IT is not often the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the President of the United States find themselves in the same paragraph of history, but Sadie Docherty resides in such a distinguished setting this morning.

Both are going on a Russian bear hunt: the councillor to express her concern at the country's treatment of its gay citizens, and the President to roar his displeasure in general.

Ms Docherty is proceeding in traditional style, writing a letter to the mayor of Glasgow's twin city of Rostov-on-Don, while Mr Obama has opted to embarrass the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, by cancelling a meeting. The American president will still go to St Petersburg next month for the G20 summit, but as for any detour to Moscow, forget it. Turn off the samovar, POTUS is not for supping.

Mr Obama has plenty of reasons to be exasperated with Mr Putin. Between Russia's support for the Assad regime in Syria, its game-playing over Iran, trade and defence tussles and arguments over human rights abuses, the President must be wondering if the Cold War really did end. Still, it is rare for such a high-profile visit to be cancelled at this stage. Something has made the Russian bear become Mr Obama's bugbear, and that something goes by the name of Edward Snowden.

The decision to grant temporary asylum to the former US intelligence contractor who gushed some of America's secrets to the world has infuriated Washington. It is a ploy straight out of the Cold War playbook on Mr Putin's part. As a former secret policeman himself, the Russian leader has no more love for whistleblowers than Mr Obama has for the Tea Party movement.

There is no value in holding on to Mr Snowden (unless he truly was smart and has more data squirreled away, which is doubtful), other than as a red rag to wave in the face of a bullish America. He is not a guest of Russia, he is a spy to be traded when the time is right, just as in the bad old days of the Cold War.

Relations between America and Mr Putin over human rights have long been strained, but Russia has been leading more of a fightback recently. After America criticised the treatment of dissidents, for example, Russia pulled the plug on American adoptions. This, at least, is a new tit-for-tat strategy on Mr Putin's part. At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet empire was able to take any amount of criticism over its human rights record. As long as its own citizens remained powerless to do anything, why should it care about the west's outrage?

Mr Putin, however, recognises that in the age of the internet, free travel and free trade, he cannot wholly ignore western complaints. But instead of giving in, he goes on the attack, highlighting what he sees as the west's hypocrisy. In hanging on to Mr Snowden, he has allowed Russians to feel as if they are the ones occupying the moral high ground. Imagine the former KGB man being able to pose as a champion of freedom. Surely even Vlad the Pale One laughed himself pink over that.

America will have to give in over Mr Snowden for now, and continue the fight on another front - gay rights. Here is where the concerns of the president, the Lord Provost, and many others converge. Here is where Mr Putin of all people, and on all issues, could be vulnerable. Not because he is in the mood to see the light after his crackdowns on everyone from the members of Pussy Riot to meddlesome businessmen, but because Russia needs to make a success of the Winter Olympics next year. It is there, in the snow and the ice, amid the silly skating costumes and the toboggans, that Russia wants to announce its second coming as a superpower.

The US President is right to draw attention to Mr Putin's "Cold War mentality", but there is more to him than that. In positioning himself and his country as outsiders, Mr Putin is no different to the tsars of old. Such is the size of Russia, every leader has had to be a Janus, at once expansionist yet inward looking. In Mr Putin's case, the formal empire has gone, leaving him to cultivate alliances where he can, to embarrass the west where he is able, to wield economic rather than military might where possible. His is a guerrilla form of cold warfare.

At the same time as he cherishes being an outsider, he nurses a deep sense of injustice. He has watched as countries once part of the Russian empire have gone their own ways and thrived. He has stood by as China, no friend to human rights either, is embraced by the west. For a panda here and a pile of cheap exports there, the west will forgive China no end of sins. Finally, the looting of Russia has happened on his watch. No matter that those same oligarchs helped him into power and have kept him there. They took too much, too quickly. Russia still enjoys vast riches and resources, but it should have been much further on, and growth is now slowing.

While Russia still has influence in Europe - one turn of the gas tap and we're in trouble - and is trying hard to sway matters in the Middle East, the relationship with America is far from what it was. Increasingly seeing its future in the Far East, America is happy to sideline Russia where it can. With its own vast reserves of energy, it doesn't need what Russia is predominantly selling. If it wasn't for the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, America would turn its back even more.

Russia now stands at another of the crossroads that have dotted its history, and the Winter Olympics in Sochi next February will be as good an indicator as any as to where the country is heading. An eye-popping $50bn is being spent on staging the games. Mr Putin has invited the world to come and see the new, wealthy, go ahead Russia.

There are those who advocate boycotting the games in protest at the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens in Russia. There are fears that LGBT athletes and other visitors from abroad will be harassed and arrested. Even if anti-gay laws are scrapped, what is to stop parliament reimposing them after the last flight has left? The brutal answer is nothing.

A boycott is not the answer, though. The Winter Games will go ahead, as the Moscow Olympics did, regardless of any boycotts. The approach towards Russia has to be one of engagement rather than isolation. We can play the waiting game, wait for Russia to change of her own volition, but as with the Cold War it will be a very long wait. Then, as now, it is better to keep talking than to turn away. On that score, perhaps the president can learn something from the Lord Provost.