“Europe should keep in mind that Russia protects it From an Islamic Deluge”

Natalia Narochnitskaya (1948- ), prominent Russian historian, anti-globalism activist, former diplomat and RF Gosduma deputy

Editor’s Foreword:

Fr Andrew Philips has an interesting article on his website Orthodox England drawn from the following article. I present a translation of the whole, to give it all in context. Thank you, Batushka Andrew, for leading me to this interesting piece! Without you, I would not have known of it!

***

A conference was held yesterday at the University of Complutense in Madrid, and Natalia Narochnitskaya, the head of the Russian Fund for the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris, was one of the most eminent participants. She warned the conference that she was worried concerning the Eurasian strategies of the USA, saying that she saw them as stratagems by which America was attempting to gain control of all global energy resources. In addition, she noted that “Europe was in decline due to its nihilism and lack of values” and that the European Union pursues a policy of “reviving ancient autonomies”. Ms Narochnitskaya, a former deputy of the RF Gosduma from the nationalist Rodina bloc in 2003-2008, a left-wing nationalist faction that became part of Prime Minister Putin’s party United Russia, is known for her views opposing globalisation and similar contemporary currents. Today, she submitted a report, From Historical Russia to Contemporary Russia, prepared by the Institute for Democracy and Development, which examines the image of Russia found in the Spanish press article, Russia Returns.

***

Interviewer:

Churchill once said of Russia: “Russia is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma”.

The Baptism of Grand Princess Olga (Part One of the Triptych “Holy Rus”) (Sergei Kirillov, 1993). This contemporary painting illustrates the ancient ties that Russia had with Constantinople New Rome. It is why we Russian Orthodox refuse to kowtow to the Pope of Rome and his megalomanic conceits.

Natalia Narochnitskaya:

Russia is charting its own course. Without a doubt, it is absolutely clear that Russia is an integral part of European civilisation, but, we should not see that as being restricted to only to its western currents. Russia is also the successor of [Constantinople New Rome]. The future of Russia is the future of Europe.

Interviewer:

Do you see Messrs Medvedev and Putin as the leaders [of this movement]?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

The West incessantly accuses us of a lack of separation of powers. However, today, we have a real separation of powers. We are speaking of two very strong leaders.

Interviewer:

Would you bet that Mr Putin will be the president in 2012?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

That is not my decision.

Interviewer:

Could the present economic crisis cause a new revolution in Russia in the 21^st century?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

No, Russia is finished with revolutions. Today, the Communist Party is fully incorporated into the political system of the country.

Interviewer:

Can a democracy on the Western model exist in Russia?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

In the West, the word “democracy” implies a philosophy of liberal democracy. In Russia, we see it differently. Not so long ago, we conducted an opinion poll to find out what [the Russian public] considers an unpardonable offence. 92 percent of respondents answered that “Treason to the Motherland” was such an offence. We have a different definition for democracy than you do.

Interviewer:

Why is there no pluralism in the Russian political system?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

Indeed, we do lack pluralism in that sense of the word, as Western-influenced liberals described it in the 90’s. Russians placed high hopes on them, but, they discredited themselves. Today, Russians identify them as the enemies of the people.

Interviewer:

Are Russians nostalgic for their [lost] empire?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

Russians understand that, in the absence of a strong Russia, a new Roman Empire, which is founded on a heap of printed dollars, is now bombing other countries. Faced with such a threat, we turn to our experience. Furthermore, because of its size and uneven development, Russia must have a sphere of influence, otherwise Russia would collapse. Today, Russia is ready to ensure that it will exert more power than in Soviet times.

Interviewer:

What do you think à propos the new “emperor”, Barack Obama?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

Today, the American political élite very much need Mr Obama, as they are attempting to rebuild their ambitions, which were undermined by Mr Bush.

Interviewer:

Between 1982 and 1989, you worked in the UN Secretariat. What are your impressions of the United States?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

The United States represents a civilisation that is devoid of culture. However, Americans are a nice, receptive, and surprisingly innocent people. However, a very strong ideology impels them, and their greed for the almighty dollar generates a predatory instinct in them vis-à-vis their relation to the rest of the world.

Interviewer:

What is the main problem facing Russia?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

The demographic crisis.

Russian Orthodox faithful at services, at communion

Interviewer:

Today, it seems that “Holy Russia” is being reborn. Once again, the churches are filled with people…

Ms Narochnitskaya:

In contemporary Russia, the words of Jesus Christ are more powerful than the words of Trotsky and Lenin. Today, in Russia, former Komsomol members go on pilgrimages to holy places.

Interviewer:

Are Russia and Europe condemned to misunderstanding because of energy disputes? Is it causing a new “cold war” today?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

No, the discussion has not led to a so-called “cold war”. Rather, the EU is agitated because it understands all-too-well its dependence on Russian [energy supplies]. Of course, the EU would rather have Russia dependent upon it, but, we should aim to have our relations reasonably interdependent, although there are questions that unite us and there are disputes that separate us.

Interviewer:

You described the conflict in Chechnya as a “criminal revolt”. What do you think about the fact that the largest mosque in Europe was built in Chechnya?

Ms Narochnitskaya:

I think that Europe should keep in mind that Russia protects it from an Islamic deluge.

26 May 2009

ABC.es

As quoted in Narochnitskaya.ru

http://narochnitskaia.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?item=1r300r090601130700 (in Russian)

Editor’s Afterword:

In his recent trip abroad, US President Obama had the gall to lecture both Prime Minister Putin and Pope Benedict. Needless to say, neither man was impressed by the American popinjay. In fact, Mr Putin went from meeting Mr Obama to a meeting with Russian bikers, who were preparing to go on a mass bike rally in the Ukraine to celebrate the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the liberation of Sevastopol in the 2^nd Great Patriotic War. Mr Obama bleated about how “spheres of influence should not exist in the modern age”. Well, Vova gave the bikers a large Russian flag to fly during their motorcade through Little Russia.  Bully for Vladimir Vladimirovich! By his actions, he told that posturing American loud and clear, didn’t he? (Pope Benedict didn’t give in to The Greatest Hope of All Time either. I doubt that BO shall get the message, though. His messianic and self-righteous sort is DENSE.)

From the above, it is clear that Ms Narochnitskaya shares Mr Putin’s views completely. In fact, it is a point-of-view shared by virtually all educated Russians, save for a small minority that is in thrall to Western notions. Americans should shake themselves loose and SEE what is happening. Messrs Obama and Biden (the latter was in my area on Thursday last saying such to the true believers) are both croaking, “Recovery is just down the road!” If you believe that one, boy-oh-boy, do I have a wonderful one-owner bridge just for you!

Remember… iniquity and lies only triumph when we are quiescent. The truth SHALL set you free…

Obama “Ready to Drop Missile Shield Plans in Return for Russian Help on Iran”

US President Barack Obama (1961- ) and President Dmitri Medvedev (1965- ). Is the era of neocon sabre-rattling and hubris over? God willing it is… it is in Mr Obama’s hands now… shall he stay the course?

Washington told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran’s nuclear programme would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources. US President Barack Obama made the proposal on Iran in a letter to his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev, Kommersant said, referring to unidentified US officials. Iran’s controversial nuclear programme was cited by the US as one of the reasons behind its plans to deploy a missile base in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic. The missile shield was strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as a threat to its national security. The dispute has strained relations between the former Cold War rivals, already tense over a host of other differences. The leaders exchanged letters and had a telephone conversation since Mr Obama was sworn into office in January, Kommersant said. The first high-level Russia-US meeting will take place later this week, when Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva. Moscow has not yet responded to the proposal by President Obama, the paper said, adding that a decision was unlikely to be made during the meeting of Mr Lavrov and Mrs Clinton.

The issue is likely to be discussed when Presidents Obama and Medvedev meet in London on 2 April on the sidelines of the G20 summit of world leaders to address the financial crisis. Earlier reports said Mr Medvedev had also invited the US leader to visit Russia and the date of Mr Obama’s first visit to the largest country in the world could be announced in the British capital. In an interview on Sunday with Spanish media, Mr Medvedev said he hoped to discuss the issue of missile defence with Mr Obama in London. He also said he hoped the new US administration would display a “more creative approach” to the issue than its predecessors. “We have received signals from our American colleagues”, Mr Medvedev said. “I expect those signals will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with US President Barack Obama”.

The United States and other Western nations suspect Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is purely aimed at generating electricity. However, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Mr Obama has stated a preference for diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute. U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on NBC television on Sunday that the Islamic Republic was not close to building a nuclear bomb. “They’re not close to a stockpile, they’re not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time”, Mr Gates said. He also said that the while more sanctions should be imposed against Iran, the door should not be closed to diplomacy.

