An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

McCain, Obama and Clinton: They’re All Bad

Courrier International

How do the Russians view the three remaining U.S. presidential aspirants? After explaining that there isn’t a hair’s breath of difference between President Bush and John McCain on the issue of Russia, Novosti political affairs analyst Dmitry Gornostayev writes, “The Democrats think the same way as McCain. No, not on health care, abortion, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the right to carry firearms – God Forbid! – on these issues they are prepared to argue until they’re hoarse. But in regard to Russia (I dare say a marginal issue for American voters), there is a complete consensus.” Gornostayev concludes, “The words, of course, may differ – but action is always in one in the same direction. You ask what political bias is worse – Republican or Democratic? The two are equally as bad.”

By Dmitry Gornostayev

Translated By Igor Medvevev

March 27, 2008

Russia – Novosti – Original Article (Russian)

NEW YORK: What the President keeps to himself, his nominee reveals. Of course, if John McCain is elected President of the United States, he will not repeat what he just said to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. The President of the United States is not the person to repeat that the G8 should “expel Russia,” or speak of the need to “address the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia.”

Before the 2000 election and even during the first few months of his presidency, George W. Bush also criticized Russia. He his first step in regard to Russia as head of state was to expel a large group of Russian diplomats from the United States. However, when he realized it would be necessary to meet the president of Russia, he had to reverse himself. It was then that he glanced into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and was able to “get a sense of his soul.” At least that’s what he told the world, and of course, his own voters, whom several months before he had been desperately trying to convince of the contrary.

If it is Senator McCain who will be President, he too will need to come up with a nice story about a sudden recovery of insight. But strictly speaking, this isn’t all that important. Neither does it matter if it’s McCain or one of the pair of Democrats that is elected. The Senator’s critical remarks about Russia, which incidentally were only a small part of his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, seem to contain two fundamentally important points. The First is tactical and the second, strategic.

First, let’s address his tactics.

It’s not at all accidental that his tough criticism of Moscow coincided with a statement by Bush about his intention to travel to Russia to discuss differences over U.S.-Russian relations with outgoing President Vladimir Putin . Both or them – McCain and Bush – express the ideas of the political clan that still calls the shots in American foreign policy, the neoconservatives. Despite the different ways the two men express themselves, their philosophies on relations with Russia are essentially the same: to weaken Russia, and if that’s not possible, to deter it (incidentally, we shouldn’t be carried away by Russian pride in this regard – American policymakers are much more afraid of China).

It’s obvious that both of these statements constitute a single logical and tactical step – to assert at the highest levels the inevitability of deploying an anti-ballistic missile emplacement within Europe [in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Bush said in his speech, “I think a lot of people in Europe would have a deep sigh of relief if we’re able to reach an accord on missile defense. And hopefully we can.” By these comments, it’s clear under what conditions Bush will seek to conclude an agreement. This sounds rather nice when compared to the tenor of McCain’s remarks: “Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make it clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.”


READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US,
along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.

  • Europe bears the brunt of responsiblity for the failures in Russia to assimilate themselves into a pro western democracy.

    Instead of a hands on approach in which money, credits and help of all kind were channeled into a desperate Russia the world led by Europe and the USA started criticizing them for not having perfect equal rights. High crime. Low standard of living. On and on the west chastised a fledgling new democracy with one simple reason in mind.

    They did not want to give Russia any aid and ultimately have them as a huge competitor for goods and services and a large consumer of an ever decreasing pool of goods and services available worldwide.

    It was economic survival of the world to keep Russia a third world country. Well now with China and India exploding onto the world scene with their HUGE populations and voracious appetites for goods and services and OIL, suddenly Russia and her vast energy reserves finds herself in the catbirds seat and able to dictate to the West terms of her own choosing.

    So what started out as a shrewd concept to prevent one more country from being in competition with the rest of the world has turned into a major headache. It also points to one more reason why this country needs to find alternative means for fueling our wants and needs.

    Until we do Russia will have no reason to make a good life for their citizens. They will just keep raking in the cash from desperate nations for their oil and gas.
  • Dave_Schuler
    Suffice it to say that I don't agree with the interpretation of events presented by Whocares above.

    Actually, I think there's plenty of blame to spread around for who lost Russia. Obviously, the Russian Communist Party is a primary culprit. 75 years of their control of the country had reduced Russia's domestic institutions other than the Party, the military, and organized crime to rubble.

    The West, collectively, shares some of the blame. The flood of Western experts who flooded into Russia, ignorant of the Russian situation, who offered bad advice didn't help.

    I agree with Whocares that, proportionally, Europe bears more blame than the U. S. The Europeans have become so accustomed to standing around holding our coats while we worked and kvetching from the sidelines that they have problems in discerning when it's in their collective interest to act.
  • Dave i think your too quick to rush to disagreement with what I said. If you extrapolate out the results of what I posted then what transpires is the return of Russia to her communist roots by default.
  • runasim
    Deave Schuler's assessment relects my own vies, to a large extent.

    Additionally, I think we are failing to understand both Russian and European cultures and their histories. We go into foreign territories, either with armies or ideologies, ignorant about what we are really dealing with.

    Europe's sensibilities re Russia are different than ours. because their dealings with Russia were different during the entire cold war period. Everybody rushed in after the collapse of the Soviet Union, wanting to remake Russia into their own image. Exactly like we rushed into Iraq.
    I'd think we would at least realize what geographic proximity means in terms of strategy.

    Ameicans are continually outraged when other regions don't act as our surrogates.
    Well, we see how far that kind of short-sighted approach gets us, as both Europe and Russia become successful competitors for international influence.

    If we want to maintain our influence, we must learn to speak 'their language', to understand the view from their angle. Certainly we should to so before pronouncing judgment.
  • Mikhail
    "...Until we do Russia will have no reason to make a good life for their citizens. ..." - does any one here believe that us Americans, nto caring for our own citizens in needs, really care about ... like Russians, Chineese, Kosovars, etc... and of course - Iraqies and Iraninas, Muslim women ... This is a joke!

    At least have the courage to say - it is in the interests of US to have a weak Russia, with pro-Western and per-Western elites ruling her, breaking her apart so that US supremacy is assured...

    There is not way any country can deny the right to cocmpete, the way they chose, with any other country. It is a fallacy of our elites to think that they can deny Russia' aspiration to greatness, to compete with US.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC