Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Kind of 'Resetting' That Russia Needs

The Kind of 'Resetting' That Russia Needs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by Chuck Thornton

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Chuck Thornton on Oct 22, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The Kind of 'Resetting' That Russia NeedsMoscowVoyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer14 Oct 09by Vyacheslav DashichevSenior Research Fellow of the Center for International Economic and PoliticalStudies of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of SciencesAfter Barack Obama’s rise to power, there has been talk about a “resetting” ofrelations between the United States and Russia. The term, “resetting”, was putinto use by the new American administration. There were weighty reasons for that.During the Bush administration, Russian-American relations reached such a highlevel of tension that this period was reminiscent of the era of the Cold War. Theruling circles of the United States have come to understand that they went too farin their anti-Russian policy, which pushed Russia away from Europe and prompted itto seek salvation in alliance with the rising super-power, China.The systemic crisis of capitalism and the fall of the dollar as the reservecurrency put American supremacy in the world into question. All of that had to bereflected in the policy of the United States toward Russia. Why should it comedown on Moscow so hard? Wouldn’t it be better to replace the tactics and methodsof the anti-Russian policy? Wouldn’t it be better to try to attach Russia to theAmerican cart by “indirect means”? That task has also be laid on Obama, with hischarming smile and sweet speeches.But lip service alone will not manage to bring about a “resetting”. A serious re-assessment of the “values” and goals of American policy is necessary for that.First of all, it is necessary that it be freed from the syndrome of supremacy overnations. For this purpose, the new American administration must unambiguouslydisassociate itself from the “Project for the New American Century”, which waselaborated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other “neo-cons”, and which becamethe foreign policy program of the Bush administration. The anti-Russian course ofthe United States is also an integral part of this “project”. But, to allappearances, the Obama administration does not intend to renounce it.In her programmed foreign policy speech of 15 July 2009, Hillary Clinton, U. S.Secretary of State, emphasized that the United States will continue its adherenceto the concept of absolute world leader. At all times, the policy of supremacy,now camouflaged as leadership, has been the most destructive and dangerous factorin international relations and it served as the main source of wars. The hegemonyof the United States under George W. Bush brought instability and conflicts to thewhole world. Immorality, amorality, and cynical deception were the hallmarks ofthis course. It was aimed at the ruination of the sovereignty of countries andtheir state-forming nations, which were supposed to yield to a “multi-culturalsociety” of the American type. That is, national states were declared to have goneout of fashion.In order to stop being the “disturber of tranquility” in the world, it isnecessary for the United States to stop acting as a messianic power, falselybelieving that it has been called upon to teach the other nations how they mustlive. Attempts cannot be made to carry the Western values of democracy, freedom ofthe individual, and the “American way of life” everywhere. Wouldn’t it be betterto adhere to the well-known principle: “Live and let others live?”
The principles of ethics and morality are incomparably more important for theinternational community. Without them, there can be no genuine freedom and humanrights just as there can be no honest policy, free from deception andprovocations. Deception and provocations have become the norm of the behavior ofthe United States in the international arena.It is necessary for the United States to stop being the leader of the world armsrace. The first and unjustified use by the United States of nuclear weaponsagainst Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, when the Second World War waspractically over, was immoral in the highest degree. This cruel, inhumane act costthe lives of more than 250,000 Japanese citizens. Thus, the arms race wasunleashed. The share of the United States of world military expenditures is morethan 50 percent. It has become the “world blacksmith” for new, deadly types ofweapons. The military bases of the United States are located in 130 countries. Atthe same time, there is no threat whatsoever to the national security of theUnited States! Then why the super-weapons? They are necessary to the Americanruling class for the establishment of supremacy in the world.Obama set forth an initiative for nuclear disarmament and the conclusion withRussia of a new treaty of the reduction of strategic offensive arms. The quiteambiguous cancelation of the plan for the deployment of missile defense [ABM]components in Europe is in this category. That decision can only be welcomed.However, the reduction of conventional types of armed forces and a radicallimitation of expenditures for military purposes are no less important forinternational security. Russia is particularly interested in that. Not only fromthe economic viewpoint but also in the interests of its own security, taking intoconsideration the enormous military potential of the forces of NATO. NATO ismoving right up to the Russian borders. The agreement of the United States to aradical reduction of military expenditures, a reduction of conventional types