Mobile version Today: 10.10.2015 Last update 00:46 | Select date
home sitemap write a letter facebook twitter
Add to favourites RSS

About us
    London Gold Fix Closed – Sign of Drastic Changes the World Financial System...  
    Nuland attempts Kiev Version 2.0 in Skopje  
    Mission Imperative: Why the West and Kiev Regime Must Kill the Truth  
Secrecy of Obama’s TPP Trade Deal
Russia’s First Week in Waging a “Real” War on Terror. 112 Targets Struck. ISIS Forces Retreating
all articles
Russia says kills 300 militants in Syria in most intense raids yet...

Big rise in German attacks on migrant homes in 2015...

Europe should not take orders from US on Russia ties: Juncker...

US to abandon training new Syria rebel groups...

Xi congratulates Kim Jong Un on founding anniversary of Workers' Party of Korea...

Six killed in Gaza as Israeli-Palestinian violence widens...

First refugees relocated to Sweden under EU plan...

Russia, Bolivia sign MoU for nuclear cooperation...

Iran's top military advisor killed in Syria's Aleppo...

Afghan forces kill 175 Taliban militants in clean-up operations...

Ben Carson defends linking gun control to the Holocaust...

No Syria-bound Russian missiles landed in Iran: Moscow...

Libya crisis: UN proposes unity government...

News analysis: Success of Hillary Clinton's bid to revamp image in presidential race remains uncertain...

Syrian army makes new gains in western province of Lattakia...

all news


back print

The US Hits the Red Line in its Confrontation with Russia

Nikolai BOBKIN | 04.04.2014 | 00:00 Comments: 1

On 2 April, Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with John Kerry in which he stressed the need for joint efforts to establish a broad internal dialogue in Ukraine in the interests of furthering a national consent acceptable to all the regions of Ukraine. In response, Kerry set about promising that the US is interested in continuing the search for agreed approaches, while at the same time a Kiev delegation held talks in Brussels regarding Ukraine’s accession to the military alliance NATO. It is unclear on what grounds the White House has decided that the Kremlin will agree to extend the alliance to its own borders, with the length of the Russian-Ukrainian border standing at 2,295.04 km (of which 1,974.04 km is land border and 321 km is sea border).

Sergey Lavrov remarked that he had seen an interesting picture on the internet: «A map of the Russian Federation and US military bases around it. It looks very impressive. There are over a hundred of them. And there is a quote from a US soldier: ‘How dare Russians be so close to our bases?’» With Ukraine’s accession to NATO, it would no longer be a question of ‘bases’; there is obviously a desire to turn a neighbouring and friendly state into a military foothold, and the Russian-Ukrainian border into a frontline with barbed wire. Moscow will not let this happen, and for the time being is just giving warning. 

Russia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry has officially cautioned Ukraine against changing the country’s non-aligned status. Kiev should remember that Ukraine’s unsuccessful Euro-Atlantic integration during Yushchenko’s presidency led to a freezing of Russian-Ukrainian political contacts, a deterioration in economic relations, and a deepening split within Ukrainian society. While pushing NATO towards its latest anti-Russian venture, meanwhile, US chief diplomat John Kerry, who has already earned the nickname ‘John Fraud Kerry’, is now once again lying to the international community about the fact that Washington is allegedly looking for «agreed approaches».

Talking about the differences between Russia and NATO regarding Crimea, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared the suspension of military cooperation between the alliance and Russia. The decision was made by the foreign ministers from NATO’s member states, who on 1 April issued a statement on the termination of all types of military and civil cooperation with the Russian Federation. It should be noted that this will have absolutely no effect on Russia’s security, since there was virtually no such cooperation between Moscow and Brussels, with the exception of negligible interaction on Afghanistan. At Brussels’ initiative, Russia and NATO’s joint projects on a helicopter force and the training of anti-drug officers for Afghanistan will be aborted. 

With regard to the helicopters, this refers to replacement parts for dozens of engines, while it is not even worth mentioning the drugs. During the 12 years that NATO forces have occupied Afghanistan, the volume of opium production has increased 44-fold, and the country has become a clear leader in the global drug threat, including for Europe, where up to 25 percent of Afghanistan’s heroin is consumed. Obviously, the refusal to train 30-40 Afghans in Russia to combat the US-organised drug trade is not going to weaken Russia. The alliance, however, is not in a hurry to give up NATO’s transit point in Ulyanovsk for the transport of people and goods to Afghanistan. Evidently they are waiting to see what Russia says about it, and then they can loudly tell the world about Moscow’s ‘sabotage’ of the peace process in Afghanistan. 

NATO’s decision to suspend military and civil cooperation with Moscow is just hot air, and NATO’s leadership, which would like to maintain a political dialogue with Russia, is also aware of this. While counting on such a dialogue, however, NATO is also taking up a position that is fundamentally unacceptable to the Kremlin; it is trying to present the situation in such a way that Ukraine is supposedly far more important for the security of NATO than the security of Russia. Since when has Ukraine been a «key element of Euro-Atlantic security» as declared by NATO’s foreign ministers? Hasn’t Washington turned far too many European countries from sovereign states into «elements» of America’s strategy in Europe? In 1990, NATO had 16 members. These were later joined by another 12, and all of these are positioned close to Russia’s borders. Now they want to expand this list once again. 

US Defense Minister Chuck Hagel is calling for war: «It is a time for all of us to stand with the Ukrainian people in support of their territorial integrity and their sovereignty. And we are doing that.» Obama’s administration wants Moscow to lose sleep over the military threat at Russia’s borders, and for Russia to no longer be able to successfully counteract US expansion, as was the case with Syria and Iran. This is precisely why the chairman of the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, began arguing that after Crimea, Russia was intending to invade Georgia and Armenia. There is no doubt that this paranoia is failing to find support in American society, unlike in demoralised and divided Europe.

Americans were shocked when Hillary Clinton publicly compared President Putin to Hitler. Many in America are horrified that this woman is itching to become the US president and may in fact manage it. As you know, the American electoral system is far from perfect, and an expression of the will of the people similar to the Crimea referendum would simply not be possible there. Those in charge of the White House do not have the support of the whole nation. There is good reason why the last three US presidents failed in their foreign policies: the world associates the names of George Bush and his son George W Bush with war and violence, as it does the name Obama. Fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned are not happy with the actions taken by Barak Obama in connection with events in Ukraine, while nearly just as many (54 percent) are critical of his actions regarding Russia. Many see Washington’s reaction to Ukraine as Obama’s desire to avenge himself for his defeat in Syria, as well as his personal envy of Putin, whose international standing is incomparably higher than that of the US president. In the eyes of the international community, the Russian president is the most successful leader of the 21st century. Americans, meanwhile, tend to think that Obama’s foreign policy is the White House boss’s biggest shortcoming. It is impossible to consider the actions of the Obama administration regarding Ukraine as anything other than a demonstration of impotence at the sight of Russia’s growing international influence. 

Washington has used Ukraine as a pretext for US neocons to provoke a confrontation with Moscow. The coup in Kiev turned out to be perfect for this, but Russia’s ‘Crimean response’ defeated America’s plans for a US game on the ‘grand chessboard’. President Obama wanted to wound President Putin by calling Russia a «regional power». He pleased the Kiev putschists with his comment, but Ukraine will not become America’s consolation prize for its lost international standing. Almost a quarter (24 percent) of the people on Earth believes that the biggest threat to peace is the United States of America, which considers itself  to be «the only global power». 

Tags: Russia US Kerry Lavrov Obama

Rating: 4.9 (27)      Your rating: 1 2 3 4 5     
Send by e-mail

To add a comment, Login or Register
    Valentin KATASONOV

Technical Default or Death Sentence for Ukrainian Economy?

Situation in Ukraine has been leading up to this for a long time and it has finally happened. A default was formally registered on 23 September – the day that the European Committee of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) adopted its resolution on Ukraine confirming the country’s technical default...

Aeroflot AFISMA African Union Africom AIIB AIPAC Al Qaeda Al Shabaab Al-Jazeera ALBA Amnesty International Anonymous Ansar Allah APEC Arab League ASEAN ATAKA Atomstroyexport Bank for International Settlements Bank of America Barclays Basel Committee BBC Bilderberg Club Black Bloc BlackRock Blackwater Boco Haram BP BRICS CARICOM CELAC Center for Responsive Politics CEPAL Chatham House Chevron CIA CICA CIS Citigroup CNN Committee of 147 Committee of 300 Council of Europe Council on Foreign Relations Crescent Crescent Petroleum CSTO Customs Union CyberBerkut DARPA Davos DEA Defense Intelligence Agency DIA Dragon Family E.ON Eager Lion ECOWAS EDA ELNET Enbridge Pipelines ETA EU EULEX EurAsEc Eurasian Union European Commission European Court of Human Rights European Union Exxon Mobil Facebook FAO FARC FATAH FBI FDA Federal Reserve FIFA Financial Action Task Force Financial Stability Board Fitch FIVE EYES Franklin Templeton Freedom House FRS FSB FTA FUEN G-4 G20 G7 G8 GATA Gazprom GCHQ GECF Gladio Glonass Goldman Sachs Google Green Group Greenpeace GUAM Guardian Gulf Cooperation Council Hague Tribunal HAMAS Heritage Foundation Hezbollah Hizb ut-Tahrir Hollywood HSBC Human Rights Watch IAEA IEA IHRC IMF International Criminal Court Interpol IOC ISAF Islamic jihad Islamic Revolution Guards Corps ITERA Jamestown Jobbik JP Morgan Jundullah KFOR KLA Ku Klux Klan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Lukoil Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mercosur Microsoft Missile defense Missile Defense Agency Monsanto Moody's Morgan Stanley Mossad Most-Favoured Nation Mujahedin-e Khalq Muslim Brotherhood Nabucco NAFTA Naftogaz NASA Nation of Islam National Security Agency NATO NDAA NDI NED Non-aligned Movement NORAD Nord Stream NORTHCOM Northern Distribution Network NSA OECD Oerlikon OIC OPCW OPEC Open Government Partnership Organization of American States OSCE OTW movement OUN / UPA PACE PACOM Pan-Europa movement Pegida Pentagon PJAK PKK Podemos PRISM PYD Red Cross Renova Republican Party Rosatom Roscosmos Rosneft Rosoboronexport Ruhrgas RusAl RWE SABSA Scientology Shanghai Cooperation Organization Shell Siemens South Stream Southern Command Standard & Poor's Statoil Strategic Nuclear Forces Stratfor SWF SWIFT Syrian National Council SYRIZA Taliban Tamarod TAPI TeleSur TNK-BP Total Trans-Pacific Partnership Transneft TTIP TTP Turkish Stream Twitter UN UN International Court UNASUR UNESCO UNICEF USAID Valdai Club Visegrad Group Wall Street Westinghouse WHO Wikileaks World Bank WTO Yukos “Mass Atrocity Response Operations”

Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal



© Strategic Culture Foundation


Main Politics History&Culture Archive Authors Popular
  Economics Columns About Contact

Nikolai BOBKIN

all articles