US: In 1974, the US Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a measure that prohibited normal trade relations with the Soviet Union until Moscow permitted free emigration of Soviet Jews.
Today, Congress still has not repealed the Jackson-Vanik amendment, although Russia has been in full compliance with its emigration provisions since 1994, so much so that in Israel, Russian has almost become the second language.
Repeated requests from the Kremlin for its repeal have got nowhere, despite promises from Washington, which still uses the amendment to gain some leverage in trade disputes.
Last autumn, US President Mr George Bush assured Russian President Mr Vladimir Putin that he would get rid of the amendment - at a time when he needed Russian support for UN Security Council Resolution 1441 requiring Iraq to disarm.
US Trade Representative Mr Robert Zoellick duly urged Congress to remove it in February.
Yet the humiliating amendment is still in force, and it "sticks like a bone in the Russian throat", as one of its opponents, Congressman Tom Lantos, told Congress.
On a visit to Russia last year, many people I spoke to were infuriated by the action of Congress in blocking repeal at that time because the Russians had limited the import of American chicken legs in a trade dispute with Washington.
The Jackson-Vanik amendment has become a galling symbol for Russians of the failure of its old foe to take seriously the need to manage a new partnership, one that has required the Russians to swallow a lot of national pride.
Since taking office in 2000, President Putin has acquiesced in the expansion of NATO to Russian borders, in the "take-it-or-leave-it" decision by Washington to pull out of and dump the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, in the stationing of US troops in former Soviet Republics and in the refusal of American visas for long periods to Russian scientists and graduate students.
The Bush administration knows how much Mr Putin values the new partnership, and there was widespread speculation in Washington in recent weeks that despite the humiliations, he would not risk a serious diplomatic fracture with the US over Iraq.
US officials lobbied hard for Russian support, or at least a promise not to use its veto power, at the UN. Mr Bush spoke with Mr Putin by telephone.
Washington sent a senior official, Mr John Bolton, to make the US case in Moscow, and the Russians sent Mr Putin's chief of staff, Mr Alexander Voloshin, to Washington.
Mr Voloshin enjoyed extraordinary access in the White House, meeting the President, Vice-President Mr Dick Cheney and national security adviser Ms Condoleezza Rice, who speaks fluent Russian.
Analysts concluded that the bargaining was on and a deal would get done and that the Russians knew the risks.
"They do understand that how they decide on Iraq is going to have some consequences for US-Russian relations," an administration official said.
It was reportedly made clear that Moscow would lose out if it took the wrong side in the war, but that many benefits would flow from being part of a US-led coalition.
Also at risk would be the $8 billion owed to Russia by Iraq in foreign debt and the contracts with the Iraqi oil industry that would kick in after sanctions were lifted.
US officials addressed other Russian concerns by designating three Chechen militant groups as terrorist organisations subject to American sanctions.
And once again the White House promised to remove the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
But the Russians have resisted retreating this time from a cherished foreign policy position. President Putin said at the end of last week that any UN resolution authorising an attack on Iraq was unacceptable and a war could throw the Islamic world into turmoil.
While Mr Voloshin was in Washington, former Soviet-era politician Mr Yevgeny Primakov was despatched to Baghdad to persuade President Saddam Hussein to co-operate more fully, undermining the American case against him.
Mr Putin contacted President Georgi Purvanov of Bulgaria - one of four Security Council countries supporting the US resolution - to persuade him to oppose it.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Igor Ivanov, personally conveyed the same message to seven elected members of the 15-member council, who could deny Washington its required majority of nine in a straight vote.
Mr Ivanov said yesterday: "Abstaining is not a position Russia can take, we have to take a clear position and we are for a political solution."
Like France, Russia would prefer the resolution to be killed by a straight vote so it does not have to use the veto. But it could come to that, unless the US withdraws the resolution.
As one veteran observer of Russian affairs points out, there are many people in the Kremlin who are keen to let the Bush administration know "there are limits to a super-power's powers of persuasion and coercion - and this may be the time to set them".