Russians Sense the Heat of Cold War
Intensifying U.S. Criticism of  Government and Its Role
in Region Provokes Resentment
 
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 3, 2006;  A14
 
 
 
MOSCOW -- In this city, it's beginning to feel like a
new Cold War,  driven by what many people here see as
an old American impulse: to encircle,  weaken or even
destroy Russia, just as the country is emerging  from
post-Soviet ruins as a cohesive, self-confident and
global  power.
 
The specter of a U.S. nuclear first strike even
resurfaced this month.  An article in Foreign Affairs
magazine, published by the Council on  Foreign
Relations, suggested that the United States could hit
Russia and  China without serious risk of retaliation.
That sent heads spinning here with  visions of Dr.
Strangelove.
 
"The publication of these ideas in a respectable
American journal has  had an explosive effect," former
Russian prime minister Yegor Gaidar wrote in  an
article in London's Financial Times newspaper. "Even
those Russian  journalists and analysts who are not
prone to hysteria or anti-Americanism  took it as an
outline of the official position of the  U.S.
Administration."
 
"Today, it's accepted by most of the establishment
that we are under  pressure, that we are being
surrounded, and it's leading to a  defensive
nationalist vision," said Sergei Rogov, director of
the  Institute of the United States and Canada in
Moscow.
 
Intensifying U.S. criticism -- that Russia is rolling
back democratic  institutions, interfering in the
countries of the former Soviet Union and  using its
vast energy resources to further its interests -- is
leading to  widespread resentment here and seen as
little more than self-serving  rhetoric. Russians
widely believe that U.S. programs to promote  democracy
in Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus are a Trojan horse
intended to  sideline Russia and expand NATO.
 
Academics point to reports such as one released
recently by the Council  on Foreign Relations: "To ease
Russian pressure on neighboring states," it  said, "the
United States should work to accelerate those  states'
integration into the West."
 
"We are gradually being pushed to the northeast of the
Eurasian  continent away from the seas . . . to the
place where the depths of freezing  is more than two
meters," said Natalia Narochnitskaya, vice chairman  of
the international affairs committee in the State Duma,
the lower house  of Russia's parliament, and a member
of the nationalist Rodina Party.
 
She rues the loss of the three Baltic states to
European Union and NATO  membership and the possible
loss of Russia's naval presence on the Black  Sea.
 
"The messianism of American foreign policy is a
remarkable thing," she  said. When Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice speaks, Narochnitskaya said,  "it
seems like Khrushchev reporting to the party congress:
'The whole  world is marching triumphantly toward
democracy but some rogue states prefer  to stay aside
from that road, etc. etc.' "
 
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks appeared to put
U.S.-Russian relations on a  new and remarkable
footing. President Vladimir Putin facilitated  the
stationing of American troops in Central Asia to
support military  operations in Afghanistan. In 2002,
Putin, still regarded as a reformer, was  offered a
year-long chairmanship of the Group of Eight leading
industrial  democracies.
 
Today, some public figures in the United States,
including Sen. John  McCain (R-Ariz.), have suggested
that President Bush boycott the G-8 summit  in St.
Petersburg this summer to register dismay at Russia's
foreign  policy and its internal direction.
 
Many U.S. officials hold up the administration of
President Boris  Yeltsin in the 1990s as imperfect but
headed in the right direction; people  here say those
years were simply chaotic.
 
"For a person of democratic and liberal persuasions, I
can say that  Russia has never been freer or more
affluent," said Sergei Karaganov,  chairman of the
Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.  "Putin
inherited a non-state, so he first wants to build a
state and  create the conditions for modernization and
democracy. Do I worry about some  domestic
developments? Of course. I could be more critical than
most  Americans. But it's like blaming winter for
following autumn."
 
In Moscow, strains in the relationship are viewed more
as a result of  the United States' inability to accept
the fact that Russia is no longer the  servile entity
of the 1990s -- when it blustered but, in the end,
always  caved because it was weak.
 
"We have safeguarded and will safeguard our national
interests," Russian  Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov
told reporters last week. "If someone dislikes  this,
this is not our problem."
 
On certain issues, such as the nuclear ambitions of
North Korea and  Iran, Russian officials say they will
work with the West, but on their own  terms. There is,
for instance, broad agreement with the United States
that  Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons, but
little consensus on what steps  to take to prevent that
from happening. Russia is opposed to  imposing
sanctions on Iran, with which it has strong economic
ties.
 
But in the area known as Russia's "near-abroad," the
former Soviet  republics at its periphery, Russia and
the West often take diametrically  opposed views of the
same situation.
 
In Belarus, Western governments condemned the recent
reelection of  President Alexander Lukashenko as a
farce. Russia declared the contest free  and fair, as
it has in contested ballots across the former  Soviet
Union.
 
Even if Russians recognize electoral fraud, they are
not going to  concede the point, said Rogov. "My
suspicion is that since we see no better  alternative,
we prefer the status quo -- no matter how bad it is."
 
Narochnitskaya said the underlying issue is not
democracy but influence.  "The hysteria around Belarus
and the demonization of President Lukashenko has  more
to do with his anti-NATO, anti-Western stand than his
lack of  democracy," she said. "Belarus is a missing
piece of the puzzle assembled  from the Baltics to the
Black Sea. There are points on the map where we  can
yield, but there are some where it's important not to
do so."
 
The point that appears to animate Russians most is
Ukraine. Since that  country's Orange Revolution, the
popular protests that swept President  Viktor
Yushchenko into power 16 months ago, relations between
the two  countries have soured. At the beginning of
this year, the Russian state-owned  energy giant
Gazprom briefly cut off natural gas supplies, which
are  critical to Ukraine's heavy industry and
households. In parliamentary elections last month,
Yushchenko's party suffered a humiliating setback to  a
Moscow-backed candidate.
 
In Washington and European Union capitals, the cutoff
was seen as  punishment for Yushchenko's Western
orientation, particularly his desire to  bring Ukraine
into NATO.
 
For Russia, such a move would be anathema. The defense
and civilian  industries of the two countries remain
closely intertwined, and Russia's  Black Sea fleet is
based in the Crimea on Ukrainian territory.
 
"The idea of admitting Ukraine into NATO is hammering
the final nail  into the coffin of Russia as an
independent great power," Rogov said. "We go  out, you
go in. Unfortunately, it's almost a consensus in
Russia that the  West is trying to isolate Russia."


_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to