The Kind of 'Resetting' That Russia Needs

Moscow
Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer
14 Oct 09

by Vyacheslav Dashichev
Senior Research Fellow of the Center for International Economic and Political
Studies of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

After Barack Obama’s rise to power, there has been talk about a “resetting” of
relations between the United States and Russia. The term, “resetting”, was put
into use by the new American administration. There were weighty reasons for that.
During the Bush administration, Russian-American relations reached such a high
level of tension that this period was reminiscent of the era of the Cold War. The
ruling circles of the United States have come to understand that they went too far
in their anti-Russian policy, which pushed Russia away from Europe and prompted it
to seek salvation in alliance with the rising super-power, China.

The systemic crisis of capitalism and the fall of the dollar as the reserve
currency put American supremacy in the world into question. All of that had to be
reflected in the policy of the United States toward Russia. Why should it come
down on Moscow so hard? Wouldn’t it be better to replace the tactics and methods
of the anti-Russian policy? Wouldn’t it be better to try to attach Russia to the
American cart by “indirect means”? That task has also be laid on Obama, with his
charming smile and sweet speeches.

But lip service alone will not manage to bring about a “resetting”. A serious re-
assessment of the “values” and goals of American policy is necessary for that.
First of all, it is necessary that it be freed from the syndrome of supremacy over
nations. For this purpose, the new American administration must unambiguously
disassociate itself from the “Project for the New American Century”, which was
elaborated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other “neo-cons”, and which became
the foreign policy program of the Bush administration. The anti-Russian course of
the United States is also an integral part of this “project”. But, to all
appearances, the Obama administration does not intend to renounce it.

In her programmed foreign policy speech of 15 July 2009, Hillary Clinton, U. S.

Secretary of State, emphasized that the United States will continue its adherence
to the concept of absolute world leader. At all times, the policy of supremacy,
now camouflaged as leadership, has been the most destructive and dangerous factor
in international relations and it served as the main source of wars. The hegemony
of the United States under George W. Bush brought instability and conflicts to the
whole world. Immorality, amorality, and cynical deception were the hallmarks of
this course. It was aimed at the ruination of the sovereignty of countries and
their state-forming nations, which were supposed to yield to a “multi-cultural
society” of the American type. That is, national states were declared to have gone
out of fashion.

In order to stop being the “disturber of tranquility” in the world, it is

necessary for the United States to stop acting as a messianic power, falsely
believing that it has been called upon to teach the other nations how they must
live. Attempts cannot be made to carry the Western values of democracy, freedom of
the individual, and the “American way of life” everywhere. Wouldn’t it be better
to adhere to the well-known principle: “Live and let others live?”
The principles of ethics and morality are incomparably more important for the
international community. Without them, there can be no genuine freedom and human
rights just as there can be no honest policy, free from deception and
provocations. Deception and provocations have become the norm of the behavior of
the United States in the international arena.

It is necessary for the United States to stop being the leader of the world arms
race. The first and unjustified use by the United States of nuclear weapons
against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, when the Second World War was
practically over, was immoral in the highest degree. This cruel, inhumane act cost
the lives of more than 250,000 Japanese citizens. Thus, the arms race was
unleashed. The share of the United States of world military expenditures is more
than 50 percent. It has become the “world blacksmith” for new, deadly types of
weapons. The military bases of the United States are located in 130 countries. At
the same time, there is no threat whatsoever to the national security of the
United States! Then why the super-weapons? They are necessary to the American
ruling class for the establishment of supremacy in the world.

Obama set forth an initiative for nuclear disarmament and the conclusion with
Russia of a new treaty of the reduction of strategic offensive arms. The quite
ambiguous cancelation of the plan for the deployment of missile defense [ABM]
components in Europe is in this category. That decision can only be welcomed.
However, the reduction of conventional types of armed forces and a radical
limitation of expenditures for military purposes are no less important for
international security. Russia is particularly interested in that. Not only from
the economic viewpoint but also in the interests of its own security, taking into
consideration the enormous military potential of the forces of NATO. NATO is
moving right up to the Russian borders. The agreement of the United States to a
radical reduction of military expenditures, a reduction of conventional types of
military forces, and a withdrawal of the forces of NATO from the borders of Russia
would be a real confirmation of the policy of “resetting”.