2 March 2009

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090302/120375219.html (in English)

The Expulsion of the Super-Hawks

Vice President Richard Cheney of the Bush Administration was wheeled out of the White House last January. Symbolic, isn’t it? He was followed out by his team-mates, the super-hawks who had for eight straight years been mapping out US policy. Judging by what the Obama Administration did on arrival in the White House; their departure was one of the most important results of last year’s presidential election. George W. Bush was taken hostage by a closely-knit group of neo-conservative friends whose political creed was defined in the late 1990s. Their initially-classified manifesto for the new American century advised Washington to use force without paying attention to the United Nations and allied countries. It said it was up to the United States to make decisions on the use of force in, for example, attempts to overthrow unfriendly governments. Allies of the United States of America were simply expected to tag along. Their manifesto was co-authored by then Defence Secretary Dick Cheney, would-be Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a close friend of George W. Bush’s, Paul Wolfowitz.

It was, since 2002, known as the national defence strategy of the Bush Administration, or, simply, the Bush doctrine. It rests on three main pillars, unsurpassed military superiority, a concept of preventive warfare that allows America to take military action before the USA happens to come under attack, and willingness to counterbalance unsuccessful attempts to forge alliances with unilateral efforts. This brain-child of the Bush-Cheney team was handed down to the Obama Administration. It has not been rejected formally, which is why, the principle of political continuity says, it remains a working document. What the Obama Administration decides to do with it poses quite an important question.

Another thing the Obama Administration has inherited from the string-pulling Cheney team is the lost war in Iraq. Orders for the invasion of Iraq, which placed an unbearable burden on the US economy and helped trigger off the economic crisis, were given by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Vice President Cheney never tired of insisting on continued warfare. Mr Cheney wanted to cash in on the war in Iraq because, with Saddam Hussein dead and gone, his Halliburton Corporation would assume control of large fields of Iraqi oil. The super-hawks, who nested on Washington’s Mount Olympus, bear moral responsibility for those changes for the worse in Russian-US relations which left a negative imprint on the global situation.

What seemed to have sunk into oblivion, the words “Cold War”, were brought back to life by Mr Cheney, whose Vilnius address of about three years ago is, stylistically and as a matter of fact, a relic of the Cold War. Vice President Cheney’s Vilnius address spelled the first, although not the last, top-level attempt to meddle in the internal affairs of Russia and an unvarnished verbal attack on that country. The infamous departure of the incomparable Bush-Cheney Administration wrote the finis to abortive efforts to realise the neo-conservative agenda. I do hope that the politically-disconnected relics of the Cold War were, together with the politically-bankrupt Dick Cheney, wheeled out of the American corridors of power. I do not think I will have to wait long before I see whether the Obama Administration is really capable of pressing the reset button in politics and adding an element of constructiveness to the policies of the United States.

20 February 2009

Valentin Zorin

A View from Moscow

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40858&cid=170&p=20.02.2009 (in English)

Who Is To Blame?

Alan Greenspan (1926- ), former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve System. He is only a scapegoat, the real culprits were Bush and Cheney. Thank you, George and Richard! We just LOVE the prosperity you bequeathed us!

Policymakers and political columnists identified the man who bears the blame for the perilous condition of the American and the global economy. 82-year-old Alan Greenspan, who spent a decade-and-a-half at the helm of the Federal Reserve System of the United States, was assigned the role of the scapegoat. An influential American magazine covering money and capital investment, Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, blames the financial bubble which burst to trigger off the crisis entirely on Mr Greenspan. Alan Greenspan opens the culprits’ list of the British Guardian. Financial darling of three Presidents of the United States, Mr Greenspan doubtlessly bears his share of blame for the irresponsible and dangerous moves which resulted in the current crisis. So does money-grubbing Wall Street. But, it would be unwise and improper to put all the blame on the handful of people whose names were listed in this negative context by the western media. It is not intentional or unintentional moves by certain individuals, but, rather, a chance combination of a few important factors that triggered off the crisis.

Current developments show that the unbearable burden of the arms race played the biggest role in this chance combination of several factors. A refusal to spend billions of dollars on a drawn-out arms race is what enabled the Clinton administration to hand a definitely surplus budget down to George W. Bush. It is considered bad manners on the banks of the Potomac to discuss the uncalled-for U-turn that the Bush-Cheney team was quick to execute for the purpose of re-starting the arms race. It is important to point out, though, that military spending ballooned two years before the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and three years before the invasion of Iraq and the beginning of full-scale action in Afghanistan. The Bush administration decided to re-start the arms race before launching any antiterrorist action; it was used as a smokescreen for this arms race.

