President Vladimir Putin (1952- ), with US President George Bush the younger (1946- )
Dana Perino, the press secretary at the White House, reacting to news about possibility of Russian long-range bombers returning to Cuba in response to US plans to build elements of its ABM defence system in Poland and Czech Republic, said that America wants to work with Russia in that regard and is anxious to have strategic partnership with Moscow. Ms Perino is correct in calling the news hypothetical and that no Kremlin official made such a statement. She is also correct in saying that US president Bush repeatedly assured first, Vladimir Putin and, now, Dmitri Medvedev about his desire to work with the Russian leadership. The Kremlin shares those sentiments.
However, she failed to disclose what has hindered the establishment of a strategic partnership between Russia and the United States. Long before the current incumbent sat in the White House, President George Bush Sr and late Russian President Boris Yeltsin also spoke about a strategic partnership. But, establishing a strategic partnership between both countries has not gone beyond words; what’s more, American attitude toward the new democratic Russia remains unchanged, even after Moscow had offered a helping hand to Washington in the war on terror after the frightening attacks on America in 2001.
The US and NATO embarked on an eastwards enlargement of the military alliance, coming ever closer to Russian border, reneging on earlier promises not to do so. Moscow’s opposition was crudely brushed aside; now, America plans to build a radar base in the Czech Republic and site ten silos for ABM interceptors in Poland, again, contemptuous of Russian protests. Every alternative proposed by Russia in this matter was rejected out of hand.
Russia is not infallible. But, what has it done wrong to preclude a genuine strategic tie with America? Nothing prevents both nations from becoming real collaborators internationally, but, there is simple reason why all the good intentions of the US have not borne fruit. A few days ago, an American political scientist, Harvard University professor Stephen Cowen, put his finger on the reason. In an interview for C-Span, he said that America regards itself the winner of the cold war and pursues a high-hat imperial policy toward Russia. It’s hard to disagree with Professor Cowen’s conclusions. If it is to have a normal dialogue with Moscow, America should change its tone and talk to Russia as an equal and as the great power that it is, halt NATO enlargement, and work out an agreement on a common ABM defence system. Some people abroad might not like the professor’s words, but, such people should understand that strategic cooperation between Russia and America cannot be possible without mutual trust and taking into account each other’s national interests.
23 July 2008
Viktor Yenikeyev
Voice of Russia World Service
http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=30031&cid=56&p=23.07.2008 (in English)
Editor’s Note:
The US is near the end of its rope, both militarily and financially, due to the inane adventurism of George Bush. Ironically, the policy being followed is straight out of the playbook of Woodrow Wilson, with an interventionist and paternal attitude towards all foreign states.
Sadly, if the US forces were to meet a peer-force on the ground (i.e., Russia, China, or India) in a large-scale action on a continental scale, they would be defeated because they lack the training and the numbers necessary for such an operation (there are not enough “boots on the ground” to pacify Afghanistan, let alone a larger theatre). The US has not fought a large-scale war against a peer since 1945. It had best watch itself. The US Navy can only influence so much. I fervently hope that it shall not require a bloody defeat for the US to learn good-sense. No American boy deserves to die for “a bridge too far”.
