Our homeland and the United States: from Bush to Obama

Russia and the United States: from Bush to ObamaAfter the collapse of the Soviet Union to the United States had four of the president. Neither one of them is not able to build a really strong business with Russia. "Who povinet?" and "What?" — From this point of view, considering the problem of Edward Lausanne, Academician of Russian Academy of Social Sciences, the founder and president of the South American Institute in Moscow. He gives the work of American presidents.

That in the past went wrong and how the U.S. should change its policy in order to build good cooperation with Russia? It is clear that it will benefit, because today's complex and insecure times, America is better to be friends with Russia.

George HW Bush: 1989-1993

George HW Bush led the white-washed house when USSR Gorbachev's perestroika was already in the terminating stage. Gorbachev still showed the commitment of Leninism, but the war in Afghanistan is coming to an end, the Russian army was preparing to withdraw its troops from the region, the media became more free; appeared cooperatives — the first business, the germs of a free market economy. And this is only a small part of what eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In October 1988, I received an invitation from the Academy of the USSR to visit Moscow to discuss a joint publication of the journal Quantum, for the publication of translations of selected articles on the British language and unique articles Russian and American scientists. The offer was very sudden and received almost a few months later, after the newspaper "Izvestia" Named me and some other Western intelligence agents of the exiles, who are trying to undermine the progress of Gorbachev's perestroika, presenting it as a dangerous plan KGB to deceive the naive and gullible West.

I must admit that I did not immediately ventured on this trip. On the one hand, I naturally wanted to return to Moscow from the nostalgic judgments, but on the other — it was quite scary. Maybe some know that I have with the Russian authorities had a difficult case because of the struggle for the reunification of the family. Because I do not rule out the possibility that an invitation — it's a trap, and I find myself on the ground of the USSR-I immediately caught the KGB. Because we are with his wife Tatiana asked her father — a senior Russian general — meet us, just in case the airport "Sheremetyevo" in full uniform, with all the merits and awards, to exclude the possibility of my abduction.

But our fear was unfounded, while the negotiations on the magazine were in fact just a pretext. They really took place and the English edition was launched on Quantum State Science Foundation grant. Yet, as it turned out, the main purpose of the invitation was different. At the time, the main editor of the magazine was Academician Yuri Ossipyan, then a member of the President's Council under Gorbachev. He introduced me to Alexander Yakovlev, the second person in the state, it was called "Gorbachev's right-hand man," with whom we have accomplished almost hidden October meeting at the hotel, it is now "President-Hotel. "

Yakovlev, without losing a minute, here, defected to the cause. He asked what could be done to justify the Yankees, that perestroika in the Soviet Union is not a "Potemkin villages" and severe internal political process that will transform the Soviet Union into a free and democratic government.

I also bluntly said Yakovlev and Osip'yan that the reputation of the Communist Party in the world so repulsive that no one will believe that a party like this with his hands refuse to own boundless power and turn the system into a democratic dictatorship.

All the same, I said that I can try to do it, but you need to bring to Moscow a huge group of American professionals, including those who have set up very poorly to the Russian regime. They would participate in an open debate with Russian politicians, academics, journalists, students, at any subject, without restriction or censorship.

Bolshennomu To my surprise, they agreed to in 1989 and 1990, I organized a trip to the Soviet Union for numerous U.S. delegations. Among them was attended by many members of Congress, for example, Senators Phil Graham and Bob Kasten, Jon Kyl and Congressmen Henry Hyde, one of the main ideologues of the Republican Party Vayrik Paul and his team from the fund "Free Congress" (Free Congress Foundation); better-known Russian dissidents — Vladimir Bukovsky, Vasily Aksenov, Alexander Zinoviev, Ernst Uncharted, the head of "Voice of America" and radio "Liberty" Frank Shakespeare, businessmen, Rector of the Institute, and many other prominent figures in the United States.

I note that we have provided a free hand and we were interviewed by the media without any censorship, met and discussed the more acute difficulties with Russian politicians, academics, students, etc. To show the whole range of freedoms granted to us, I asked Norman Podhoretz, editor of the neoconservative magazine head Commentary, publicly name the Lenin one of the most dreaded criminals of the XX century. He did it without any for him and all of us the consequences, although the official name of Lenin at the time was still untouchable.

We also met with Yeltsin and his team. They just uttered to us that communism and the Soviet Union are on the brink of the abyss, and they put their trust that in the future will be the home of the free Our fundamental part of Western society, including its membership in NATO.

One of the memorable moments of the event was another meeting at the hotel "October" in 1989. Then Alexander Yakovlev said that no matter which Eastern European country wishing to enter Russian unit is free to do so.

I can not read on behalf of all U.S. participants in these discussions, but personally, I was convinced that communism would soon sink into oblivion, just as foretold by Ronald Reagan. It is unrealistic to manage these freedoms in communist society. Completely unrealistic. We read about this and the coming Yeltsin and his entourage.

After another trip to the USSR in 1990 Vayrik Paul, who had direct access to the U.S. President George Bush senior, personally presented him our report, which stated that the Soviet Union would soon end its existence and that the urgent need to prepare a plan for the integration of Russia and the West, an analogue of the Marshall Plan, a successful triggered in respect of Germany and the Land of the Rising Sun after the second world war.

According to the story Vayrika Bush listened intently, taking notes while the study did not include Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's adviser on national security. Rice sharply rejected all of the report, arguing that Yeltsin is trying to fool us all and that to her, yet believable than ours, the Soviet Union is not in danger.

