disagreement
U.S. presidential campaign: McCain better for Russia than Obama and Clinton
MOSCOW, 22 May (RIA Novosti). