After one and a half days of mostly uninspired and often irrelevant speeches by world leaders, French President Nicolas Sarkozy walked to the podium at UN climate talks in Copenhagen and produced a seven minute rallying cry – focused, energetic and packed with more punch than the rest put together.

Jabbing his finger, he berated leaders from Africa, Asia, Europe and the United States to own up to their responsibilities and make compromises. Point by point he delivered his challenges, each starting with: ‘Who would dare..’ (implied answer, no one)

Who in the developed world would deny his historic responsibility for global warming (a reference to the United States?), who in Africa would venture to tear up a deal that seeks to benefit African states (a reference to those who want more financing), who would have the nerve to reject the notion that emissions cuts must be transparent (a reference to China?).

He finished by telling leaders to sit down and negotiate hard over the next 24 hours. “We need to change track or we are heading for disaster,” he said, then strode from the stage.

Some of Sarkozy’s energy is finally permeating these talks. Leaders and ministers are talking hard, most likely they will continue to talk late in to the night in the hope there will be something to sign on Friday.

Western responses to President Dmitry Medvedev’s proposal for a new European-Atlantic security body that stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok have ranged from dismissive to lukewarm. None have been enthusiastic.

But some inside and outside Russia argue it would be unwise for Europe and the United States to reject the proposal out of hand, not least because, as one Russian official put it, this is one of the few occasions where Russia isn’t disagreeing but coming up with something constructive.

Yes Moscow’s draft treaty has gaps, they concede, yes it is almost entirely focused on security in the military sense and yes it doesn’t give much weight to liberal democracy and human rights as envisioned in modern perceptions of security – but it is a starting point for discussion.

Shutting Russia out plays in to the hands of those in Moscow, Washington and other capitals who prefer the simplicity of the Cold War’s zero sum game. It does no favours to modernisers in Russia who want to build cordial international relations, promote democratic society and build Russia’s economy away from its over-reliance on natural resources.

Russia needs stability outside its borders in order to modernise at home.

Twenty years after the collapse of communism, Russia and the rest of Europe are still struggling to establish a relationship of mutual trust and respect. They are bound by commerce – Europe is the prime market for Russian energy exports – but even that relationship is rarely straightforward. The annual Russia-Ukraine-EU gas drama is just one example of how fraught the relationship can be.

On a political and diplomatic level the complications are even greater. One need look no further than the 2008 war in Georgia when preconceptions and stereotypes dictated responses on all sides. Western media and many politicians condemned Russia outright. It was only with the publication of an EU commissioned report into the war this year that a fuller story was told. NATO’s steady expansion towards Russia’s borders has angered Moscow, where it has been noted that the Baltic states and central Europe became far more openly hostile to Russia once they had NATO and EU membership in the bag.