US military spending grew 62 percent under the Bush administration. No other administration of the post-World War II years allocated so much money for the Pentagon. The military spending of the United States tops the sum total of the military budgets of all other nations taken together. As a result, the surplus budget of the pre-Bush years gave way to a steadily growing budget deficit. Because of the reckless attitude of the Bush-Cheney team, the United States started living on borrowed money. Its 10 trillion dollar (351.939 trillion roubles. 7.816 trillion euros. 6.999 trillion UK pounds) public debt will weigh down as a heavy burden on this and, experts say, at least two more generations of Americans. With billions of dollars disappearing in the black hole of two wars, there was no way to avert the crisis.

The bankrupt Republican administration chose a very special way to show its friendly regard to those who would bow it out of the White House. What it made sure to do before bowing out was to saddle the Obama administration with a mammoth 3 trillion dollar (105.582 trillion roubles. 2.345 trillion euros. 2.1 trillion UK pounds) budget for 2009. More than half a trillion dollars (17.597 trillion roubles. 391 billion euros. 350 billion UK pounds) is meant for the Pentagon. In other words, the arms race is to continue. It was said at the Senate hearings into this year’s budget that the first thing the administration to come would have to do is clear the mess left by the outgoing team. Will President Obama be able to clear this mess? Will he agree to do what his predecessor expects him to do, continue an arms race that threatens the world and weighs down, as an unbearable burden, on the American economy? The course of domestic and international developments depends, in a great measure, on his answer to that question.

14 February 2009

Valentin Zorin

A View from Moscow

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40548&cid=170&p=14.02.2009 (in English)

US Military Suicides Spiked In January

American troops in Afghanistan. These men are stretched to the limits and war-weary. They deserve better. BRING THEM HOME FROM THIS POINTLESS WAR.

Reportedly, the US Army is investigating a stunning number of military suicides in January, a count that could exceed all combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan last month. According to figures obtained by the Associated Press, there were 24 suspected suicides in January, compared to only four in January 2008, six in January 2007 and 10 in January 2006. Annual suicide rates have been rising steadily since 2004 largely believed to be due to increasing stress on the force from long and repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Army has rarely, if ever, released a month-by-month update on suicides, but, officials said this week that they wanted to re-emphasise “the urgency and seriousness necessary for preventive action at all levels” of the force.

In announcing the 2008 figures last week, the US Army said it would hold special training later this month to help troops recognise suicidal behaviours and to intervene if they see such behaviour in a comrade-in-arms. After that, the US Army also plans a suicide prevention program for all soldiers from the top of the chain of command down. But, Army Secretary Pete Geren appeared to be stumped by the spiralling number of suicide cases in the US Army. Clearly, the relentless rise in suicides has frustrated the service, coming despite numerous attempts to stem the tide through additional suicide prevention training, the hiring of more psychiatrists and other mental health staff, and other programs both at home and at the battlefront for troops and their families.

Whilst the active-duty military force is expanding, the rate of suicides is growing even faster among all four services, a phenomenon that has alarmed defence officials as stress on service members builds with the US deployment in Iraq nearing the six-year mark. Army Brigadier General Loree Sutton told NBC News that active-duty service members were under tremendous strain. “They have lost buddies. They have been exposed to the most corrosive environment known to warfare, physically, psychologically, spiritually, and morally”, General Sutton said. Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told the New York Times ruefully, “In January, we lost more soldiers to suicide than to Al Qaeda. If we lost this many soldiers to an enemy weapon, the entire country would know about it and we would demand defensive measures”. But, the problem of dealing with men and women in uniform that are obviously overextended and overstressed has yet to be addressed.

6 February 2009

Yuri Reshetnikov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=40087&cid=87&p=06.02.2009 (in English)

******

Below is the AP article referenced by Mr Reshetnikov. Read it and weep. This is due to the evil of the neocons, who were allowed to run amuck in the Clinton and Bush II administrations. There is a special cold place in Hell for such people, I am sure.

******

Army Suicides at Record High, Passing Civilian Rate

Stressed by war and long overseas tours, US soldiers killed themselves last year at the highest rate on record, the toll rising for a fourth straight year and even surpassing the suicide rate among comparable civilians. Army leaders said they were doing everything they could think of to curb the deaths and appealed for more mental health professionals to join and help out. At least 128 soldiers committed suicide in 2008, the Army said Thursday. The final count is likely to be even higher because 15 more suspicious deaths are still being investigated. “Why do the numbers keep going up? We cannot tell you”, said Army Secretary Pete Geren. “We can tell you that across the Army we’re committed to doing everything we can to address the problem”.

