"her sins have massed together clear up to heaven" (page 2)

Another news item illustrating how the USA is "pushing" the King of the North.

Izvestia
April 19, 2007
WEAKENING AND CONTAINING
American policy and intentions toward Russia
Author: Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Politika Foundation
[After the collapse of the USSR, there were two competing concepts
in the United States regarding interaction with Russia. The first
concept entailed engagement. The second concept assumed that
Russia was a hopeless case. Now the second concept is becoming
dominant.]

The wise Chinese have a definition to describe any kind of
reality. Of late, the policy of the West (mostly the United
States) toward Russia has been defined as a "weakening and
containing" strategy.
After the collapse of the USSR, there were two competing
concepts in the United States regarding interaction with Russia.
The first concept entailed engagement - drawing Russia into the
global system by developing pragmatic cooperation based on areas
where the USA and Russia have common interests. The second concept
assumed that Russia was a hopeless case, a despotic and
imperialist power, and proposed to finish it off by continuing
Cold War policies and across-the-board confrontation. Both these
concepts, shifting in and out of the foreground by turn, came
through in American policy during the Yeltsin era and after Putin
took office, regardless of what was happening in Russia.
Engagement was dominant after September 11, 2001. But now the
second concept is becoming dominant - confirming that the Chinese
conclusion is correct.
This year alone, Washington has produced a number of
decisions, laws, and official statements that demonstratively
contradict Russia's vital interests or aim to elicit a predictable
negative reaction from Russia. The year opened with Russia being
accused of pursuing an energy imperialism policy with regard to
Belarus in the transition to free-market price formation -
although the West had earlier insisted on higher energy prices for
Minsk. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued for a defense
spending increase on the grounds of unpredictable situations in
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea; in effect, we were included
in the "axis of evil" for the first time. And the decision to
deploy American national missile defense elements in Poland and
the Czech Republic was certainly anti-Russian. Then the US
Congress passed an act, already signed into law by President Bush,
in support of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia - also
allocating American tax-payers' money for that purpose. Few are
deterred by the fact that two-thirds of Ukrainians, along with the
Ukrainian parliament, don't want to join NATO; after all,
Washington knows best. And now a group of influential lawmakers,
headed by presidential contender Hillary Clinton, is proposing to
introduce a Cold War Service Medal.
Against this backdrop, the Russia section of the US State
Department's annual report on the state of democracy around the
world also drew extra attention. It didn't contain anything new;
similar statements were made in reports five or ten years ago. The
harsh judgements aren't as noteworthy as the frank disclosure of
America's action plan in Russia - with its declaration of direct
intervention in the political and electoral process, which is
obviously inconsistent with Russian law. Like any other country,
Russia forbids foreign involvement in elections. The US State
Department report talks of programs and direct funding for Russian
non-governmental organizations; what's more, any attempt to
counteract those programs will be portrayed as "stifling
democracy," by definition.
Among the most obvious evidence for the "weakening and
containing" policy is the West's total support and propaganda
coverage for the Dissenter March protests. For several days,
reports about the Russian fringe opposition's latest rallies took
precedence in the Western media, ahead of more important stories
like terrorist bombings claiming dozens of lives in Iraq, a
demonstration by 200,000 people in Turkey, and so on. In this
case, it's not a matter of "supporting democracy." After all, most
of the demonstrators at Dissenter March events in Moscow and St.
Petersburg are from the National Bolshevik Party: overt neo-Nazis
who want nothing to do with any kind of democracy, but do want to
fight the authorities, using violent methods and not stopping
short of direct law-breaking. That is why about 150 people headed
by Kasparov the chess-player - people who preferred to block
traffic by marching in a non-permitted area rather than rally in a
permitted area - were arrested and fined 1,000 rubles each.
Current events are strongly reminiscent of the Soviet era,
when our country's press focused all its attention on the
activities of communist movements in the West: their marches,
their meetings, and the harassment they faced. So our citizens got
the impression that those communist movements were very powerful,
and that there was a lack of freedom in the West. Clearly, the
Dissenters in Russia today are no more numerous or popular than
the American Communist Party was several decades ago. Yet the
Other Russia coalition's conference in mid-2006 was attended by
two US deputy secretaries of state and several Western
ambassadors. When the West gives such open backing to an
organization with a strong neo-Nazi component, almost zero voter
support, and an inclination to use force outside the boundaries of
the law, it becomes obvious that the West has really decided to
sort us out.
Until now, there may have been some doubts about attempts to
stage an Orange revolution scenario in Russia during the upcoming
elections; but I, for one, no longer doubt this at all. Attempts
at engagement with Russia have been abandoned, and regime change
preparations are under way. How realistic is this threat?
The likelihood of an Orange revolution actually happening in
Russia seems minimal. The preconditions simply aren't there. Putin
isn't Kuchma: he is popular, strong, and doesn't suffer from a
shortage of political will. And Kasparov is no Yushchenko. In
fact, none of the Dissenters are even one-twentieth as popular as
Yushchenko was in 2004. If an Orange crowd demonstrates in the
streets of Russian cities, it will always be the smallest - far
smaller than even the communist crowd or the nationalist crowd,
let alone the pro-Kremlin White-Blue-Red crowd. Last weekend's
demonstrations made that clear.
And Washington's overt support for the Dissenters isn't
really helping them - it's more like the kiss of death, given the
low popularity of the United States in international public
opinion and among Russian voters.
There won't be a revolution, but destabilization attempts
will continue, and acts of provocation will grow (as Boris
Berezovsky has promised), while Russia's image will be attacked in
the global media networks. We have to be ready for that - and the
Russian authorities need to grow a thicker skin, in order to avoid
externally-imposed unlawful regime change that would doom Russia
to weakness and disintegration.
The only point I really don't understand here is why the
United States has taken it into its head to make an enemy of
Russia. After all, Russian citizens won't appreciate (to put it
mildly) such crude, awkward, and obviously hopeless attempts to
"bring happiness" to Russia.
The Russian economy has never been in better shape. Russian
citizens have never been so upbeat, ever since opinion polling
began in our country. Over the past year, for the first time,
polls have indicated that over half of our citizens think that
Russia is moving in the right direction. But that appears to be
precisely what displeases so many.

See what's free at AOL.com.

"her sins have massed together clear up to heaven"

proplog2

proplog2

Share this