#10 - JRL 8376 - JRL Home
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
September 16, 2004
Washington Distancing Itself From Impulsive Friend
Following announcement of Kremlin’s planned reforms, positions held in U.S. by anti-Russian camp gather momentum
By Nikolai Zlobin

The State Department and the White House have markedly different views on Russia. The State Department’s position is much more critical, much more comprehensive than that of the White House. Not surprisingly, the latter refrained from commenting on Vladimir Putin’s latest plans for reform, while State Secretary Colin Powell criticized the move.

The American establishment, while offering strong support for Russia’s war on terrorism, feels let down. There is a growing sense that Putin’s suggested package of measures more likely has to do with Russia’s domestic political problems.

In the fight against terrorism, Russia remains a weak link in the chain of Western civilization. When Russia suffers a hit, so too does the very essence of this civilization. Nations of the West are disappointed that Russia has not taken decisive action to strengthen itself against terrorism, choosing instead to address internal political concerns.

If Kerry moves into the White House, criticism of Russia’s course will not be long in coming. If Bush remains a second term, he will have a progressively harder time defending his positions of unquestioning support for Russia’s actions. Today, on this count, most of America’s political establishment has already isolated him. It is getting ever harder for the White House to solve many issues favorably for Moscow.

A common myth exists that because Bush’s attitude toward Russia is positive, Moscow benefits from his continued tenure in office. But if we look at specific issues, including America’s military bases in Central Asia, the Iraq conflict and problems in Georgia, it is evident that the White House’s views do not always necessarily prevail. It is naïve to think that US-Russian conflicts are resolved simply by a phone call from Bush to Putin. US foreign policy is not the same as the president’s. In contrast to Russian foreign policy, it is formulated by a much broader spectrum of the political establishment. And the establishment does not share Bush’s positions on Russia. After the announcement of the Kremlin’s planned reforms, its views will doubtless gather momentum. No matter what administration comes to power, Moscow will increasingly struggle to justify its presence in certain international organizations and international forums. Russia risks being crossed out from the column of democratic, developed countries and added to the list of semi-democratic ones. Once again, Russia’s image as a country headed in the right direction is losing credibility. It again resembles a country moving toward totalitarianism.

The lack of transparency makes Western politicians, experts and everyday people more skeptical. Since everything is decided not by popular vote, but rather a secretive presidential administration, the unpredictability of those decisions is growing.

And this entails mounting economic and political risks. We should never forget that nothing is worse than unpredictability in foreign policy. It is better to have a predictable enemy than an unpredictable friend.