It’s all about pressure and the military approach, said Kim Ruocco, 45, whose Marine husband was an officer and Cobra helicopter pilot who hanged himself in a California hotel room in 2005. That was one month before he was to return to Iraq a second time. She said her husband, John, had completed 75 missions in Iraq and was struggling with anxiety and depression but felt he’d be letting others down if he sought help and couldn’t return. “He could be any Marine because he was highly decorated, stable, the guy everyone went to for help”, Ruocco said in a telephone interview. “But, the thing is … the culture of the military is to be strong no matter what and not show any weakness”. Ruocco, of Newbury MA, was recently hired to be suicide support coordinator for the non-profit Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors. She said she feels that the military has finally started to reach out to suicide survivors and seek solutions. “Things move slowly, but, I think they’re really trying”, Ruocco said.

At the Pentagon on Thursday, Colonel Elspeth Ritchie, a psychiatric consultant to the Army surgeon general, made a plea for more professionals to sign on to work for the military. “We are hiring and we need your help”, she said. Military leaders promised fresh prevention efforts will start next week.

The new suicide figure compares with 115 in 2007 and 102 in 2006, and is the highest since current record-keeping began in 1980. Officials expect the deaths to amount to a rate of 20.2 per 100,000 soldiers, which is higher than the civilian rate, when adjusted to reflect the Army’s younger and male-heavy demographics, for the first time in the same period of record-keeping. Officials have said that troops are under unprecedented stress because of repeated and long tours of duty due to the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yearly increases in suicides have been recorded since 2004, when there were 64, only about half the number now. Officials said they found that the most common factors were soldiers suffering problems with their personal relationships, legal or financial issues, and problems on the job.

But, the magnitude of what the troops are facing in combat shouldn’t be forgotten, said Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA), a former Navy vice admiral, who noted he spoke with a mother this week whose son was preparing for his fifth combat tour. “This is a tough battle that the individuals are in over there”, Sestak said. “It’s unremitting every day”. Said Dr Paul Ragan, an associate professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University and a former Navy psychiatrist, “Occasional or sporadic visits by military mental health workers are like a Band-Aid for a gushing wound”.

The statistics released Thursday cover soldiers who killed themselves while they were on active duty, including National Guard and Reserve troops who had been activated. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the suicide rate for US society overall was about 11 per 100,000 in 2004, the latest year for which the agency has figures. But, the Army says the civilian rate is more like 19.5 per 100,000 when adjusted. An earlier report showed the Marine Corps recorded 41 possible or confirmed suicides in 2008, about 19 per 100,000 troops. The military’s numbers don’t include deaths after people have left the services. The Department of Veterans Affairs tracks those numbers and says there were 144 suicides among the nearly 500,000 service members who left the military from 2002-2005 after fighting in at least one of the two ongoing wars.

29 January 2009

Pauline Jelinek

Kimberly Hefling

Associated Press

As Quoted in Yahoo News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides (in English)

Editor’s Note:

This is what the neocons have done to America. Shame on them! Do not forget the cost of their Orwellian doubletalk and ambitions. Let no more “common Joes” die for their perverse pride and hubris.

This is grim. This is evil. This is beyond all words. That is to say, the neocons are absolutely immoral and malevolent. They deserve to be placed up against the nearest wall and shot dead without mercy or remorse. However, a word or two on this noisome tribe is in order.

Firstly, they are not conservatives, not in the least. They are called such by a sector of the American left that calls all who oppose them “conservatives”, whether they are such or not. No, this squalid lot of butchers has its roots in Wilsonian Interventionist Idealism, the farthest thing from conservatism that can be imagined. Woodrow Wilson was the most evil man of the New Dark Ages of the 20^th Century (“New Dark Ages”, one of the best terms to come from A. I. Solzhenitsyn. Thank you, Aleksandr Isaevich!). Why? He was the Pandora that opened the box that set free the demons of that benighted century. If Wilson had not intervened in the Great War, for no American interest was at stake, the rise of the Reds and the Nazis would have been averted. The massacre of the Jews would have never occurred. Europe would still be the home of three great continental empires and the overseas empires of France, Britain, and Portugal would still be in place (after seeing Zimbabwe, one has to admit that this would not be an altogether bad thing, wot?).

Secondly, the neocons are, in effect, arguing for an American imperium throughout the world, with the USA having a veto over all global affairs. Our American soldiers are mere pawns in their eyes. Like all liberals, they do not care to count the human cost of their pipedream nostrums. “It’s only light casualties”. Yes… “light casualties”… that means that some family somewhere is burying a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, and/or mother. To be blunt, the military actions of the US since 1991 did not justify the sacrifice of one life, either American or foreign. True, there are terrorists, but, since they are not embodied in a state structure, they are virtually immune to the usual run of military action. Rooting out terrorists requires long and patient effort in concert with overseas partners to effectively stamp out the menace. Simply placing an American puppet in place as a client and calling the resulting situation “democracy” (see Karzai’s comic-opera régime in Afghanistan, its writ does not even run to the near-suburbs of Kabul) shall not turn the trick.

That is, Americans must return to an earlier and saner time, when the USA was not intent on “exporting” its ideology. The system of government found in the US can only function under specific conditions, conditions that are mostly lacking elsewhere. If others choose other paths, that is their prerogative. In any case, aren’t the neocons and their political enablers always mewling about “freedom”? Indeed, freedom means that a country can reject American nostrums… hmm…

Russia Hopes for More Fruitful Collaboration with Washington in the UN under the Obama Administration

Vitaly Churkin (1952- ), Russian Ambassador to the United Nations

Russia hopes for more fruitful cooperation with the United States in the UN under the Obama Administration. Vitaly Churkin, the permanent envoy of Russia to the UN, said as much in an interview with RIA-Novosti news agency and the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. His statements show that Moscow pins certain hopes on the accession to power of the new US president. This pertains to both bilateral and multilateral relations. Unfortunately, under the Bush Administration, Moscow and Washington did not search for consensus on key international issues at the United Nations, but, it was often turned into a rostrum for proclaiming unilateral US decisions and anti-Russian rhetoric.

The US aggression against Iraq and its recognition of the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo were the most scandalous examples of complete disregard for the UN Charter and international law. Washington did what it could to block Russia’s draft resolution on the prevention of the militarization of outer space. The former US administration wanted to have “a free hand” in placing elements of US anti-missile system in near-Earth orbit. In every possible way, Washington opposed the adoption of Russian draft resolutions on the need to oppose contemporary forms of Neo-Nazism and racism. The United States supported the governments of the Ukraine, Latvia, and Estonia when they encouraged these amoral manifestations in their countries. Likewise, contrary to facts and common sense, the Bush Administration came out in support of Georgian president Saakashvili when he unleashed a war against South Ossetia. In addition, Washington condemned Russia, which curbed the aggressor and saved from extinction the people of South Ossetia and neighbouring Abkhazia. There were other cases when the Bush Administration took an anti-Russian stance in the United Nations guided by its selfish interests.

At present, judging by the statements of President Obama and his team, Russia and the United States have a real chance of rejecting confrontation and achieving close and fruitful cooperation, including in the United Nations. The White House announced a pullout of a substantial number of US troops from Iraq this year. President Obama has not stepped up the creation of US anti-missile defence system in Europe, an idea that Russia opposes. However, Moscow would like to remind Washington that its suggestions of cooperation with the United States and Europe in the field remain in force. If Washington depends on diplomacy, not the use of force, if it relies not on unilateral, but, multi-lateral action, accommodating interests of other countries, it is bound to get Russia’s understanding and support. This also pertains to efforts aimed at enhancing the role, prestige, and efficiency of the United Nations.

2 February 2009

Viktor Yenikeyev

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=rus&q=100436&cid=19&p=02.02.2009 (in Russian)

Pervy Kanal TV Reports that Presidents Medvedev and Obama are to Meet Soon

US President Barack Obama (1961- ) and President Dmitri Medvedev (1965- )

On Monday, the Russian and US presidents, Dmitri Medvedev and Barack Obama, agreed during a telephone conversation to hold a bilateral meeting in the near future, Pervy Kanal (Channel One) television reported. “The [Russian] president congratulated Barack Obama on his inauguration and wished him every success”, the report said. “The sides confirmed their readiness to make every effort to restore the potential of Russian-US relations”. Mr Obama was sworn in as the 44^th president of the United States on Tuesday in Washington, becoming the country’s first African-American head of state.

