Putin - Bush: nothing to talk about

The upcoming meeting between Vladimir Putin and George Bush in Bratislava is increasingly surrounded by myths and fortune-telling as it approaches. Meanwhile, this summit will be one of the most useless in the history of such meetings, at least since the collapse of the USSR.

Some myth-makers, mainly the Western press and liberals in Russia, suggest that Bush will subject his friend Poo-Poo to serious criticism for the expropriation of Yuganskneftegaz and the destruction of one of Russia's most successful corporations, Yukos. Bush is under pressure from Congress and the American shareholders of YUKOS, who lost a lot of money in the Kremlin scam. Optimists also assume that Bush will address the problem of curtailing democracy in Russia, which has already manifested itself in the castration of most democratic institutions and the suppression of the media.

Others, mainly hawks from the Kremlin and those close to it, are beating their wings: the Americans are going to raise the issue of establishing their, the Americans, control over Russian nuclear arsenals at the summit. They also fear that Bush will prevent the signing of a contract that is extremely beneficial for Russian arms manufacturers to supply Strelets missile systems to Syria, a country that the United States has classified as a state sponsor of terrorists. Another stumbling block is the topic of the nuclear reactor in Iranian Bushehr, where the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy is going to supply nuclear fuel for processing... - here views diverge - into a peaceful atom, say Russian lobbyists; Nope, into an atom, which may well become the basis for weapons of mass destruction, the Americans say.

I think both of them should calm down. The result of the meeting in Bratislava will be complete and absolute zero.

The fact is that one side—Russia—has seen all of Bush’s lamentations about freedom of the press, YUKOS and Bushehr in the grave. Putin needs absolutely nothing from his friend George: no money, no parity agreements, no exhortations on humanitarian issues. Just a month before the summit, Russia repaid its debt to the International Monetary Fund, the main curator of Russian economic reforms, ahead of schedule. Plus, Putin instructed his Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin to find options to repay most of Russia’s $45 billion foreign debt to the Paris Club. It is obvious that Putin and his entourage, using incredible prices for oil and gas, want to get complete freedom to do whatever they want within the country, without regard to any nonsense like human rights or democratic procedures, and to continue the successfully started process of redistribution property.

What kind of Americans are there, what Bush is there, where is Western public opinion, when in the future there is the problem of 2008 and complete uncertainty about how the card will lie, whether officials in uniform will be able to maintain their control over political and economic power in the country, and, consequently, over the property or they will have to barricade themselves along the perimeter of the Kremlin wall, since at each gate those from whom they took this property will be waiting for them. This is a good question, but the Americans have absolutely nothing to do with it.

As for the other side at the negotiations in Bratislava, they too have their own difficulties. Namely: both Bush and his entourage are well aware that they no longer have any influence on Russian politics. Moreover, the Americans drove themselves into this dead end. The fact is that with the arrival of George Bush in the Oval Office of the White House, policy towards Russia has undergone a fundamental change. Obviously, not without the influence of Bush's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, now head of the State Department, the model developed by Henry Kissinger and successfully applied by President Richard Nixon was chosen in relations with Russia. In the USSR, let me remind you, then there was the regime of Leonid Brezhnev, the head of the KGB was Yuri Andropov, and the political opponents of the regime - dissidents - went to the Gulag in droves. So, the Nixon-Kissinger method was that it was necessary to establish relations of peaceful coexistence with the USSR, based on bare and completely cynical pragmatism. This pragmatism implied a simple formula: the USSR and the USA conclude agreements on nuclear deterrence, that is, on reducing the costs associated with the arms race, and in gratitude, the Americans undertake not to interfere in the internal affairs of the USSR: what are you doing there with your oppositionists, who are you sending and for how long? to the camps - this is yours, Messrs. Brezhnev and Andropov, a personal matter. The agreements were signed, the hands of the Soviet hawks were untied. This, as we know, ended in Afghanistan, the so-called proxy war, when in fact two superpowers clashed in Afghanistan - the USSR and the USA. As we know today, both lost: the USSR was forced to leave Afghanistan in disgrace after 10 years of an extremely unsuccessful and lost war, the USA received the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.

History, however, teaches nothing. With the arrival of the Republicans in the White House, the same Nixonian model was chosen in relations with Russia: pragmatism and pragmatism again. Russia does not interfere with America (or even helps, as was the case with military bases in Central Asia) in its fight against the axis of evil; the United States turns a blind eye to how Putin is curtailing democratic institutions in Russia.

The result is also already known. George W. Bush, who vowed in his inaugural speech on the occasion of his second term to help promote democracy around the world, finds himself, frankly, in a delicate situation: not only is his friend Vladimir leading his country in the exact opposite direction from democracy, but also creates problems in America and other regions of the world.

Foreign policy, as is known, is a continuation of domestic policy.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that the Kremlin has set a course for rapprochement with communist China. All the warnings of such pillars of political science as Samuel Huntington, who in his famous book “The Clash of Civilizations” said that the main danger for Russia is precisely China with its claims to hegemony in the Asian region and the vital need for expansion in the territory of Russian Siberia and beyond East, were rejected by the Kremlin. (However, I would not be surprised if the Kremlin has not heard about this academic work and has not held the book in its hands.) Taking advantage of China’s ever-increasing need for Russian energy resources, the Kremlin is seeking to conclude at least a temporary alliance with it, which will seriously play on the nerves of the United States. Moreover, according to CIA forecasts, by 2025 China will become the most powerful military power in the world.

The second problem that Bush faced was Russia's ever-increasing desire to regain the lost positions that the USSR had in the Middle East. And not at all as a partner in a peaceful settlement in this region. In any case, Syria, which is listed among the countries that sponsor terrorism, has had more than two-thirds of its debt (inherited from Soviet times) written off, and the decision to sell it modern Strelets missile systems was apparently made, among other things, to spite the United States and Israel , its ally in the Middle East. It is known that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a personal letter to Vladimir Putin, asked to refrain from selling weapons to Syria, fearing that they would fall into the hands of terrorists. Putin ignored this request. And it’s clear why: if Israel is an ally of the United States in the Middle East and oil-rich Iraq is under US control, then Russia, in order to prove its independence and claims to return to superpower status, should be friends with the open enemies of the United States - Syria and Iran.

What remains for George Bush at these negotiations in Bratislava? Continue to exhort friend Vladimir? But this is unlikely to stop the shipment of weapons to Syria. Should we say again that deliveries of nuclear fuel to the Iranian Bushehr nuclear power plant could turn into a nuclear bomb in the hands of a poorly predictable Islamist regime? Putin, obviously, understands this very well himself. However, it is no coincidence that an agreement with Iran on the supply of nuclear fuel is expected to be concluded two or three days after the end of the summit in Bratislava. Moreover, this was reported to the press exactly on the eve of the meeting with Bush. Perhaps Putin will back down here, as he did in Bushehr before. But - in exchange for what? To terminate the trial in the state of Texas in the case of expropriation of Yuganskneftegaz? Or to silence regarding further tightening of the screws within the country?

What other instruments of pressure is Bush forced to seek as a result of his own stupid and poorly thought-out policy towards Russia?

Don't let Russia into the WTO, as American senators demand? Kremlin hawks will be happy. Kick Russia out of the G8? Europe will not allow it: it is too dependent on Russian oil and gas. Refuse to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and create investment problems for Russia? Maybe Putin cares about this, but his officials in uniform don’t care at all. Quite the opposite: the fewer foreigners there are in Russia, the less their participation in Russian companies, the easier it is to take away property.

I fully admit that Vladimir Putin would like to maintain good relations with Bush in particular and with the West in general. But it is obvious that the Russian president has long been a hostage to his entourage and has chosen the side of his fellow security officers in turning their heads to everything that still moves and breathes in the Fatherland.

In short, Bush has few or even almost no degrees of freedom. Putin and his security forces will definitely win. And, of course, Henry Kissinger, a frequent guest of the Russian president and one of the highest paid consultants in the United States.

... History, as we know, teaches nothing. Still, it’s worth remembering: Nixon’s pragmatism ended in an escalating arms race. Almost ten years passed before Ronald Reagan, also, by the way, a Republican like Nixon and Bush, abandoned the pragmatic approach towards the USSR and put a moral imperative at the head of American policy. It’s a pity: when Bush came to the White House, Reagan was already seriously ill, did not remember anything (Alzheimer’s disease) and could no longer speak.

As a result, Bush and Putin have little to talk about in Bratislava. However, perhaps they will have a delicious dinner.