Translated material
There will be no war
Russia and the United States have no reason to fear each other
The last two weeks have been marked by events that many commentators - both in our country and abroad - hastened to declare as almost heralding a new “Cold War” between Russia and the United States. However, in my opinion, this view is unfounded, and the policy adjustments that could be initiated if adopted are short-sighted and dangerous.Yes, the attitude towards Russia in the West is now changing - but not as rapidly as Russian oppositionists and radical politicians in Europe and the USA would like. The main reason is simple: today the American administration is seriously concerned about only two foreign policy problems: first, the “war on terror” and the endless military operation that followed it in Iraq; secondly, the prospects for Iran's nuclear weapons and issues of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in general. These are the issues that weigh heavily on public opinion, which is increasingly being watched by politicians as the November midterm elections approach. Few are interested in the situation in Russia. Even if fewer and fewer Americans are inclined to see it as a worthy ally in the fight against terrorism, the number of those who are concerned about the threat emanating from Moscow is minimal. In the almost two decades that have passed since the end of the real Cold War, the opinion that the real danger to the United States may be posed not by hostile states or their blocs, but by communities of religious fanatics-terrorists, has become extremely stable.
There is every reason for such an attitude. Although Americans are concerned about the rapid rise in oil prices, which can - but only in combination with other destabilizing factors - slow down the current economic recovery, few people pay attention to Russia in this regard. This is understandable: unlike the countries of the European Union, in which the share of Russian gas reaches 24%, and oil - 16% of their total consumption, the United States does not import any significant amount of energy resources from our country. Moreover, the oil, not the gas, problem remains critical for America (dependence on oil imports has already reached 58%, while the US produces almost as much gas as Russia, and the deficit is covered by supplies from neighboring Canada).
The situation is also seriously influenced by the fact that in recent years, in the United States and in the Western world as a whole, an extremely skeptical attitude has become established towards the very possibility of successful and stable development of countries seeking to base their economic success on strengthening the raw materials sector. It is well known that oil has not brought economic achievements to the OPEC countries: for example, in 1982, the combined GDP of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela and Nigeria was about $294 billion, while the United States was just over 3.25 trillion dollars, then today this ratio is $570 billion to $11.6 trillion, i.e. decreased from 1:11 to 1:20. The inability of oil-producing countries to even maintain the standard of living that they achieved as a result of the successful “expropriation” of the West in the 70s and early 80s is also known: if in 1981 the GDP of Saudi Arabia was 19.7 thousand dollars per capita population, these days it barely reaches 7 thousand dollars.
So while prominent Russia experts (such as Martin Goldman, associate director of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University) privately admit that “Russia is not just economically stronger today than it has ever been; it is even more powerful than the Soviet Union in its best times”*, they do not see it as a rival to the United States, fully aware of the degree of dependence of the Russian economy on the notorious pipe.
This approach is especially evident whenever it comes to comparing Russia with another rapidly developing power - China. It is symptomatic that, speaking last week at a seminar organized by the editors of the influential new political magazine The American Interest , Zbigniew Brzezinski repeatedly emphasized that there could be no return to the Cold War in relations with Russia simply because it no longer poses the same danger. . Let me note: one of the reasons for this position, the speaker called the gap, obvious to him (and based on personal communication), in the degree of competence of the Russian and Chinese political elites and the depth of their understanding of global problems**. It can be said without exaggeration that the appearance in the rhetoric of Russian politicians of the idea of an “energy superpower” overseas was perceived more as a calming than an alarming symptom, since such “superpowers” are unknown to history.
Of course, when today they talk about the rapidly deteriorating relations between Russia and the United States, they point to the “inappropriate tones” speech of Vice President Dick Cheney on May 4 at the summit of heads of state of the “Community of Democratic Choice” in Vilnius. However, on the one hand, the formulation that in Russia “opponents of reforms are trying to reverse the achievements of the last decade” should be considered quite diplomatic and at the same time corresponding to reality when it comes to democratic freedoms. On the other hand, the vice president’s rhetoric and his subsequent speeches in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, as well as the hidden response to them contained in President Vladimir Putin’s message to the Federal Assembly, were regarded by many as an obvious political failure of the American side against the backdrop of a balanced reaction from the Russian side***. If Mr. Cheney wanted to draw attention to Russia's growing problems with democracy, freedom of speech and political liberties, he failed.
And finally, what is, in my opinion, the most important. The Cold War is believed to have begun with a speech by Winston Churchill in Fulton, Missouri. It is not very well known that he called this speech “Principles of Peace.” There was no hatred in her for the USSR; in addition to acknowledging the role of the Soviet people in the victory over fascism, Churchill said that he “does not believe that Soviet Russia is striving for war,” and continued: “We understand Russia’s need to ensure the security of its western borders by excluding any possibility of German aggression; We welcome the emergence of Russia among the leading states of the world... and to an even greater extent we strive - or should strive - to increase contacts between the people of Russia and the peoples of our countries on both sides of the Atlantic.” However, the habit of not passing by obvious facts forced him to admit with regret: “...From Stettin on the Baltic coast to Trieste on the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended on the continent,” and add: “No one knows what Soviet Russia and its communist international intend to do.” and what are the limits, if any, of their expansionist and proselytizing policies.”
Today in the world there is not the danger of aggression that Russia could fear; no “iron curtain” between us and Europe; neither the “communist international” or even its analogue, nor the ideology that the Russian elite could offer (the only clear position “declared” at the recent Russian Economic Forum - “luxury as the national idea of Russia” - can certainly not be considered dangerous for the Western world).
In conclusion, I would like to once again quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in the already mentioned speech openly ridiculed American experts on the terrorist threat, who almost daily present to the public from television screens or from the pages of newspapers the next threat that the machinations of extremists pose to the country. Most Americans, in his opinion, are fed up with fear-mongering. I would like the same sentiments to dominate in Russia. Because only in this case, the unsuccessful tirades of politicians who have long ceased to be popular in their own country will not attract the attention of bureaucrats who have never enjoyed trust in their own. And it will be possible to say: a war - even a “cold” one - will not happen.
*During a conversation at a private dinner (Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 12, 2006).
** Speech at a luncheon for participants and guests of a seminar organized by the editors of The American Interest magazine (Washington, Mandarin Oriental Hotel, May 6, 2006).
*** See, for example: Lieven, Anatol. Putin versus Cheney in: International Herald Tribune , 2006, May 11.