-Caveat Lector- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26323
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE U.S. relations put Putin on the spot Replacement would take Russia in much more hostile direction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Editor's note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies. © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen to extensively cooperate with the United States, but so far Moscow has only received token handouts in exchange for numerous concessions. Unless Putin can show he is getting substantial benefits from Washington, the Russian populace may rank him alongside past leaders Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin as a puppet of the West. U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Jan. 31 that the United States is seeking Russia's help in promoting change in Iran, Iraq and North Korea – specifically in halting the spread of weapons technology to and from these countries. The same day, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov met with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to hammer out the details of the May 23 U.S.-Russia summit. Most of the conversation reportedly had to do with Putin's economic reforms. In other words, the United States continues to place demands on Russia in foreign policy while dangling economic benefits in front of it. The United States has put Putin on the spot. His rise to power stemmed partly from the failure of his predecessor's economic policies and partly from the perception, following the Kosovo war, that Russia had submitted to U.S. foreign policy demands in return for very little. Indeed, Russians saw their last two leaders, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, as accommodating themselves to Western demands in both economic and foreign policy, without receiving any of the expected rewards. In the minds of many Russians, their Westernizing leaders were at best dupes and at worst traitors who sold out Russia for nothing. Clearly, Putin cannot afford to become the third leader of this type. The United States turned to Russia for strategic support early during the Afghan war. Washington was in an extremely difficult position: It had to respond militarily in Afghanistan, but geopolitical realities limited access to the country. It was forced to depend on both political and strategic support from Russia. Despite a fairly rocky start to relations with the Bush administration, Putin chose extensive cooperation with the United States. He obviously expected a mutually beneficial relationship. Forging a partnership with the West – even as a junior partner – is central to Putin's foreign and economic policy, and he seized the opportunity presented by the Afghan campaign to make nearly any sacrifice necessary to achieve that goal. But without substantial, demonstrable rewards, Putin can only lose. Russia has made many concessions to the United States. It has massively reduced its own global intelligence capability by closing the Lourdes listening station in Cuba and announcing its withdrawal from Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. Putin has put meaningful union with hard-line Belarus on hold, and he has not generated substantial pressure over NATO expansion. The president also has acceded to a U.S. military presence in Central Asia, and he reportedly will allow Russian oil companies to participate in U.S.-sponsored pipeline schemes. On the surface, at least, the rewards for these concessions have not been evident. To the contrary, the United States has taken a series of steps that are clearly not in Russia's interest. For instance, by January 2002, it was apparent that the United States was developing a long-term presence in Central Asia. Russia had believed that the U.S. presence in the region would be temporary and based on strategic understandings that were trilateral – including Russia in the bilateral relationship with the host country. Moreover, Washington also has announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and it is now refusing to make arms reduction talks into legally binding treaty discussions, despite Russian wishes. Finally, low-ranking State Department officials met with Ilyas Akhmadov, the Chechen "foreign minister," on Jan. 23, after Washington criticized Russian security sweeps in Chechnya. There has been some movement on the economic front, but not much. For example, there is evidence that the United States is nudging the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to do more for Russia. This could result in about $1 billion in credits being made available to Russia this year. Since each dollar of EBRD funding normally generates about $3.50 in private investment, Russia could enjoy almost $5 billion in Western investment. This is not bad, but it doesn't come close to solving Russia's economic problems – nor, interestingly, does it include a package directly from the United States. In other words, Russia has given indispensable strategic support to the United States and is being asked to provide more, in return for little more than token economic aid. Meanwhile, the United States continues to maintain pressure on Russia's strategic position in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. The United States obviously is not prepared to accept Russia's fundamental strategic requirement: that it at least reassert a definitive sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The question is how much farther Putin can go without dramatically weakening his position at home. The U.S. viewpoint is that the al-Qaida challenge is so profound that support for U.S. strategic interests is now the litmus test of friendship. Friends will cooperate with the United States without asking for a quid pro quo; those who demand one are not friends. Certainly, at a later date – with the national emergency contained – the United States will reciprocate. However, the United States right now expects unconditional support, period. Implicit in this is a belief by some in the administration that, if necessary, the United States can go it alone – that there is no country it cannot afford to alienate in pursuit of its war on al-Qaida. Out of this, the United States has created a two-tiered foreign policy. On one level, there is the war on al-Qaida. On another level, there is everything else. The two are not intimately connected. The war on al-Qaida takes complete precedence over everything else. Thus, the United States expects cooperation regarding the war while it pursues other aspects of the U.S.-Russian relationship as if the war had changed nothing. If the United States persists in pursuing a one-sided relationship, Putin and Russia's Westernizers will have failed. Their replacement will take Russia in a much more hostile direction. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! Write to same address to be off lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
