, does not see NATO as a military threat any more," Felgengauer told Xinhua.

However, there was a long road ahead for both parties to bridge over long-existing differences, the expert warned.

While Fogh Rasmussen repeatedly said in Moscow that NATO did not want to impose any specific missile defense architecture on Russia, he reiterated the bloc's readiness to admit Georgia's membership, which was highly sensitive for Kremlin.

The NATO chief also reconfirmed Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, regarding it as one main dispute between the alliance and Russia. It was precisely the brief war between Moscow and Tbilisi in August 2008 that triggered the sour of ties between NATO and Russia.

"We pursue a clear non-recognition policy when it comes to Abkhazia and South Ossetia," said Fogh Rasmussen.

Also, the NATO chief soberly stressed that the alliance was not expecting Russia to give a specific response over a joint missile defense system in Lisbon. Lavrov also sounded reserved when saying that both sides should start at first a joint analysis of what could be done in this regard on an equal basis.

Their words reconfirmed that the bone of discontent between NATO and Russia has been mostly of political nature, namely, zoning the spheres of influence in Eurasia, while the missile defense issue has been only a pretext for Kremlin and the West, said Felgengauer.

"There are no real, palpable, physical threats for both parties. Neither NATO's, nor Russian divisions face each other on the Bug ( river on the Polish border)," he said.

"But Moscow has been steady in demand that the West must respect its 'inherent' right for the zone of influence in former Soviet republics. The West has been unable to guarantee this until now, and it unlikely would happen in Lisbon, as Fogh Rasmussen effectively confirmed," he added.