FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What Will Putin Say to Bush’s Posturing?

The widely publicised Russia-US friendship is crumbling. However, the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, refusal to sign an agreement on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons and even the surprise appearance of US troops in Georgia all look minor aberrations compared to the “chicken conflict” and the “steel war.” The top Russian officials try to calm down society saying that nothing terrible is going on, that these are merely minor economic issues that will not harm the strategic partner relations of the two countries. But it is becoming clear that the problem has a political and not merely economic roots.

The complaints which Russia and the USA are exchanging now are not a mere commercial dispute but a very harsh geopolitical confrontation. This time the USA does not see Russia as a serious adversary and it is showing this clearly, tactlessly and even with pleasure. One proof of this is the latest statement made by US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who said the problem of US chicken deliveries to Russia can darken the forthcoming meeting of the two presidents in Moscow. Translated from diplomatic parlance, this statement can be evaluated as blackmail. And the Americans actually do not pretend otherwise.

Boucher made his statement virtually simultaneously with the so-called information leak from the Pentagon.

The Los Angeles Times published a secret Pentagon report sent to the US Congress on January 8. It proceeds from that document that not only the countries of the “axis of evil” but also four other states can become targets for US nuclear weapons.

These four countries are China, Libya, Syria and Russia. The explanation for this potential pre-emptive strike, which means aggression against Russia, is very simple: Russia is no longer an adversary of the USA but the existence of a major nuclear arsenal in it presents a genuine threat to the USA. This is how the overseas “victims of international terrorism” plan to pursue their new policy of saving the civilisation and reinforcing their global domination.

It should be said that exactly six months passed since the September 11 tragedy in the USA, when the whole world shuddered at the terrorist act in Manhattan. It should be said that Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to express, by phone, not only condolences to but also support for President Bush. That support later took the practical form of assistance in the struggle against international terrorism and top US officials noted more than once that Russia’s contribution to the counter- terror operation was larger than the efforts of the NATO bloc as a whole.

The point at issue is not only the close collaboration of US and Russian special services (Russia could have limited itself to this kind of support) but also the fact that Russia allowed the USA to use its air space. Russia did not say a word against the US use of the airfields of Central Asian states. Russia provided serious military-technical assistance to the Northern Alliance.

Russia has closed its military bases in Cuba and Vietnam. In short, Russia was giving up its positions consistently and consciously, hoping that the words of the US administration about strategic partnership in the name of peace would have a practical continuation.

But what did Russia get in return? Even when the Americans admitted, at long last, that not only separatists but also international terrorists closely connected with Usama bin Laden are operating in Chechnya, US officials continued to divide terrorists into “good” and “bad.” They continued to say that Russia is not acting adequately in Chechnya. Russia’s “strategic partners” have not helped it to maintain high oil prices. The USA is still promising to cancel the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which has become badly outdated and which they invoked now in the chicken conflict.

In other words, the USA does not care whose rights are infringed upon in Russia, the rights of Jews or of chicken quarters. What is it, idiocy or American cynicism? On the other hand, knowing the pragmatism of US administrations, we can safely assume that the Americans coldly considered the step before taking it.

The unprecedented US egoism and slyness are outrageous, but we must admit that Russia has lost this geopolitical battle to the USA. And it did this largely because of its own political myopia. We have been saying to frequently and too loudly of late that we benefit from everything the Americans do. Given this evaluation of their actions, our Western “partners” became convinced of their infallibility and think that Russia will not only approve of but also support any US action. The “chicken conflict” looks out of place in this context. Even though the USA has conquered nearly the whole of the post-Soviet space and has put unprecedented pressure on Russia in virtually all spheres of foreign and domestic policy – in an extremely humiliating and harsh manner.

We are not going to analyse the motives and goals of the USA here. It is much more important for us to try to predict the reaction of the Russian authorities and above all President Putin to these latest developments. It is apparent that the Kremlin can no longer ignore US actions and cannot keep saying that nothing terrible is going on. In fact, a major blow has been delivered at the image of the Russian president and the Russian authorities surely pondered this possibility back when they decided to make a U-turn to the West. But we have neither the military nor the economic possibilities for an adequate reply.

We can speak only about a violation of moral principles, about political betrayal and brazen US neglect for written and oral agreements. But this will not save the day, especially for Putin. The worst reply of helpless Russia in this situation would be the tightening of screws at home in an attempt to compensate for foreign policy losses. So as to keep up one’s prestige for the forthcoming presidential elections. So as to prove to society – and above all to themselves – that the authorities can still control something. Especially in view of the external threat posed by the USA. Any other way of mending the situation would be much more complicated. Because it is linked with the unreliable “partner” who completely disregards the interests of Russia.

Lidia Andrusenko writes for Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail