Success of Bush trip
First of all, I think the way this trip was planned was genius. He had two very distinct goals. On the one hand, he had to show his support both for the somewhat established democracies of the Baltics and for the new revolutions of Ukraine and Georgia; on the other hand, he had to show respect to the Russians people on the 60th anniversary of the V-E day.
The choice of Latvia and Georgia was not accidental. The former is the most Russian-friendly of the three Baltic states (Lithuania exists in virtual economic symbiosis with Poland, while Estonia has close ties with Finland), yet Bush going there clearly indicates support for the other two. As for Georgia - Rose Revolution rankles Russians less than the Orange One, yet, once again, going to Tbilisi clearly indicates support for Kiev as well.
Now, for Russia. I think it's very hard for non-Russians to understand exactly how important May 9th is for the Russian people. Yes, US lost many people in WWII, but it doesn't come anywhere close. In Russia, not only has every single family lost someone (in my case - my great grandfather), but the generation of my grandparents either fought in the war (both my grandfathers), or lived through terrible deprivations while evacuated from German-occupied areas (both my grandmothers, my parents-in-law). This is a truly sacred day. That's why it was indeed essential for Bush to be there at the Red Square and play along with the spectacle (ugly as it was, what with the red hammer-and-sickle flags and all).
Overall, I think this trip was a huge step in the right direction. Going back to Bush Sr., US has had a disastarous foreign policy toward Russian - basically stick with the president no matter what he does! This was most pronounced with Clinton supporting Yeltsin unequivocally when, say, he opened fire on his own parliament! In his relationship with Putin, Bush in his first term continued this policy. This I hope signals a break - and I really hope that this is the model that the next president (whatever party he/she comes from) sticks to.
Now, for what I did NOT like. Most importantly, I thought Bush should not have appeared so chummy with Putin. His support is for the Russian people and their sacrifices during the war; his problems are with the current president who is leading the country down a very dangerous path. I thought it was perhaps even appropriate to go down to Putin's dacha, but he should not have appeared quite so happy there.
Also, I did not like the timing of the request for appology to the Baltics. Yes, this is something that needs to be addressed, and Russians have to face up to what USSR did. However, Victory Day week is exactly the wrong time. I truly feel that whatever veterans are still alive deserve to think back to 60 years ago with pride on this day. Expecting them to face up to Stalin's errors on this day is cruel and un-realistic. Overall, unfortunately, there isn't much support in Russia for such an appology even on a good day; on May 9th, I bet even the liberals who normally support it would feel uncomfortable with it. It would be like making America acknowlege certain mistakes it made in Afghanistan on the anniversay of 9-11. So, bottom line - right message, wrong timing. Another note about this point. One thing that is easy for foreign reporters to miss is that in the Baltic states there has been a weird re-assessment of history gonig on in the last decade or so. Now, many see those who fought along side Russians against the Germans as traitors (they even tried inditing some of them). Implicit in this message is that those countries would have been better off under Hitler. This is the wrong message to bring up on this anniversary.
So, looking back at what I've written (sorry for such a long post) - I'd give an A- to Bush's advisers who helped him plan this trip, and a C+ for Bush's execution of it.