• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
20.10.2006

Russian-US: a new stage of relations

   

Gagik Harutyunyan 

The US-Russia relations have entered a qualitatively new stage. One of its peculiarities is the fact that if in the past Russia tried to represent the uprising conflict to be tactical, nonsense of temporary character, then, at present, diplomatic conditionality is ignored: the US is accepted as a global strategic competitor hence with ideological-propagandistic confrontation. The latest intensification of Russian-Georgian relations, during which the stress in information field was more put on the US policy “backing” Georgia, then on Georgia’s actions, has come to prove it. In that context it is noteworthy the tone of Kremlin’s press release on Putin-Bush telephone conversation: “the Russian party has pointed out that any action undertaken by the third world country, which may be interpreted by Georgian authorities as encouragement of their destructive policy, is unacceptable and poses threat to the region’s peace and stability”. Such a tough tone on the “presidential level” of the two countries is unprecedented in the period of time called Post Soviet. It is also noteworthy that, according to some information, the Russia officers were released by direct American mediation; however it didn’t mitigate Moscow’s sanctions applied against Georgia.

Such a tension of relations was expected: it proceeds from the logic of confrontation on political, economic and ideological fields between the two countries. At the same time the present situation was not shaped in a day. The US-RF relations had undergone substantial transformations and they may conditionally be classified by the following way.

1991-1999 – “Stage of paralyze”: America’s policy adapted to Russia in this period of time may be schematically characterize as actions of the winner country to the lost one. As a result the whole Eastern Europe and most of the post Soviet countries got out of Russia’s sphere of influence. The integrity of Russia itself is a moot point. It refers not only to the North Caucasus, which practically is out of control: the scenarios of RF several (in some projects for about eight) sovereign republics’ disintegration is under serious discussion.

The peculiarity of this historical phase was the fact that the US actions in ideological, political and economic fields met no serious resistance of paralyzed Russia. During Yugoslavian events Y. Primakov’s “aircraft diplomacy” or paratroopers’ “Kosovian march” had an emotive character; they couldn’t and didn’t have any tangible results. Comparative success in Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossian conflicts were fairly more ascribed by British experts to be “independent actions of Russian generals” then purposeful actions of official Moscow.

2000-2005 – “passive resistance” or “cryptic” (hidden) phase of “the Cold War””: It is noteworthy that V. Putin, who was promoted to the post of vice president in 1999 and began military operations in Chechnya, answered the questions on Russia’s domestic situation in the following way: “Chechnya is everywhere”. At the same time the US responded negatively to military operations launched in Chechnya, accepting them as a challenge. September the 11th, 2001 was fallowed by wormer US-RF relations in “antiterrorist coalition” format. However, deployment of the American “temporary” military bases in Middle Eastern Republics and violation of preliminary arrangement on their withdrawal, the arrival of the US military sub-units in Georgia, the process of NATO-UE “expansion” very quickly destroyed the illusion on the US-RF strategic cooperation. In its turn Washington, calculating and foreseeing Russia’s possible restoration, was in a hurry to realize its plans as quick as possible. It was at that very period that the US succeeded and reached impressive results by restoring the logic of “the Cold War” and combining the military strategy of “preventive antiterrorist war” with an ideological one on “establishing universal democratic systems” (in the framework of which Russia’s image as might-have-been state is being made in information field). In particular we will point out the following ones:

  • So called “Kozak’s” program”, preliminary acceptable for all the parties, on settling Pridniester conflict was upset (Republic of Moldova was supposed to be federalized and Pridniester was to form a part of it): in such a way Moldova was taken out of Russia’s zone of influence.
  • As a result of “color” coups in Georgia and Ukraine, governments of clear cut pro-western and anti-Russian orientation were formed.
  • Pribaltic and almost all the countries of Eastern Europe became the members of NATO or at least the data of their membership were specified. The authorities of these countries took pro-American, as a rule anti-Europe centralized and clear-cut anti-Russian positions. (especially Pribaltic republics and Poland).
  • As the most advantageous version for itself the US unilaterally withdrew Anti-Missile Defense Treaty: in such a way the missile-nuclear balance between the two countries was shattered.

