#6033
#4
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
January 19, 2002
END OF THE HONEYMOON
Russia apparently remains the main potential enemy of the US
Author: Alexander Kuranov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE IMPROVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-US RELATIONS CAUSED BY THE TRAGIC EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11 IS RAPIDLY DWINDLING. MANY PROMINENT POLITICAL ANALYSTS IN RUSSIA AND THE US ARE SAYING THAT FURTHER EXACERBATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES MAY LEAD TO A NEW ARMS RACE, IF NOT A NEW COLD WAR.
Many prominent political analysts in Russia and the US are saying that the honeymoon in Russian-US relations that started after the tragic events of September 11 may lead at least to a new arms race, if not a new cold war.
Manners of US leaders were gradually changing in the course of the military operation in Afghanistan. The authorities of the Pentagon and some members of George Bush's political retinue have decided that since the US does not have any competitors in the military field, why not make the most of it?
Soon Russia felt the change of political climate in Washington. Although the US president and Secretary of State Colin Powell had tried to "sweeten the pill" for the Russian president, the US decision on its unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972 was sad news for Vladimir Putin. He was placed in a very uncomfortable position, although he tried to make believe that nothing extraordinary had happened.
Then Washington started to throw one unpleasant surprise at Russia after another. It turned out that the US did not intend to destroy the warheads it cut - only to store them. The US also does not rule out the possibility of resuming nuclear tests, toughening visa requirements for Russian citizens, and is again displeased with the civil rights and liberties situation in Russia. Each of these announcements sound strange after the warm handshakes between the presidents at Bush's Texas ranch and his expressions of deep affection for his "friend Vladimir."
What new tricks are to be expected from the US administration next? For instance, it is evidently eager to settle down in Central Asia, which is a region of Russia's economic and political interests. One of the next objects of America's "purges" may be Iraq, which is linked with Russia by multi-profile contacts. Washington also intends to oust Moscow from the sphere of economic relations with India and then with China, since the authorities of the Chinese People's Republic will change at the end of 2002.
Simultaneously Americans are doing their best to prevent Russia from having trust relationships with some of the leading European countries. Whatever London and Paris might do to develop Russia's relations with NATO from the 19+1 format to a closer one, the US representative, who plays the first violin among the NATO authorities, immediately uproots all such "liberties."
Americans do not conceal their intention to continue the process of NATO's expansion. Perhaps, one of the Baltic states, if not all the three of them, will be included in NATO, although Berlin and Paris think that Slovakia and Slovenia, which are not so important for Russia, will do this time.
It is not clear why Moscow could not implement its military- political interests in the course of the anti-terror campaign as unscrupulously as Washington did it. The fact that Russia has refused to bargain with the US and sell its assistance in the anti-terror operation as expensive as possible may be explained either by Vladimir Putin's excessive shyness or by the fact that Russian diplomats do not have such skills. However, the latter is hardly believable.
In spring this year, Bush is scheduled to visit his Russian counterpart. It is not clear so far what issues may be discussed at this meeting and what documents may be signed after the negotiations, for practically all the previous agreements between the presidents are either not implemented or breeched by the American side.
The recently published report of the US administration about the state of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces practically did not contain anything corresponding to the "fundamental changes" promised by Bush and his fellow-travellers. If the US and Russia have really done away with the cold war and buried the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, why does Washington intend to preserve the nuclear triad comprising strategic missiles, bombers, and submarines until the end of the present decade? Currently, the qualitative structure of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces coincides with that planned in the Clinton era. "The Washington Post" stresses that it is difficult to imagine a plausible unforeseen situation that would require America's use of such forces and such a capability of restoration of the stored warheads with their missile-carriers if Russia is no longer an enemy of the US.
Justifying the existence of such a strong nuclear arsenal, representatives of the US administration and the Pentagon mention the possibility of emergence of numerous "petty" opponents of the US possessing nuclear weapons. However, according to the CIA, they will have no more than two hundred warheads in total. This proves that the prime target of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces is Russia. However Russian politicians may aspire to join the Western community, they will still have to preserve Russia's nuclear arsenal, since Russia has no other arguments that might deter the potential aggressor from an attack.
(Translated by Kirill Frolov)
Back to the Top Next Article
- Back to the Top -