Cold War 2.0

[TsarSamuil]

Why we must return to the US-Russian parity principle - Prof. Stephen Cohen.

RT.com
June 04, 2015 15:44

The US is now in a new Cold War with Russia over the Ukrainian crisis largely because Washington rejected the parity principle. Unless the idea of détente is embraced by both sides, the situation could escalate into actual war.

In June 2014, I warned that the Ukrainian crisis was the worst US-Russian confrontation in many decades. It had already plunged us into a new (or renewed) Cold War potentially even more perilous than its forty-year US-Soviet predecessor because the epicenter of this one was on Russia’s borders; because it lacked the stabilizing rules developed during the preceding Cold War; and because, unlike before, there was no significant opposition to it in the American political-media establishment. I also warned that we might soon be closer to actual war with Russia than we had been since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

I regret to say that today the crisis is even worse. The new Cold War has been deepened and institutionalized by transforming what began, in February last year, as essentially a Ukrainian civil war into a US/NATO-Russian proxy war; by a torrent of inflammatory misinformation out of Washington, Moscow, Kiev and Brussels; and by Western economic sanctions that are compelling Russia to retreat politically, as it did in the late 1940s, from the West. Still worse, both sides are again aggressively deploying their conventional and nuclear weapons and probing the other’s defenses in the air and at sea. Diplomacy between Washington and Moscow is being displaced by resurgent militarized thinking, while cooperative relationships nurtured over many decades, from trade, education, and science to arms control, are being shredded. And yet, despite this fateful crisis and its growing dangers, there is still no effective political opposition to the US policies that have contributed to it—not in the administration, Congress, mainstream media, think tanks, or on campuses—but instead mostly uncritical political, financial, and military boosterism for the increasingly authoritarian Kiev regime, hardly a bastion of “democracy and Western values.”

Indeed, the current best hope to avert a larger war is being assailed by political forces, especially in Washington and in US-backed Kiev, that seem to want a military showdown with Russia’s unreasonably vilified president, Vladimir Putin. In February, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande brokered in Minsk a military and political agreement with Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if implemented, would end the Ukrainian civil war. Powerful enemies of the Minsk accord—again, in both Washington and Kiev—denounced it as appeasement of Putin while demanding that President Obama send $3 billion of weapons to Kiev. Such a step would escalate the war in Ukraine, sabotage the ceasefire and political negotiations agreed upon in Minsk, and provoke a Russian military response with unpredictable consequences. While Europe is splitting over the crisis, and with it perhaps shattering the vaunted transatlantic alliance, this recklessness in Washington is fully bipartisan, urged on by four all-but-unanimous votes in Congress. (We must therefore honor the 48 House members who voted against the warfare resolution on March 23, even if their dissent was too little, too late.)

Above all, because Washington gradually acknowledged that Soviet Russia was a co-equal great power with comparable legitimate national interests in world affairs. This recognition was given a conceptual basis and a name: “parity.”

It is true that “parity” began as a grudging recognition of the US-Soviet nuclear capacity for “mutually assured destruction” and that, due to their different systems (and “isms”) at home, the parity principle (as I termed it in 1981 in a New York Times op-ed) did not mean moral equivalence. It is also true that powerful American political forces never accepted the principle and relentlessly assailed it. Even so, the principle existed—like sex in Victorian England, acknowledged only obliquely in public but amply practiced—as reflected in the commonplace expression “the two superpowers,” without the modifier “nuclear.”

Most important, every US president returned to it, from Eisenhower to Reagan. Thus, Jack Matlock Jr., a leading diplomatic participant in and historian of the Reagan-Gorbachev-Bush détente, tells us that for Reagan, “détente was based on several logical principles,” the first being “the countries would deal with each other as equals.”

Three elements of US-Soviet parity were especially important. First, both sides had recognized spheres of influence, “red lines” that should not be directly challenged. This understanding was occasionally tested, even violated, as in Cuba in 1962, but it prevailed. Second, neither side should interfere excessively, apart from the mutual propaganda war, in the other’s internal politics. This too was tested—particularly in regard to Soviet Jewish emigration and political dissidents—but generally negotiated and observed. And third, Washington and Moscow had a shared responsibility for peace and mutual security in Europe, even while competing economically and militarily in what was called the Third World. This assumption was also tested by serious crises, but they did not negate the underlying parity principle.

The primary cause of this fateful crisis has been US policy since the 1990s, not “Russian aggression.” But I did so here 10 months ago and subsequently published those remarks (“Patriotic Heresy vs. The New Cold War,” September 15, 2014). Instead, I want to look back briefly to the US-Soviet Cold War, as well as ahead, in order to ask, perhaps quixotically: Even if negotiations over the Ukrainian civil war proceed, how do we sustain them and avoid another prolonged, more perilous Cold War with post-Soviet Russia?

The answer is through a new détente between Washington and Moscow. For this, we must relearn a fundamental lesson from the history of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War and how it ended, a history largely forgotten, distorted, or unknown to many younger Americans. Simply recalled, détente, as an idea and a policy, meant expanding elements of cooperation in US-Soviet relations while diminishing areas of dangerous conflict, particularly, though not only, in the existential realm of the nuclear arms race. In this regard, détente had a long, always embattled, often defeated but ultimately victorious history.

Leaving aside the first détente of 1933, when Washington officially recognized Soviet Russia after fifteen years of diplomatic non-recognition (the first Cold War), latter-day détente began in the mid-1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. It was soon disrupted by Cold War forces and events on both sides. The pattern continued for thirty years: under President John Kennedy and Khrushchev, after the Cuban Missile Crisis; under President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, in the growing shadow of Vietnam; under President Richard Nixon and Brezhnev in the 1970s, the most expansive era of détente; and briefly under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, also with Brezhnev. Each time, détente was gravely undermined, intentionally and unintentionally, and abandoned as Washington policy, though not by its determined American proponents. (Having been among them in the 1970s and ’80s, I can testify on their behalf.)

Then, in 1985, the seemingly most Cold War president ever, Ronald Reagan, began with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev a renewed détente so far-reaching that both men, as well as Reagan’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, believed they had ended the Cold War. How did détente, despite three decades of repeated defeats and political defamation, remain a vital and ultimately triumphant (as it seemed at the time to most observers) American policy?

Those tenets of parity prevented a US-Soviet hot war during the long Cold War. They were the basis of détente’s great diplomatic successes, from symbolic bilateral leadership summits, arms control agreements, and the 1975 Helsinki Accords on European security, based on sovereign equality, to many other forms of cooperation now being discarded. And in 1985-89, they made possible what both sides declared to be the end of the Cold War.

We are in a new Cold War with Russia today, and specifically over the Ukrainian confrontation, largely because Washington nullified the parity principle. Indeed, we know when, why, and how this happened.

The three leaders who negotiated an end to the US-Soviet Cold War said repeatedly at the time, in 1988-90, that they did so “without any losers.” Both sides, they assured each other, were “winners.” But when the Soviet Union itself ended nearly two years later, in December 1991, Washington conflated the two historic events, leading the first President Bush to change his mind and declare, in his 1992 State of the Union address, “By the grace of God, America won the Cold War.” He added that there was now “one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America.” This dual rejection of parity and assertion of America’s pre-eminence in international relations became, and remains, a virtually sacred US policymaking axiom, one embodied in the formulation by President Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, that “America is the world’s indispensable nation,” which was echoed in President Obama’s 2014 address to West Point cadets, in which he said, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.”

This official American triumphalist narrative is what we have told ourselves and taught our children for nearly twenty-five years. Rarely is it challenged by leading American politicians or commentators. It is a bipartisan orthodoxy that has led to many US foreign policy disasters, not least in regard to Russia.

For more than two decades, Washington has perceived post-Soviet Russia as a defeated and thus lesser nation, presumably analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II, and therefore as a state without legitimate rights and interests comparable to America’s, either abroad or at home, even in its own region. Anti-parity thinking has shaped every major Washington policy toward Moscow, from the disastrous crusade to remake Russia in America’s image in the 1990s, ongoing expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, non-reciprocal negotiations known as “selective cooperation,” double-standard conduct abroad, and broken promises to persistent “democracy-promotion” intrusions into Russia’s domestic politics.

Two exceedingly dangerous examples are directly related to the Ukrainian crisis. For years, US leaders have repeatedly asserted that Russia is not entitled to any “sphere of influence,” even on its own borders, while at the same time enlarging the US sphere of influence, spearheaded by NATO, to those borders—by an estimated 400,000 square miles, probably the largest such “sphere” inflation ever in peacetime. Along the way, the US political-media establishment has vilified Putin personally in ways it never demonized Soviet Communist leaders, at least after Stalin, creating the impression of another policy orientation antithetical to parity—the delegitimization and overthrow of Russia’s government.

Moscow has repeatedly protested this US sphere creep, loudly after it resulted in a previous proxy war in another former Soviet republic, Georgia, in 2008, but to deaf or defiant ears in Washington. Inexorably, it seems, Washington’s anti-parity principle led to today’s Ukrainian crisis, and Moscow reacted as it would have under any established national leader, and as any well-informed observer knew it would.

Unless the idea of détente is fully rehabilitated, and with it the essential parity principle, the new Cold War will include a growing risk of actual war with nuclear Russia. We must therefore strive for a new détente. Time may not be on our side, but reason is.

To those who say this is “appeasement” or “Putin apologetics,” we reply, no, it is American patriotism, not only because of the risk of a larger war but because real US national security on many vital issues and in many critical regions—from nuclear proliferation and international terrorism to the Middle East and Afghanistan—requires a partner in the Kremlin.

To those who insist that an American president must never enter into such a partnership with the demonized Putin, we explain that his vilification is largely without facts or logic. We also point out that NATO expansion eastward since the 1990s willfully excluded Russia from Europe’s post-Soviet “security order,” which Putin is now accused of betraying, while that expansion betrayed the West’s earlier promise to Moscow of a “Common European Home.”

To those triumphalists who insist that Russia is not entitled to any “sphere of influence,” we answer that the issue is not nineteenth-century imperialism but a reasonable zone of security on its borders free of US or NATO military power—in Ukraine and Georgia, to take the most pressing examples. And we ask: If the United States is entitled to such zones of security not only in Canada and Mexico but throughout the Western Hemisphere, according to Washington’s Monroe Doctrine, why is not Russia so entitled regarding its neighbors? (To those who answer that any country that formally qualifies has a right to NATO membership, we say, no, NATO is a security organization, not a charity or the AARP, and indiscriminate NATO expansion has not truly enhanced any nation’s security but only discouraged diplomacy, as the Ukrainian crisis demonstrates.)

To those who say Russia lacks such equal entitlements because Moscow lost the 40-year Cold War, we explain how it actually ended.

And to those who maintain that America must pursue “democracy promotion,” even regime change, in today’s Russia, we answer, as I did in Congressional testimony in 1977: “We do not have the wisdom or the power, or the right, to try directly to shape change inside the Soviet Union. Any foreign government that becomes deeply involved in Soviet internal politics…will do itself and others more harm than good. What the United States can and should do is influence Soviet liberalization indirectly by developing a long-term American foreign policy, and thereby an international environment, that will strengthen reformist trends and undermine reactionary ones inside the Soviet Union.… In short, détente.”

That truth was confirmed by events less than a decade later, and then forgotten. It is no less applicable to Russia, and to US-Russian relations, today, beginning with the application of the parity principle to Ukraine. This means both sides agreeing to an independent but militarily non-aligned Ukraine with a fair degree of home rule for those regions fighting to preserve their historical affinities with Russia and for those seeking fuller relations with the West. Implementing the embattled Minsk accords would be a major step in this direction, as its enemies understand. Others say it is too late for such a détente, that too much blood has been shed in Ukraine. But consider the alternatives.

[TsarSamuil]

‘Obama zombies’: Americans sign prankster’s petition to nuke Russia (VIDEO)

RT.com
June 09, 2015 14:33

US journalist Mark Dice has asked the people of San Diego to sign President Barack Obama’s “plan” to nuke Russia to “maintain America’s superiority.” The majority of beachgoers didn’t appear to get the joke, and signed the fake petition.

The “experiment” was recorded on video, whichMark Dice thenshared on his Twitter, YouTube and Facebook accounts.

“We just need a couple more signatures to support President [Barack] Obama’s new plan to deal with Russia,” Dice tell a random man whom he stops. “We are going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.”

The man, who does not seem to be much familiar with the issue, cuts off Dice in mid-sentence, and says: “I’ll sign it for you.”

Dice encouraged people to sign the petition, saying that by signing it they are going to “support a nuclear strike against Russia.”

“This is the one way we can maintain our superiority,” Dice says.

“You know how Russia has been threatening United States lately,” he tells an apparent anti-Russian American patriot, who replies: “Yeah!”

“I have been American all my life,” says the man who is signing the petition, “Let’s hope he doesn’t disappoint me,” he added, apparently referring to Obama.

There was just one couple who refuse to sign the petition, after they heard it was to support Obama’s plan to “launch the preemptive nuclear demonstration against Russia.”

Another couple asked Dice if he was really thinking that the US was “going to” nuke Russia.

“I don’t think we are going to,” a woman says.

Despite seeming mistrustful, they signed the petition, however.

Dice seems to be surprised by the results of his experiment, saying that the test results “are disturbing.”

The “test” was conducted amid growing tensions between Russia and the West.

AP reported last week that Washington was considering withdrawing from a Cold War-era treaty with Moscow and returning nuclear-capable medium-range missiles to Europe in an effort to counter what it calls "Russian aggression."

Cited by AP, the plan that it was penned by the office of US General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, contained several contingencies for a scenario in which a key missile treaty between US and Russia fails.

Following the G7 summit in Germany, the leaders of the member states said they were ready to impose additional sanctions on Russia, if the situation in Ukraine worsens.

“There were discussions over additional steps,” if Russia “doubles the aggression on Ukraine,” President Obama said.

Dice, the author of several popular books on secret societies and conspiracies, is also known for other “social experiments” making fun of Americans.

He previously asked San Diego, where he is based, to sign an "I Support Illiteracy" petition to "spread illiteracy" in America.

A week ago, he approached beachgoers, asking them to repeat after him “I am a Zombie Who Does What I’m Told, Without Thinking.” Dice shared the results on social media.

Three months ago, he targeted Michele’s Obama lunch program when he asked students in San Diego to sign a petition to “add Soylent Green (Human Flesh) on School Menus.”

In 2013, he asked California beachgoers if they would sign a petition to support Barack Obama’s plan to repeal the Bill of Rights.

[Deleted]

Sometimes one doesn't know whether to laugh, be upset or weep out of pity.

[TsarSamuil]

The movie idiocracy doesn't seem so far off anymore..

[TsarSamuil]

US Would 'Stand Up' to Russian Revival of Soviet Sphere of Influence.

POLITICS 07:12 23.06.2015

The United States is not going to make an enemy out of Russia, but will counter any effort by Moscow to reestablish the Soviet sphere of influence, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in a speech at the Atlantik Brucke (Atlantic Bridge) conference in Berlin.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The Defense Secretary claimed Russia had flouted international law, and destabilized the European security order by annexing Crimea and allegedly supporting continuing violence in eastern Ukraine.

“We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot war with Russia. We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake, we will defend our allies… We will stand up to Russia's actions and their attempts to reestablish a Soviet-era sphere of influence.”

Carter further claimed that Russia had also violated the UN Charter, the Helsinki Accords, the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

Since Crimea’s reunification with Russia, Carter asserted, the United States, NATO and the European Union (EU) “have made clear to Russia that its aggressive actions have no place in today's world.”

Russia, however, contends NATO has relentlessly expanded eastward breaking solemn commitments given by US leaders before the collapse of the Soviet Union, increasing the threat-level on its borders.

Moscow has pointed out it is the United States and the European Union that supported the violent coup toppling Ukraine’s democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, and this set off the secession of Ukraine’s two eastern provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk.

Since then, the Kiev successor regime of President Petro Poroshenko, backed by Washington, has used heavy artillery and air attacks against cities and villages in Eastern Ukraine.

Moreover, Russia has pointed out that more than 90 percent of Crimea’s voters chose to reunify with Russia through a democratic referendum.

[TsarSamuil]

Russia pictured as monster with claws on cartoon map for schoolkids causes stir in Netherlands.

RT.com
June 24, 2015 09:50

A picture in a Dutch social studies textbook for 16-year-olds portrays Russia as a monster with claws and fangs trying to devour Ukraine, while Europe extends a helping hand.

Another image in the same text book also characterizes Russia as a ‘non-free’ country.

This picture, first published in a Dutch newspaper in early 2014, is placed in textbook’s Chapter 7 titled ‘Countries without democracy’. Pupils are asked to describe what's happening in the cartoon.

One of the questions students are asked is: “What is Russia doing, and what is Europe doing in this picture?”

The schoolbook is called ‘Themes in Social Studies 1’ and is intended for 15- to 16-year-old pupils’ ‘preparatory middle-level vocational education’. This textbook is updated on an annual basis, with the 2014-2015 version carrying, among others, pictures of President Barack Obama, the Pope and the winner of Eurovision 2014, Conchita Wurst.

The textbook also gives children a helping hand in understanding what countries are good or bad on a global scale, presenting a map where countries are painted in accordance with the ‘degree of freedom’. Countries like Russia and China are painted as ‘non-free’, while the EU member states and the US are pictured as the most liberated countries.

“I think it is highly biased from the Western point of view,” activist Ancilla Tilia told RT. “It is absolutely anti-Russian propaganda, which is ironic, because Russia is often accused of inspiring propaganda, but it seems that we’re not able to recognize that we are also being propagandized.”

The images in the textbook went viral after one angry citizen shared it online.

“Since the end of the Second World War, anti-Russian propaganda in the Netherlands has been huge. Since the fall of the so-called Iron Curtain, it has shrunk a little,” Michel Philipsen, the man who posted the book's content online, told RT.

All Dutch news media share the same “anti-Putin, anti-Russia, anti-Communist bias, as if Russia was still a Communist country today,” he added.

The 'evil' Russia images triggered strong reactions on the Internet.

Some complained the propaganda is so blunt that it makes even the most gullible people suspicious.

While others suggested that anti-Russian propaganda in European textbooks is nothing new.

Some parents were also concerned that this kind of material could become more widespread.

Tilia believes the images in the school book are biased and not backed by facts.

“I think it’s definitely a way of demonizing Russia in this conflict, which is not new at all,” Tilia said.

A Sott.net article written by Amari Roos claims that regarding Russia ‘devouring’ Ukraine, “the truth is opposite to what Dutch children are being taught.”

While Russia sends tens of thousands of tons of humanitarian aid to the war-torn Donbass region of Ukraine, Europe sells Kiev authorities military supplies and arms – obviously to “prolong the 'devouring’ of Ukraine.”

“If I was a parent, I'd take a critical look at my children's study material and inform them of what truly goes on on this planet. The school system doesn't allow students to think critically, and rather spoon-feeds 'information' that is not backed up with facts,” concludes Roos.

Roos also remembers historic dialogue between the Dutch Prime Minister Rutte and President Vladimir Putin regarding liberties in Russia.

“Indeed, just imagine an organization appearing in Russia that supports pedophilia?! If that'd be the case, I think that in certain areas of the Russian Federation, people would get some guns...,” Putin said.

[TsarSamuil]

‘US would like Russia to cease to exist as a country’ – Russia’s top security official.

RT.com
June 22, 2015 12:39

Russia’s extreme wealth doesn’t allow the US to rest, prompting Washington to invent a putative “Russian threat” and scheming against Moscow through the Ukrainian crisis, the head of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, told Kommersant daily.

The US is not a universal evil, yet Washington takes the decision whom to appoint as such, says Patrushev, who has been Security Council chief since 2008. Today Washington names Russia as one of the greatest threats to the world, along with the terrorists of Islamic State and the deadly Ebola virus.

There are a great deal of examples of Russia fruitfully cooperating with the US in many aspects, including such burning issues as countering terrorism and reaching a deal on the Iranian nuclear program, Patrushev said. But under the far-fetched pretext of the “Russian aggression in Ukraine” Washington has suspended such contacts, he said.

The US is forcing EU member states to impose anti-Russian sanctions and policies, Patrushev said.

“If it were not for the US, [Europeans] would not pursue such policies,” he said, stressing that even the much argued-over issue of the Crimea Peninsula’s reunification with Russia would have spent itself already.

“The West does realize that everything that took place in Crimea was legitimate, there was a referendum and so on. They don’t have specific objections to Crimea developments,” said Patrushev, adding that with the time the issue will “blow over.”

American influence over EU countries is “massive,” says the head of Russia’s Security Council, recalling multiple cases of the European politicians changing their plans to visit Russia after Americans applied pressure on them.

“Europeans are quite flaccid, whereas the Americans are men of spirit,” Patrushev said.

“The Americans strive to dominate the world. This is the aim they are targeting in their doctrines. So far they succeed: they dominate despite the changing world,” said the top security official.

Russia is following very closely the “color revolutions’ trend, in particularly the developments in neighboring Ukraine, he said.

“It’s clear that the hidden agenda of destabilization of this country is creating an instrument to radically weaken Russia,” Patrushev said, stressing that it was the US who initiated the Ukrainian crisis.

Although the term of the legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovich was coming to an end and the Ukrainian people would have never re-elected him, the US opted to oust him by coup. Without this there would have been no war in Donbass and Crimea would have remained a part of Ukraine, he said.

The violent power shift in Ukraine was a “political mistake” by the US, said the Security Council secretary.

The US is not bothered with the worsening economic situation in Ukraine, “all they need is applying pressure on Russia and this is exactly what the US is doing,” Patrushev said.

The Americans declare that they are interested in maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, yet the US has “no interest in Ukraine whatsoever, they are interested in Russia.”

“They would like very much to see Russia cease to exist as a country,” said Patrushev, who was director of the FSB (Federal Security Service) from 1999 to 2008.

While Russia possesses incalculable natural resources, the Americans believe that Russians own their wealth “illegitimately and undeservingly,” because in Washington’s opinion Russians use their wealth in a wrong way, Patrushev said.

The reason for expansions of “instability zones” in the Middle East, North Africa and in Ukraine is “persistent aspiration of the west to tackle their problems at expense of others,” Patrushev said.

Destabilization of the world is under way and terror organizations such as Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL), Al Qaeda and others are playing a leading role in this process, the security official said.

It is true that the US is calling on other countries to consolidate their efforts against international terrorism, said Patrushev, yet “in reality, the antiterrorist coalitions are being created for coercive intervention into affairs of sovereign states.”

Terrorism cannot be defeated single-handedly or by separate groups of countries, Patrushev said, adding that Russia is always open for any kind of counter-terrorism cooperation.

[TsarSamuil]

Polish Academic Asks: When Does Being Anti-Russian Become Simply Racist?

Sputnik
POLITICS 18:20 01.07.2015

In a recent article for academic journal Nowa Europa Wschodnia, Polish political scientist Kuba Benedyczak points out that while Europe formally wages a struggle against racial prejudice and stereotyping, Russia and Russians seem to be the exception to the rule.

In the article, entitled 'Russophobia or Racism?', Benedyczak notes that while Europe wages an oft-tedious "but absolutely correct" battle against the negative stereotyping of minorities, when it comes to Russia, Polish commentators, analysts, experts and scholars seem to get a free pass.

"A few days ago, Center for Eastern Studies military expert Andrzej Wilk gave an interview for [popular Polish daily] Rzeczpospolita," Benedyczak notes. "When asked about the weak points of the Russian army, Wilk answered: 'The weak point of Russia is that it is Russia. There, regardless of someone's plans or efforts, everything eventually turns into a mess. There one will always find someone who will begin drinking, or sell something 'under the table'. Corruption among Russians is practically in their genes. Therefore the weak point here is the human factor.'"

Benedyczak notes that "all sorts of Polish commentators, analysts, experts and scholars allow themselves to make similar remarks with extraordinary ease. The true essence of such statements can be understood if we substitute [in the place of Russians] Senegalese, Indonesians, Congolese, or even Ukrainians; only then does it become clear just how chauvinistic such an approach is."

The young political scientist notes that "if we had substituted the peoples above in the place of Russians in the expert's remarks, we could assume that following the interview, an avalanche of harsh criticism would have rained down on the professor, forcing him to (at least temporarily) disappear from the public spotlight."

Furthermore, in Benedyczak's view, "the essence of such racist statements does not change even if we take into account the context of the Russian-Polish conflict or the Russian state's policy toward Ukraine."

Unfortunately, according to Benedyczak, "the case of Andrzej Vilk is indicative of Poles' relations toward Russians. Almost every day in our media we read or hear about how someone in Russia drank themselves to death, how once again a woman has been raped, or that 90 percent of the country is comprised of nationalists, who have state television in their brains in place of gray matter. We are constantly told about how someone took a large bribe, while authorities executed another opposition figure on Red Square."

'Hate' Level Imbalance

Benedyczak notes that while Russian media also "thinks up all sorts of rubbish about the European Union and the United States," Poland, "in spite of our egoistical and megalomaniacal preconceptions," receives very "little 'hate', since we are not so important to the Russians as we might think."

Ultimately, the expert notes that as a democratic country, Poland must do more to "adhere to higher standards, rather than to engage in Russophobic escapades, approaching, as in the case above, to outright chauvinism and racism."

[TsarSamuil]

New US military strategy: ‘Russia, China - threat to unipolar domination fantasy’

RT.com
July 02, 2015 12:27

The Pentagon’s new military strategy proposes that Russia is a major US adversary, that there might be a war between the two countries, and that the US is losing its military technology supremacy, says Brian Becker from the anti-war Answer Coalition.

The Pentagon has released a new National Military Strategy listing of the greatest threats to the US. It includes states such as Russia, Iran and North Korea, and groups, particularly ‘violent extremist organizations’ (VEO) such as Islamic State and the Taliban.

RT: The United States does have a track record of entering conflicts without international approval. So judging by this new strategy should we expect more of the same?

Brian Becker: I think the new strategy is emblematic of what is going on in the past and as you’ve mentioned the US, when it can, gets UN or international acquiescence for what is essentially a US military operation, but if that support is lacking as it was in Iraq or in the Libya campaign the US just does it anyway. Certainly you can see that in Syria. So what we have is a situation - if you step back - the US violates international law routinely; it says always that it’s the great upholder of international law. But I think when you look at this new report what’s most outstanding is that compared to 2011 (it’s a quadrennial report) where Russia was barely mentioned, now the US government postulates 1) that Russia is a major adversary, 2) that there is a possibility of a major interstate war with a major power meaning Russia and 3) the US is losing its supremacy in military technology, signaling as it did in the 1950s a new arms race. And I think that’s what this report shows.

RT: The document concedes that "some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode" - how do you think the US will try to claw back this advantage?

BB: I don’t think there is a loss of advantage; I think that this is usually a political signal largely for domestic public consumption in the US. Americans are being told that there is no money for hospitals, schools and many other vitally needed social programs, but suddenly we will have a clarion call that the US must catch up and must not let its adversaries – Russia or China – become superior to the US. This is precisely what triggered the advanced arms race in the 1950s. So I think the language is political, it shows the US is a defensive party, it’s a possible victim of aggression, it must not allow itself to become the victim of aggression and it can only deter it by adding more money to the arms budget. It signals that. But also we see a new generation of nuclear weapons being built and a new deployment strategy of military forces especially in the Arctic and that’s the challenge Russia and to a lesser degree China and I think this [report] shows where this is really moving.

RT: Why are Russia and China mentioned when the Middle East is in chaos?

BB: The US realizes that its dream of a unipolar world, the dream that started to become an operational doctrine for the US following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, that that dream has turned into an impossible goal, that in fact Russia is back on its feet, it’s asserting its own interests. China is growing, it’s trying to grow peacefully and rise peacefully and become a medium range power. But the US sees that Russia, China, Iran and other countries in the world including South Africa, Brazil and India are unwilling to be just victims of the US hegemony, that they are asserting the wrong national interests, and so I think the US sees that now as a threat to its fantasy of unipolar domination following the collapse of the USSR.

RT: The US apparently wants to "support China's rise" but also resist Beijing's efforts to expand its regional control. Aren't these two goals incompatible?

BB: They are not compatible. In fact if you look at what the US is doing, not what it says in this sort of carefully worded military doctrine, the pivot towards Asia is a pivot of containment. The new military strategy which is to take all the non-Chinese republics and nations of the Asia-Pacific region and forge them into a US-led military alliance can’t be perceived in China as anything but a great threat to Chinese national interest in China’s own backyard, in its own territory, in the East China Sea and South China Sea and right up to the Chinese border. So deeds here say a great deal more than words. I think it’s carefully worded, but clearly the Chinese know that the pivot towards Asia is a pivot against China and not with China.

[TsarSamuil]

Vid,
rt.com/usa/272752-dunford-james-threat-russia/

US military leaders call Russia ‘greatest threat’, demand more funding.

RT.com
July 09, 2015 23:18

The Marine Corps commandant thought to be taking over the Joint Chiefs of Staff told lawmakers Russia was the “greatest threat” to US national security, echoing claims made by Air Force’s civilian chief and the recently published US military strategy.

In a pre-confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Joseph Dunford called Russian actions “nothing short of alarming,” backed weapons deliveries to the Ukrainian government and warned that budget sequestration will hurt the US military’s capabilities.

“Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security,” Dunford said. “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia.”



White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest sought to distance President Barack Obama from Dunford’s comments, saying they reflected the general’s own assessment but not necessarily the “consensus analysis of the president's national security team.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking military post in the US, acting as the chief military adviser to the president, the National Security Council and the Secretary of Defense. Obama nominated Dunford for the job in May, after the current CJCS Gen. Martin Dempsey announced his retirement.

Nicknamed “Fighting Joe” during nearly two years with the 5th Marine Division in Iraq, Dunford has commanded the US Marine Corps since October 2014.

The Marine commandant’s statement comes just a day after US Air Force Secretary Deborah James told Reuters that she considered Russia “the biggest threat” to the US. James also said that NATO members should honor the promise they made to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, in order to combat the alleged threat from Moscow.

Dunford’s written testimony contained 15 mentions of the word “aggression” in reference to Russia, and almost as many mentions of the effects of sequestration on military budgets.

Committee chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) and the ranking minority member Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) also blasted the limitations on government spending imposed by the Budget Control Act. McCain described the limits as “self-inflicted wounds” that put American lives in danger, while Reed argued the budget instability undermined the morale of the troops and their families, as well as the confidence of military contractors.

The updated US National Military Strategy, published last week, calls for continued US military presence around the globe to counter both the “violent extremist organizations” such as Islamic State and what the Pentagon called “revisionist” powers such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, supposedly threatening US-enforced international law and order.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has been shuffling money around to bolster armaments of armored vehicles stationed in Europe, develop new sonar sensors for the Navy, and refurbish nuclear missile silos and command centers.

The Army wants $160 million for an “increased lethality” program to equip Stryker armored vehicles with 30-milimeter cannons, Defense One reported. The Navy is requesting $5 million for new sonar sensors and another $24 million for towed sonars, suggesting concerns about the Russian submarine fleet. Among the other requests noted by the publication close to the Pentagon are $10 million to modernize the phones inside nuclear silos and $42 million for upgrades to Cheyenne Mountain, the nuclear command center in Colorado.

Washington is also looking to expand the training program provided to Ukrainian government forces, with high-ranking officers suggesting it would help US troops learn about Russian tactics. Visiting the Yavoriv training facility in western Ukraine on Wednesday, General Ray Odierno said that US troops could learn a lot from the Ukrainians about how the “Russians and separatists” were fighting.

“We haven’t faced something like this ourselves for a while,” Odierno told the Wall Street Journal.

While the Pentagon brass sound confident about the US military’s ability to handle any existing enemy, Dunford admitted some doubts about the future.

“What keeps me up at night is our ability to respond to the unexpected," General Dunford told the Senators. "On balance, our force can deal with the challenges that we have now. But there is very little residual capability.”

[TsarSamuil]

Russia Considers US Nuclear Bomb Test 'Open Provocation'

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 17:58 13.07.2015

Russia is concerned that US' recent nuclear bomb test may be carried out to examine the possibility of using the B61-12 nuclear bomb with NATO fighter-bombers stationed in Europe.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — On July 1, the US National Nuclear Security Administration and the US Air Force conducted a flight test of an inactive B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb in Nevada.

The United States' recent nuclear bomb test is a provocation, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Monday.

"The actions of the US side in the current situation are openly provocative, and are contrary to Washington's stated desire for complete nuclear disarmament," Antonov told reporters.

"In particular, the test was carried out using a F-15E fighter-bomber. This leads to believe that the test was carried out in order to examine the possibility of using the B61-12 nuclear bomb with NATO fighter-bombers stationed in Europe," the deputy minister said.

Head of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation David Krieger told Sputnik on Sunday that the very fact that the United States had conducted a bomb test signified that the country disregarded the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weaponry.

The United States uses tales about the imaginary "Russian threat" to increase NATO’s military potential near Russian borders and to justify upgrading of its nuclear arsenal, Anatoly Antonov said.

"They [the tests] confirmed the US intention to maintain deployed nuclear weapons in Europe that can reach Russian territory, and to maximize their combat effectiveness. We see this as an evidence of a persistent reluctance of the United States to reconsider the participation of non-nuclear NATO members in the joint nuclear missions that are in direct conflict with the obligations taken under the NPT [the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]."

"Under the guise of the infamous and fictitious threat from the Russian side, the United States are not only building up its military capacity and the presence of NATO near the western borders of the Russian Federation, but also are modernizing its nuclear arsenal," Antonov added.

[TsarSamuil]

Regime change in Russia? Think again, neocons.

Neil Clark, RT
25 Jul, 2015 15:57

As events in Syria have proved, Russia is the biggest block on the endless war lobby’s plans for world domination, which is why the removal of Putin and his replacement with a marionette who will do exactly what the neocons want is their overriding objective.

However, the chances of them achieving their ambitious goal are as slender as was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs turning up in Iraq. The new neocon instigated ‘Cold War’ on Russia, which was supposed to weaken the Russian economy and lead to Maidan-style anti-government protests in the country, has actually boosted President Vladimir Putin’s popularity, as new polls show.

The approval ratings of the man who Western neocons have demonized for the last twelve years is at record levels - with almost 90 percent of Russians saying they had a positive view of the president.

Support for President Putin’s foreign policies is also strong - with 70 percent supporting him on Ukraine.

It’s not only Putin’s popularity that is the stumbling block to neocon plans for ‘regime change’. The main opposition to Putin and his United Russia party, are not pro-NATO, pro-Israel ‘liberals’, but the Communist Party, which is the second most popular party in the country.

Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov polled over 17 percent in the last presidential election, while the Communists won 92 seats in the 450 State Duma elections in December 2011.

The Communists have urged Putin to be even more assertive against those they regard as Russia’s enemies. In May 2013, they called for Russia to convene a meeting of the UN Security Council after Israel had illegally bombed Syria.

“Syria is not the first, and obviously not the last victim of the global expansion of the US and its NATO allies. Events of the past twenty years show that Russia is also in the crosshairs. Therefore, our country borders’ protection passes through the Syrian cities, which have now become the scene of fierce fighting. The Russian side should not turn a blind eye to the subversion of America and its satellites directed against our allies,” the Communist Party Central Committee statement declared.

The serial regime changers in the West are faced with a situation that the most credible opposition to the person they want to see toppled would actually follow policies that they would hate even more.

So what do they do? With breathtaking disdain for the views of the Russian people, they completely ignore the fact that the Communists are the second largest party in Russia - and instead portray so-called ‘liberals’ - who have minimal levels of popular support (currently around 1 percent), as the ‘democratic opposition’.

The neocon line is: ‘in the name of democracy, the parties whose views are the most unpopular with the electorate, should be running Russia.’ Their interpretation of the word ‘democracy’ is beyond Orwellian.

“Although ‘regime change’ has become a dirty phrase, the best thing that could happen to Russia, its neighbors and the world would be a change from Vladimir Putin’s brand of strongman authoritarianism to some form of democracy,” opined Alexander Motyl in Newsweek in January. The article first appeared on the Atlantic Council’s blog.

So, in other words, the man with sky-high approval ratings needs to be toppled, so someone much less popular can rule Russia. And all in the name of spreading “democracy”!

In any case, the neocon plans for promoting their form of undemocratic democracy in Russia face another big stumbling block, namely Russia’s foreign agents law. This legislation requires all NGOs which receive funding from abroad and that engage in political activities to register as ‘foreign agents’. Russian political parties are also forbidden to receive sponsorship or enter into any business deals with NGOs that have ‘foreign agent’ status.

This makes the possibility of a foreign-funded ‘color coded revolution’ in Russia much harder to pull off. Neocons, needless to say, don’t like the law:

The neocon plans for regime change in Russia predate the current Ukraine crisis and the conflict in Syria. They be traced back to 2003 when it became clear that Vladimir Putin would stand up for Russia’s legitimate interests, in contrast to the more compliant Boris Yeltsin. The first post-Perestroika president stood by, vodka bottle in hand, and brown envelopes in pocket, as NATO illegally bombed Yugoslavia and Western-supported oligarchs plundered the country, impoverishing millions of ordinary Russians in the process.

As I argued in a previous Op-Edge, the turning point was the action taken against corrupt oligarchs who had strong links to the West.

Rebuilding the economy and improving living standards for ordinary Russians inevitably meant action being taken against certain oligarchs, who had made vast fortunes in the Yeltsin years. These oligarchs, such as Boris Berezovksy and Mikhail Khodorkovsky had powerful supporters in the West. As I detailed in an article for the New Statesman in November 2003, influential neocons in Washington, who had links to Russian oligarchs, used the arrest of Khodorkovsky for fraud and tax evasion to push for a hardening of US policy towards Moscow.

The arrest of Khodorkovsky led to neocon calls for sanctions on Russia - calls which were to be repeated over the following years. This anti-Putin crusade was ratcheted up to a new level when Russia had the temerity to block ‘regime change’ plans for Syria.

In his article ‘How war on Syria lost its way’, former CIA officer Ray McGovern told of how he was in the same CNN studio as two uberhawks Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman, after the US’s plans to bomb Syria in 2013 had been dropped.

McGovern described the atmosphere as “distinctly funereal.”

“I felt I had come to a wake with somberly dressed folks (no pastel ties this time) grieving for a recently, dearly-departed war.”

After Damascus avoided airstrikes, a wave of full-on attacks on Russia appeared in the elite media. British ‘left’ neocon Nick Cohen, who in 2012 had written a piece on Syria entitled ‘Russia is playing Western democrats for dupes’ complained that Putin had made Barack Obama “look like a conman’s stooge.”

His thoughts echoed those of Michael Weiss, who, writing for the ultra-neocon Henry Jackson Society in 2012, berated the Obama administration for “still trying to woo the Kremlin” after Russia had vetoed two attempts to pass a UN Security Resolution “condemning the Assad regime.”

Ukraine was where the neocons sought to get their revenge for being thwarted on Syria. As I argued in an earlier op-edge piece: “The US sponsored regime change in Kiev, an enterprise in which the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, the wife of the Project for a New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan, played a prominent role, finally enabled the hawks to get what they been dreaming of for over 10 years – the sanctioning of Russia. The ‘get tough with Russia’ stance they’ve long been calling for has finally become the official policy of the US and leading EU countries. The demonization of President Putin in the West has become ‘mainstream’.”

Neocons were banking on sanctions leading to mass protests against Putin’s rule. But as we see from the polls the opposite has occurred and Putin is more popular than ever. The bullying of Russia has only made the Russian people more determined than ever not to do what the Western hawks want.

The question is now - what will the neocons do next? There have been calls for even tougher sanctions on Russia - sanctions that would ban Russia from the SWIFT banking system.

In February, an editorial entitled “No More Appeasement” in the Rupert Murdoch owned Times, Britain’s most hardline neocon newspaper, declared its support for “tougher sanctions than those already in force.” Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland warned a few days ago that “the costs will go up” for Russia if violence increases in Donetsk and Lugansk, although of course she did not mean violence initiated by Kiev, or violence between the Kiev authorities and the Right Sector.

However, the problem for Ms Nuland and the London Times is that European countries are itching for sanctions on Russia to be eased, not intensified, as their economies are hurting due to counter-measures taken by the Kremlin. How much longer will leading Western Europeans companies allow their profits to be hit because a bunch of political extremists have an obsession with toppling Putin? And how much longer will European governments sign up to a sanctions policy clearly not in their countries’ interest?

Some believe that fanatical neocons would even go as far as provoke war with Russia to get their way.

“The most determined push for war in 2015 will come from neocons and interventionists who want a US-Putin confrontation and regime change in Russia,” warned America paleoconservative commentator, Patrick J. Buchanan earlier this year.

Certainly, during the worst of the fighting in Ukraine, it has seemed that escalation is what some in the West desired. “Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns” was the title of a bellicose piece by Timothy Garton-Ash. who praised the serial warmongering US Senator John McCain for spurring on US Congress to pass the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which allocated funds for the supply of military equipment to Ukraine.

It’s worth noting though that neocons like to attack countries that are weak and not ones that are strong. Iraq got ‘Shock and Awe’ not because it possessed WMDs, but because it didn’t. Libya was vulnerable because its defenses were weak and Muammar Gaddafi had surrendered his WMDs. Russia, by contrast has a large nuclear arsenal, up-to-date conventional weaponry, and 771,000 active military personnel.

A neocon-instigated military attack on Russia is unlikely, but we can’t rule it out completely, given the fanaticism of the people we are dealing with. In December, Robert Parry wrote of the insanity of the neocon-driven regime change scheme to take down President Putin.

“What we’re seeing here is the usual step-by-step progress towards a neocon regime change scenario, as the targeted foreign ‘demon’ fails to take ‘reasonable steps’ dictated by Washington and thus must be confronted, with endless escalations, all the more severe to force the demon to submit or until ultimately the sufferings of his people creates openings for ‘regime change’”.

Perry warned that “the future of the planet” was at stake if Western efforts to ‘regime change’ in Russia continue.

Veteran award winning journalist John Pilger has warned of a ‘new holocaust’ if the serial warmongers aren’t stopped. “Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk who handed his country’s economy to the West. His successor, Vladimir Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation, that is his crime.”

A few days ago the New York Times published an op-edge by Yelstin’s former Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, entitled ‘Russia‘s coming regime change’. Kozyrev said that regime change was “inevitable, maybe imminent.” But polls showing the country’s leader with 90 percent approval ratings don’t really back that assessment up.