In this stage, in comparison with the past, Putin’s administration spared no effort to resist actions undertaken by the US and its allies. As a matter of fact Moscow’s steps also subdued to the logic of “the Cold War”, however, they had “hidden”-cryptic character and the disagreement in diplomatic and information fields were expressed more then reservedly: Russia was still weak and had not enough resources for effective resistance.

At the same time, at the very stage Russia succeeded in restoring the country’s controllability, developing economy (the state control over energetic resources was of great importance: Let’s remember the case of “Yukos”), improving condition of armed forces. In the foreign field Russia was able to carry out effective policy in West European (Moscow-Berlin-Paris), Eastern (Moscow-Beijing) and Southern (Moscow-Teheran) directions.

2005 and on – a phase of “a classical Cold War”: the main peculiarity of this phase is the end of America’s absolute superiority and the appearance of the actors (including Russia) systematically resisting the US in global and political field. The day of the beginning of this new, transitional stage may be considered July 1, 2005, when China and Russia signed a joint declaration, the regulations of which were obviously directed against ideological and strategic doctrines implemented by the US (in this sense, it’s worth mentioning one of not that diplomatic announcements made by G. Bush, that instead of carrying out, policy SCO would better settle its economic problems).

The existence of the declaration has come to prove that by that time both of these super powers already had enough military-political, economic and organizational potential to resist the US leadership. (RF and PRC cooperate in SCO format, which includes 5 nuclear powers in this or that status and the total GDP of which (for about $10.6 trillion) is comparable with the ones of the US and the EU). Manifestation of acquired capabilities became the failure of “color” (with a shade of radical Islamism) coupe in Uzbekistan in 2005 and later on the withdrawal of the US military bases from that country. In such a way the process of weakening the US influence and “forcing it out” from the Central Asia was initiated. Russia partially succeeded in “breaking” unfavorable situation for it in Ukraine, where, as a result of parliamentary elections of 2006, pro-Moscow government has been formed.

The processes on Iran’s nuclear program had core importance for Russian-US cooperation. Flexible but fundamental position adopted by Moscow on this issue was in harmony with the one of Beijing, and in some terms also with France and Germany. As a matter of fact this position was accepted by international community and made the US yield its positions in short-term prospective (the last Middle Eastern war, the results of which were favorable for Russia, had an important role in this issue).

The above mentioned processes in Russia are accompanied by the formation of a new ideology, which supposes carrying out corresponding propagandistic activity. A part of Russian mass media aspires to present America’s not favorable image on a more professional level then at Soviet period, which furthers the formation of anti-American moods. Thesis on “American threat” has become a component of political course and the talks of Valentin Falin and Gennady Yevstafev on Russian-American relations given in the State Duma not long ago are the evidences of it. According to that analysis (which has become a peculiar answer to the document called “Russia’s wrong direction” prepared by “Council of Foreign Relations” in the US this spring), the main goal of the US is to change Russia’s course: if we put it in another way, Russia is considered by the Americans to be an enemy with all the corresponding conclusions drawn, first of all for Moscow. In this context it is worth mentioning the announcement made by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar, according to which Russia, together with Iran and Venezuela, is a hostile country for the US. Let’s notice that it is not a mere propagandistic announcement: American mass media has spread information that in the December of this year Pentagon is planning to carry out staff military trainings aiming at working out the scenario of the local nuclear war between the US and RF in the context of military nuclear program carried out by Iran.

It is obvious that the US-RF confrontation is not limited by the above mentioned developments. Severe battle is carried on in the market of energy-carriers, where the American (Baku-Chyhan oil pipeline, Baku-Erzurum gas pipeline) and Russian (Burgas-Alexsandroupolis oil pipeline, North European gas pipeline) projects have conflict character in the spheres of geo-economy. The situation is almost the same in the other fields. This complex of contradictions and ideological and economic confrontation developing around it submit to (in spite of well-known difference) the same regularities as “the Cold Car” of the past century did.

Taking into consideration the conflict in Georgia and the tension of permanent character in Middle East, one should state as a fact that “the lines” of the US-RF confrontation pass by Armenia. Such realities are not negative for RA yet, but suppose adequate approaches and actions to be worked out.


Return
Another materials of author