What happened next is clear to all.

August 1, 1991 Bush arrived on an official visit to Kiev, where he delivered a speech, what has become known as the "speech chicken Kiev" (Bush opposed the independence of the Ukrainians, calling it an eagerness to "suicidal nationalism". — Ed.). Then he said, "we are in favor of the preservation of relations with the Russian government and with President Gorbachev." Less than 5 months after this speech, the Soviet Union fell, but the U.S. was not ready for it and therefore did not know what to do next.

Summarizing, Bush made a terrible mistake, miss the point when it was possible to integrate the latest Russi
a into Western society, turning it into his own ally. A positive aspect of his policy was the promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO eastward, and the expression of the idea of the creation of the modern system of international security from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

Evaluation of the George W. Bush: a triple-minus

Bill Clinton: 1993 — 2001

The work of his administration was marked by economic advisers pilgrimage to Moscow to assist Yeltsin and his team to reincarnate the Russian planned economy into a market. The tragic results of these reforms are well aware of, but if someone thinks that I am very strongly about the Clinton policy, you should read the report, compiled by members of the House of Representatives at the request of the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The title of the report "The Way of the Russian Federation to the corruption as the Clinton administration exported bureaucracy instead of free enterprise and led Russian people," says it all.

One of the highlights of the Clinton policy towards Russia was a violation of the promises Bush not to expand NATO. Leading South American politician George Kennan, known also known as Mr. X, referred to this step catastrophic mistake the United States and the beginning of the modern era, Cool war.

Here is a quote from an interview with George Kennena newspaper The New York Times: "I think this is the beginning of the latest" cool war. "Russian, from my point of view, over time will react quite militant, and this will be reflected in their policies. I believe that it is a tragic mistake. For this there was no reason. Nobody threatens no one else. decision would force the Senate of the founding fathers of our country to turn over in their graves. We are committed to protect a number of states, despite the fact that we do not have the resources or the purposes of making it is in any harsh way. NATO expansion was just careless step the Senate, which has no real understanding of foreign policy. "

Evaluation of Clinton: deuce with a minus

George W. Bush: 2001 — 2009

Let's start with the fact that after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush appealed to Vladimir Putin with a request to assist the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan. Putin sdedal all that Bush asked for, but he thanked Putin followed by: the United States in one-sided right out of the contract to limit ABM provoked the so called "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet space, expanded the NATO membership, even promising to Ukraine and Georgia; unfairly referred Russian "aggressor" in an armed conflict with Georgia in 2008, even though he knew perfectly well who first began active combat actions.

Bush's policy on democracy promotion has become an object of ridicule. Until now, remember the words Bush before and after the invasion of Iraq that he "longs to promote democracy, because democracies do not start wars."

Evaluation of the Bush: deuce with a minus

Barack Obama. First presidential term 2009-2013

Obama launched a "reset" of relations between Russia and the United States, it is his personal achievement, because none of his predecessors had not tried to work in this direction. But the results can not be restarted impressive.

Two-way contract-III START nuclear arms reduction treaty was signed, despite the harsh statements of Republicans against the agreement.

Plans to install a missile defense system (NMD) in the Czech Republic and Poland have been canceled, but the elements of an advanced missile defense system is still planning to install close to the Russian border.

U.S. broker of the Russian Federation to join the WTO, although the Jackson-Vanik amendment is still a stumbling block. Many of you may know that I and my co-worker Anthony Salvia, who worked in the Reagan administration, filed a lawsuit against the tribunal of U.S. President Barack Obama, saying that the President may cancel the amendment, without waiting for the respective resolution of the Congress. But Obama's lawyers asked the Tribunal to reject our claim, as previously there was no similar precedent. Even though we were not able to continue the court case due to the lack of funding, but they are convinced that morally we won it because the Tribunal failed to prove that Obama does not have the right to cancel the amendment. By the way the drama Jackson-Vanik is now working not against Russia, but against the South American business.

Washington's official line on the accession of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO remains constant. There is no progress in the development of a joint missile defense system.

Evaluation of the first term, Obama's triple-minus

Barack Obama. Second presidential term 2013-2017 year

The basic and the main task of Obama's international policy with Russia is missile defense. I think it is worth recalling his advisers about the last NATO summit in Lisbon, when it was recorded by reference to the need of strategic partnership with Russia in this area. Unfortunately, no specific steps in this direction since the time was not made, but in the last mene, the two sides continue to negotiate.

Obama should also recall that he whispered in the ear of Medvedev's ability to be more flexible on missile defense after the election. This promise is a betrayal of the interests of the U.S. government, as many opponents of the president does not get tired to say. On the contrary, it is a step in the right direction, because such a policy is a win for both sides. Except, apparently, those who would like the future missile defense system were specifically targeted against Russia and China, and for those who believe that America's position as the world's dominant favorite, is unshakable, despite valid objections on the part of other states.

It must be stressed that the position of the Russian Federation on missile defense does not flawless. Here also there are a number of problems, but if the agreement in this area will be achieved, then we will be able to behold significant progress in relations between Russia and the United States and in other areas. In particular, if America is to follow the advice of its own majestic President Thomas Jefferson, who constantly repeated that "We do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of all countries …"

With great contentment I saw a similar expression in the speech of George Bush in Kiev, where he repeated these words: "Our past president (in which case he quoted Theodore Roosevelt) was that we did not want to interfere in your internal affairs." Maybe I should raise the mark HW Bush to three, removing the negative, is not it?

Like this post? Please share to your friends: