[Courier International, France]
Novosti, Russia
McCain, Obama
and Clinton: They're All Bad
"The
Democrats think the same way as McCain. No, not on health care, abortion, the
withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the right to carry firearms - God Forbid! - on these issues they are prepared to argue until they're
hoarse. But in regard to Russia (I dare say a marginal issue for American
voters), there is a complete consensus."
By Dmitry
Gornostayev
Translated By Igor Medvevev
March 27, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
NEW
YORK: What the President keeps to himself, his nominee reveals. Of course, if
John McCain is elected President of the United States, he will not repeat what
he just said to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council WATCH 
. The President of the United
States is not the person to repeat that the G8 should "expel Russia,"
or speak about the need to "address the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia."
Before
the 2000 election and even during the first few months of his presidency,
George W. Bush also criticized Russia. He his first step in regard to Russia as
head of state was to expel a large group of Russian diplomats from the United
States. However, when he realized it would be necessary to meet the president
of Russia, he had to reverse himself. It was then that he glanced into the eyes
of Vladimir Putin and was able to "get a sense of his soul." At least
that's what he told the world and of course his own voters, who several months
before he had been desperately trying to convince of the contrary.
If it is Senator McCain who will
be President, he too will need to come up with a nice story about a sudden
recovery of insight. But strictly speaking, this isn’t all that important.
Neither does it matter if it's McCain or one of the pair of Democrats that is
elected. The Senator's critical remarks about Russia, which incidentally were
only a small part of his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, seem
to contain two fundamentally important points. The First is tactical and the second, strategic.
First,
let's address his tactics.
It's not
at all accidental that his tough criticism of Moscow coincided with a statement
by Bush about his intention to travel to Russia to discuss differences over
U.S.-Russian relations with outgoing President Vladimir Putin
. Both or them -
McCain and Bush - express the ideas of the political clan that still calls the
shots in American foreign policy, the neoconservatives. Despite the different
ways the two men express themselves, their philosophies on relations with
Russia are essentially the same: to weaken Russia, and if that's not possible,
to deter it (incidentally, we shouldn’t be carried away by Russian pride in
this regard - American policymakers are much more afraid of China).
It's
obvious that both of these statements constitute a single logical and tactical
step - to assert at the highest levels the inevitability of deploying an
anti-ballistic missile emplacement within Europe [in Poland and the Czech Republic ].
Bush
said in his speech, "I think a lot of
people in Europe would have a deep sigh of relief if we're able to reach an
accord on missile defense. And hopefully we can." By these comments, it's clear under what conditions
Bush will seek to conclude an agreement. This sounds rather nice when compared
to the tenor of McCain's remarks: "Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear
blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make it clear that the
solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that
the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the
defense of freedom."
The
meaning of this trick is simple. The Kremlin is being given a choice: Either
come to terms with Bush now, or later you will have to deal with McCain. The
current President said explicitly that this was to be the topic of discussion
in Sochi, when he seeks a "strategic
agreement" with Putin. It is clear that American strategists are pushing
their Moscow colleagues to strike an agreement with Bush about something, so
that they could avoid a situation where McCain could refuse to talk with a
"revanchist Russia" about anything.
Incidentally
in the same speech, McCain hasn’t merely promised to challenge Moscow, but to
enhance America's friendship with Beijing. It's hard to believe in the
sincerity of such friendship, but it does once again reaffirm that the purpose
of the speech was to give Russia the sense of being threatened. It's the
favorite good cop-bad cop game of investigators.
Americans
have played this game before, when in talks with Russia over the [now-defunct]
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the late 1990s-early 2000s. The outgoing
Clinton administration proposed amendments to the ABM
Treaty, wanting it to allow for the deployment of interceptor missiles in
Alaska, while the incoming Republicans who were about to occupy the White House
spoke of the need to break the treaty. As a result, the ABM
Treaty no longer exists.
The
Americans now blame the Russians for their prior intransigence - if Russia had
only agreed to amendments on Alaska, now there would be no problem in regard to
deploying missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. So today,
Russians are being asked to think again. Perhaps it's better to accept this
deployment than to worry about radar systems being erected in Kyrgyzstan and
interceptors in Georgia in more eight years? Which of course would never be
directed at Russia's strategic defense capabilities …
So here we propose to unravel
Bush's speech with the help of McCain's magic chants. Despite its strategic dimension,
this is still really a tactical maneuver.
McCain's
straightforwardness is truly strategic (which, as already mentioned, he will
have to retract if he is elected - but this doesn't matter here). This is the
quintessence the views of Washington's political establishment on relations
with Russia.
U.S.
specialists don't even conceal this fact. Just listen to Richard Holbrooke, who
advises Hillary Clinton; or Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is trying to conceal his
involvement with Barack Obama's team. They are Democrats, but the problem is
that they think the same way as Republican McCain. No, not on health care,
abortion, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the right to carry firearms -
God Forbid! - on these issues they are prepared to argue until they're hoarse.
But in regard to Russia (I dare say a marginal issue for American voters),
there is a complete consensus.
In the
severity of criticism of the Kremlin, even their public statements differ only
in degree. None of the Democratic candidates has said, "Senator, why be
afraid of Russia - it's our partner, almost an ally." Only the Presidents
themselves have occasionally spoken in these terms, sometimes at joint news conferences.
But in the end, these words are merely details of protocol, just like trips on
fishing boats and rides in electric golf carts. Missile interceptors will still
be installed in Poland - but under the Democrats, this will perhaps be done
less quickly, with more sophisticated reasoning, and with a less strident
expression of intent from the president.
And in
fact, what's the difference between the now universally-loved Democrat Bill
Clinton, who began the bombing of Yugoslavia in violation of the U.N. Charter,
and George Bush, who did the same thing in Iraq? Who is more appealing:
Madeleine Albright, who has said that missile interceptors in Alaska wouldn’t
be targeted at Russia but against North Korea; or Condoleezza Rice, who
supports the same idea but rather than in Alaska, in Poland - and against
Iran?
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
McCain's
victory in the U.S. presidential election would of course increase the friction
between Moscow and Washington. But for all his disadvantages, there would be no
more illusions about what we are dealing with. In the military style,
everything would be clear-cut and without diplomatic undertones, which are so
often charming and ambiguous. It is usually only later that there is
disappointment, and the confusion is blamed on the interpreters. As far as
Senator McCain's comments, any one in doubt can always re-read the text of his
March 26 speech from Los Angeles .
It can
be argued that sometimes, presidents have revelatory insights. Ronald Reagan,
for instance, the author of the term "evil empire" eventually became Russia's
best friend. This however, didn't prevent him from pushing this very
"empire" to collapse - and we admit, he did so quite successfully.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
The
question of continuity in U.S. foreign policy, at least with respect to Russia,
is inherently mush easier to maintain than it is for Russia in regard to the
United States. The words, of course, may differ - but action is always in one
in the same direction. You ask what political bias is worse - Republican or
Democratic? The two are equally as bad.
SEE ALSO:
Kommersant, Russia
For Russia, Obama's
the Best of a Bad Lot
http://worldmeets.us/kommersant000030.shtml
CLICK HERE FOR
RUSSIAN VERSION
[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US March
31, 7:05Am]