Earlier, the Russian business newspaper Kommersant said, citing a source close to the US State Department, that Mr Obama could pay a visit to Moscow in April. According to the source, Mr Obama will set off for his first European tour in April and is to visit London on 2 April to participate in the G20 summit, where he will meet with Mr Medvedev for the first time. Mr Obama will then attend a NATO summit on April 3-4 in Strasbourg, France and Kehl, Germany to mark the 60^th anniversary of the military alliance. The source told Kommersant that Mr Obama could fly to Moscow after the summit. The previous US president, George W. Bush, flew to the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi after last year’s NATO summit in Bucharest.

26 January 2009

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090126/119808835.html (in English)

Ukrainian President Yushchenko May Attack the Gas Agreement with Russia

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Timoshenko (1960- )

On Friday, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko failed to hold a meeting of the National Defence and Security Council, a meeting that was due to have focused on the agreement Prime Minister Yuliya Timoshenko signed concerning gas deliveries from Russia. Mr Yushchenko is known to have levelled scathing criticism at the contracts that the Ukraine signed with Russia. Mr Yushchenko claims the contracts are not in the best interests of the Ukraine.

But, then, he wasn’t expected to comment on Prime Minister Timoshenko’s moves in any other way, commented Ukrainian political analyst Mikhail Pogrebinsky. He went on to say, “President Yushchenko sees Ms Timoshenko as his chief political opponent. So, even if she had reached agreement on free gas supplies from Russia to the Ukraine, he would have still found fault with it, all the same. He would have insisted that free gas implied the betrayal of national interests on some other point. So, during the forthcoming meeting of the National Defence and Security Council, President Yushchenko is expected to criticise the agreement. Indeed, Ukrainian and Russian experts describe the fact that this year’s average price for Russian gas for the Ukraine is less than 250 dollars as some kind of miracle. But, it’s not customary in the Ukraine to show pleasure in successful moves by one’s political opponent, given that the country is going through an overwrought political situation”.

Quite an artillery preparation is being laid on in the run-up to the meeting of the National Defence and Security Council, with the President’s faction claiming that Ms Timoshenko actually betrayed the national interests of the Ukraine. She is asked questions that actually look more like accusations, but, these charges lack a basis in fact. One such question is, “Is it true that Gazprom’s Ukrainian subsidiary received 25 percent of the Ukraine’s gas market, as well as Prime Minister Timoshenko’s authorisation to supply gas only to the companies with Russian capital, moreover, at lower prices than to other Ukrainian consumers? Is this not a factor in promoting Russian political interests?” Mr Yushchenko’s supporters claim that all of this is allegedly set down in secret agreements between Ms Timoshenko and the Kremlin.

There is another question posed by the Prime Minister’s critics that is nothing but an attempt to confuse the issue. “Is it true that an agreement was reached in Moscow on coordination of action in launching a large-scale attack on President Yushchenko?” The counter-question that immediately comes to mind is, “Why should they do that? In order to drop Mr Yushchenko’s popularity rating from 2 percent down to 1 percent?” Well… truly… no politician with that kind of approval rating is worth the risks of a large-scale political attack.

All signs indicate that a meeting of the Ukrainian National Defence and Security Council fell through because President Yushchenko failed to muster sufficient support for his unfounded accusations of Prime Minister Timoshenko. Meanwhile, the current political strife in the Ukraine may further damage European energy security. Indeed, if the Ukrainian Security Council vetoes the gas agreements with Russia, Europe will again fall victim to a Ukrainian gas blockade.

24 January 2009

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=rus&q=99218&cid=19&p=24.01.2009 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Yushchenko’s goose is truly and definitively cooked to a crisp. No matter which way he turns, it is to the benefit of Yuliya Timoshenko, the foremost land-shark in world politics today (and she beats the competition handily… no, Hillary is not in her league… not ruthless enough). If he goes along with the agreement, Yuliya gets the credit; for, after all, she negotiated it. If he opposes the agreement, Yuliya gets the credit for putting down a rabid dog. If he does nothing, Yuliya still gets the credit, for she has been plastered all over the media, and everyone knows that she pulled the family jewels out of the fire.