Russia is vitally interested in the cessation by Washington of its policy to

undermine Russian positions in the post-Soviet zone. It wants Washington to stop
inspiring and financing the “color revolutions” in the former Soviet republics for
the purpose of establishing regimes in them that are hostile to Russia and
obedient to the United States. Russia wants the United States to cancel its plans
for pulling Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and to stop encouraging conflicts
between Russia and countries neighboring it.

Furthermore, the United States must stop its informational-propagandistic war

against Russia. It must stop representing Russia, in the eyes of Western society,
as an “incorrigible imperialistic power”, as a “threat from the East”. That is
nothing other than shifting the blame to someone else’s shoulders. Even Helmut
Schmidt, a former chancellor of Germany, wrote the following in “The Powers of the
Future”, his book: “We must not turn into degenerates, obsequiously assenting to
American imperialism.”

President Medvedev set forth an initiative for the establishment of a new system
of all-European security, which includes Russia and other countries of the
Commonwealth of Independent States. It proposes the abolition of the bloc
structure of international relations in Europe. NATO is a survival of the Cold
War. It would seem that this military bloc has lost its right to exist, especially
since the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union disintegrated. After all, Europe is
no longer being threatened by anybody. Thus, just why is the United States so
persistently trying to preserve, strengthen, and expand it? Why is a large
grouping of American and English troops, with nuclear weapons, still deployed on
the territory of Germany?
It appears that, for the United States, this is related to the resolution of the
three main tasks: (1). To rely on NATO, now and in the future, as the main
instrument for supremacy of the United States in Europe and thereby “keep the
Germans in check”. (2). To conduct the “globalization” of NATO in order to use the
troops of the countries in that alliance, not only on the European continent but
also in remote regions of the world, in the geopolitical and economic interests of
the top ruling circles of the United States. (3). In case of an emergency
situation in Russia, which may arise as a result of a social outburst of
dissatisfaction influenced by a deepening of the crisis of the Russian economy,
the United States will not fail to send NATO troops into Russia territory under
the pretext of “saving democracy”.

There is another possible scenario: The organization of a large-scale anti-Russian

provocation on the territory of Ukraine in order to create a reason for the use of
NATO troops against Russia. Such a development of events would make it possible
for the United States to put an end to the sovereignty of Russia, get its hands on
Russia’s natural resources, and force Russia off to the sidelines with respect to
world development. In essence, this is the long-term goal on the anti-Russian
policy of the United States. The secret services will engage themselves until the
time for its realization, and then, at hour “X”, the armed forces of NATO will
become involved. For the society of the West, an invasion of Russia by NATO troops
would not be unexpected and unacceptable. The Western mass media, which are
controlled by the United States, have done a fair amount of work to make Russia
look like a country that must be feared.

All of that demonstrates that European security is resting on a shaky foundation

and that it is necessary seriously to embrace the initiative of President
Medvedev. Why not give the European community the opportunity to return to the
principles of the Charter of Paris, which was approved and signed by all of the
European countries, the United States, and Canada on 21 November 1990? It put an
end to the Cold War and correctly pointed out the path along which Europe should
move forward. It called for a withdrawal from confrontations, the overcoming of
the division of the continent, the abolition of the bloc structure of
international relations, and the establishment of security for all of the
countries on the same, equal basis. It also entailed the reduction, to a minimum,
of military expenditures and arms and the obligation to make sure that the threat
of war will never again emanate from Europe, as well as the guarantee that the
domestic and foreign policy of the European countries will be based on the
principles of democracy. It also called for the development of all-European
cooperation. For the United States, as a power that has set itself the goal of
achieving world supremacy, the remarkable principles of the Charter of Paris were
unacceptable. The United States cast those principles aside regardless of the fact
that it has signed that document.

Briefly, that is what is required for a “resetting” of Russian-American relations

and the taking of them out onto a clean road of mutual respect and trust, fruitful
cooperation, and service to the world and the common good. Incidentally, the
computer term, “resetting”, was inappropriately selected. A “resetting” does not
change the program that that was installed on the computer. Is it possible to hope
that this does not apply to the policy of the new administration of the United
States?

Editor’s note: Vyacheslav Dashichev holds the degree, Doctor of the Historical
Sciences. He is a senior research fellow of the Center of International Economic
and Political Studies of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of
Sciences.
[Description of Source: Moscow Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer in Russian Weekly
newspaper focusing on military and defense industrial complex issues published by
Almaz Media, a subsidiary of the defense industrial firm Almaz-Antey]