ofmilitary forces, and a withdrawal of the forces of NATO from the borders of Russiawould be a real confirmation of the policy of “resetting”.Russia is vitally interested in the cessation by Washington of its policy toundermine Russian positions in the post-Soviet zone. It wants Washington to stopinspiring and financing the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet republics forthe purpose of establishing regimes in them that are hostile to Russia andobedient to the United States. Russia wants the United States to cancel its plansfor pulling Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and to stop encouraging conflictsbetween Russia and countries neighboring it.Furthermore, the United States must stop its informational-propagandistic waragainst Russia. It must stop representing Russia, in the eyes of Western society,as an “incorrigible imperialistic power”, as a “threat from the East”. That isnothing other than shifting the blame to someone else’s shoulders. Even HelmutSchmidt, a former chancellor of Germany, wrote the following in “The Powers of theFuture”, his book: “We must not turn into degenerates, obsequiously assenting toAmerican imperialism.”President Medvedev set forth an initiative for the establishment of a new systemof all-European security, which includes Russia and other countries of theCommonwealth of Independent States. It proposes the abolition of the blocstructure of international relations in Europe. NATO is a survival of the ColdWar. It would seem that this military bloc has lost its right to exist, especiallysince the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union disintegrated. After all, Europe isno longer being threatened by anybody. Thus, just why is the United States sopersistently trying to preserve, strengthen, and expand it? Why is a largegrouping of American and English troops, with nuclear weapons, still deployed onthe territory of Germany?
It appears that, for the United States, this is related to the resolution of thethree main tasks: (1). To rely on NATO, now and in the future, as the maininstrument for supremacy of the United States in Europe and thereby “keep theGermans in check”. (2). To conduct the “globalization” of NATO in order to use thetroops of the countries in that alliance, not only on the European continent butalso in remote regions of the world, in the geopolitical and economic interests ofthe top ruling circles of the United States. (3). In case of an emergencysituation in Russia, which may arise as a result of a social outburst ofdissatisfaction influenced by a deepening of the crisis of the Russian economy,the United States will not fail to send NATO troops into Russia territory underthe pretext of “saving democracy”.There is another possible scenario: The organization of a large-scale anti-Russianprovocation on the territory of Ukraine in order to create a reason for the use ofNATO troops against Russia. Such a development of events would make it possiblefor the United States to put an end to the sovereignty of Russia, get its hands onRussia’s natural resources, and force Russia off to the sidelines with respect toworld development. In essence, this is the long-term goal on the anti-Russianpolicy of the United States. The secret services will engage themselves until thetime for its realization, and then, at hour “X”, the armed forces of NATO willbecome involved. For the society of the West, an invasion of Russia by NATO troopswould not be unexpected and unacceptable. The Western mass media, which arecontrolled by the United States, have done a fair amount of work to make Russialook like a country that must be feared.All of that demonstrates that European security is resting on a shaky foundationand that it is necessary seriously to embrace the initiative of PresidentMedvedev. Why not give the European community the opportunity to return to theprinciples of the Charter of Paris, which was approved and signed by all of theEuropean countries, the United States, and Canada on 21 November 1990? It put anend to the Cold War and correctly pointed out the path along which Europe shouldmove forward. It called for a withdrawal from confrontations, the overcoming ofthe division of the continent, the abolition of the bloc structure ofinternational relations, and the establishment of security for all of thecountries on the same, equal basis. It also entailed the reduction, to a minimum,of military expenditures and arms and the obligation to make sure that the threatof war will never again emanate from Europe, as well as the guarantee that thedomestic and foreign policy of the European countries will be based on theprinciples of democracy. It also called for the development of all-Europeancooperation. For the United States, as a power that has set itself the goal ofachieving world supremacy, the remarkable principles of the Charter of Paris wereunacceptable. The United States cast those principles aside regardless of the factthat it has signed that document.Briefly, that is what is required for a “resetting” of Russian-American relationsand the taking of them out onto a clean road of mutual respect and trust, fruitfulcooperation, and service to the world and the common good. Incidentally, thecomputer term, “resetting”, was inappropriately selected. A “resetting” does notchange the program that that was installed on the computer. Is it possible to hopethat this does not apply to the policy of the new administration of the UnitedStates?Editor’s note: Vyacheslav Dashichev holds the degree, Doctor of the HistoricalSciences. He is a senior research fellow of the Center of International Economicand Political Studies of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy ofSciences.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->