In short, Yuliya gets all the goodies. “She stuck in her thumb, and pulled out a plum, saying, ‘Oh, what a good girl am I’”. Yushchenko gets the cardboard box… no, he doesn’t even get that, which is sorry enough. Everybody knows that he is a “dead man walking”, and all the bets are on how long it shall take for Yuliya to take him down. Yushchenko has lost his American sugar daddy, George W. Bush, and the Obama administration has suspended most of the agreements that Bush penned with the countries of the Near Abroad. One must feel sorry for this pathetic character. He truly believes that he can pull it off. If there is a better illustration of the Führerbunker mentality, I don’t know it. Let his political end come quickly, to spare everyone prolonged pain and grief…

Barack Obama: The Hyperactive President

US President Barack Obama (1961- )

The newly-elected US President, Barack Obama, demonstrated hyperactivity as he rushed to perform his duties immediately after moving into the White House. Right from his very first hours in his capacity as President, Mr Obama exerted every effort to distance himself from the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr Obama made it crystal-clear that his policies will mark a new era for America. The New York Times wrote in the wake of his inaugural speech and his first decisions that President Obama proclaimed new values and wants the Bush administration to be forgotten as quickly as possible.

The new president ordered all resolutions and projects of the previous administration suspended until they have been carefully examined by the new Cabinet. The relevant decree came just hours after the swearing-in ceremony. Next, he stated that since the US government had long acted under the cover of inordinate secrecy, he would try to make it more open. Civil servants were rushed to act faster in supplying information on the requests filed, and, after freezing the wages of top officials, the president launched an open campaign against lobbyists.

As for foreign policy, Mr Obama’s first step was to suspend for 120 days all US prosecution proceedings in Guantánamo in Cuba. By this, President Obama made it clear that he meant to act on his election promises. He phoned the leaders of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Autonomy, and pledged serious aid in promoting an Arab-Israeli settlement. The new president also held the first meeting of the US State Department on foreign policy priorities. Attending the meeting were Vice-President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who can get down to working on an official basis after her candidacy has been approved by the Senate. Some reports say that Mrs Clinton may visit Moscow soon, and that President Obama shall follow suit afterwards. Neither President Medvedev nor the Foreign Ministry confirmed the reports.

The current hyperactivity demonstrated by the new US president stems from the fact that, unlike his predecessors, he is pressed for time and can’t afford to lose it. The longer he postpones addressing urgent economic and political issues, the worse they will become. The most important thing is to proceed cautiously to avoid mistakes. As for Mr Obama’s attempts to make it clear that his rule marks a new era in the history of America and will send the years of George Bush’s rule into oblivion, the targets seem fairly difficult to meet. The new president has yet to prove his ambitions have ground to stand on. Moreover, the previous leader left such a miserable legacy that the nation is highly unlikely to forget it all in the near future.

23 January 2009

Andrei Ptashnikov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=39271&cid=87&p=23.01.2009 (in English)

The Fanfares Are Over, Mr Obama Gets Down To Work

US President Barack Obama (1961- )

The inaugural fanfares are now over, so, Barack Obama, the 44^th President of the United States, is getting down to work on the foreign policy issues expected to feature prominently during the first months of his presidency. Naturally, what worries Americans most is the worsening impact of the global crisis on their own well-being. But, they are not the only ones in trouble. The fact that the crisis has global proportions proves that everything in our world is interconnected. The same is true of international politics and how it influences the life of people across the globe. Few doubt the importance of Russian-American relations in international affairs. What are they going to be like under President Obama? Up to now, his statements about Russia were rather vague, although he did say that relations should improve.

The new US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was more specific. In a speech at the Congress following her nomination for the post, she dwelt at length on the prospects of Russian-US relations. A bit earlier, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov did the same at a press conference in Moscow. To make it more descriptive, let’s compare the two countries’ positions on key points. Here are some “general remarks” first. In Mr Lavrov’s words, “Russia hopes that there will be a drastic improvement in US policy and that there will be honest cooperation”. Mrs Clinton said much the same thing, pointing up that the Obama Administration was ready for constructive cooperation, above all on strategic stability and security, but, would stand up for American values. Well, who is against that as long as these values aren’t imposed on others?

In the sphere of disarmament, Russia wants “more specific and constructive talks about a new regime to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, or START, which expires at the end of this year, whilst Washington intends to discuss further weapons cuts within the START framework. Speaking about current regional conflicts, Mr Lavrov said they should be handled through the joint efforts of Russia, the United States, and Europe, something Mrs Clinton didn’t deny. In regards to anti-missile defence, Moscow firmly opposed plans by the Bush Administration to deploy missile defence components in Europe. Mr Obama does not seem, however, to share Mr Bush’s enthusiasm on the issue. Moreover, one of his military advisers has made it clear that Russian interests would have to be taken into account. So far, the foreign policy approaches outlined by the Obama Administration give rise to cautious optimism. How long this optimism will last remains to be seen.

21 January 2009

Andrei Ptashnikov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=39155&cid=56&p=21.01.2009 (in English)