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.