Despite all their obsessive efforts, pulling off a regime change in Russia does look too big a project even for the neocons. The Russian people don’t wish to the return to the 1990s, and they quite clearly don’t want a neocon-approved puppet to lead them. And Russia is ready and able to defend itself if the nightmare scenario of war does come to pass - just take a look at the pictures of the Victory Day military parade if you have any doubts.

As to how we can end the ‘new Cold War’, it’s not up to Russia to change its stance, as it has done nothing wrong, but the neocons in the West… What part of ‘Nyet’ don’t these people understand?

[TsarSamuil]

CrossTalk: Undiplomatic Power.

RT
Aug 19, 2015



How should we assess the behavior of Samantha Power, Washington’s top diplomat at the United Nations? Called by some a “foremost scholar on genocide,” Power is quick to back the use of military power in the service of so-called humanitarian goals. She is also fond of using the word ‘outrage’ – what does this tell us about her?

[TsarSamuil]

Kissinger: ‘Breaking Russia has become objective for US’

RT.com
20 Aug, 2015 18:44

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has hit out at American and European Ukraine policy, saying it ignores Russia’s relationship with its neighbor, and has called for cooperation between the White House and the Kremlin on the issue.

“Breaking Russia has become an objective [for US officials] the long-range purpose should be to integrate it,” the 92-year-old told The National Interest in a lengthy interview for the policy magazine’s anniversary that touched on most of the world’s most pertinent international issues. “If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities.”

The diplomat, who is most famous for serving in the Nixon administration, and controversially being awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, for negotiating the Vietnam ceasefire, accused the West of failing to recognize the historical context in which the fallout occurred between Moscow and Kiev.

“The relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind. It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from Ukraine’s. So, what happens in Ukraine cannot be put into a simple formula of applying principles that worked in Western Europe.”

Kissinger lays the blame for sparking the conflict at the door of the EU, which proposed a trade deal in 2013, without considering how it would alienate Moscow, and divide the Ukrainian people.

“The first mistake was the inadvertent conduct of the European Union. They did not understand the implications of some of their own conditions. Ukrainian domestic politics made it look impossible for [former Ukrainian president Viktor] Yanukovych to accept the EU terms and be reelected or for Russia to view them as purely economic,” said Kissinger.

Once Yanukovich rejected the deal in November 2013, the EU “panicked”, Russia became “overconfident,” the US remained “passive” as “each side acted sort of rationally based on its misconception of the other” and “no significant political discussions.”

For Kissinger, the wheels of the stand-off between Moscow and the West were already set in motion during the subsequent Maidan street protests – heartily endorsed by the West – which demanded the toppling of the pro-Russian Yanukovich, an aim that was eventually achieved.

“While Ukraine slid into the Maidan uprising right in the middle of what Putin had spent ten years building as a recognition of Russia’s status. No doubt in Moscow this looked as if the West was exploiting what had been conceived as a Russian festival to move Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.”

With the armed conflict in Ukraine still showing no signs of resolution, Kissinger repeated his previous proposal for Ukraine to become a buffer, or mediator state between Russia and the West.

“We should explore the possibilities of a status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO,” he told The National Interest. “The West hesitates to take on the economic recovery of Greece; it’s surely not going to take on Ukraine as a unilateral project. So one should at least examine the possibility of some cooperation between the West and Russia in a militarily nonaligned Ukraine.”

While Kissinger insists that he believes that Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including Crimea, which joined Russia last year, should have remained unaffected, he called for the West to stop backing Kiev at all costs, even as the victims of the conflict pile up.

“The Ukraine crisis is turning into a tragedy because it is confusing the long-range interests of global order with the immediate need of restoring Ukrainian identity,” summed up the veteran diplomat.

[TsarSamuil]

Majority of Russians say US administration ‘extremely hostile toward us’ - poll.

RT.com
31 Aug, 2015 13:38

The perception of the United States in Russia has drastically deteriorated and 59 percent of respondents in a recent poll said they think that the current Washington administration is extremely hostile toward Russia and its people.

On Monday, the Russian state-owned public opinion research center VTSIOM released the results of the poll on Russians’ attitude to the United States and things that are most often associated with this country. The poll was conducted in late July.

According to the statement, most Russians experience predominantly negative feelings when they think about the United States. Fifty-nine percent of respondents agreed that the current US administration was extremely hostile toward Russia, and another 31 percent described the attitude of the US authorities as “unfriendly.”

When asked about their own attitude toward the United States, 9 percent of respondents said it was negative, 6 percent said they would describe it as dislike, disgust or hatred, and 4 percent said they perceived the United States as an aggressor. Another 4 percent said that in their opinion the US was Russia’s “No. 1 enemy,” 2 percent noted the provocative nature of Washington’s policies and 2 percent said that the United States was constantly seeking world dominance.

The positive associations mentioned in the same poll were much more scarce and weak. Two percent of respondents said they considered the US to be a great superpower, 1 percent said that it was a strong country and another 1 percent agreed that it was a home to the free.

Ten percent of the Russian public said that they strongly associated the United States with its current president, Barack Obama.

The authors of the research noted a major shift in perception of the United States among the majority of the Russian public. “Twenty-five years ago, 13 percent of Russians described America as a free society, 15 percent as a technically advanced nation, and 20 percent said it was one that awarded personal effort with success. Now the share for figures for these answers fell to 5, 7 and 7 percent, respectively,” the research reads.

The Russian public currently concentrates on America’s drawbacks. Nine percent say that the US still has racial discrimination (1 percent in 1990) and 11 percent note the huge gap between the rich and the poor in the US (5 percent in 1990).

In February, the number of Russians with a negative attitude toward the US and the EU hit an all-time high, with 81 percent of respondents claiming this, compared to 44 percent just one year before. The number of those who perceived current relations between the two nations as hostile rose from 4 percent to 42 percent in the same year.

In the same poll, 40 percent of citizens said they wanted Russian authorities to improve relations with Western nations, but 36 percent said that Russia must further distance itself from the West.

In mid-July, the public attitude to the US in Russia improved slightly, but still remained very negative. Seventy percent of Russians said they had negative sentiments about the United States and only 19 percent of respondents said they had a positive attitude toward the US.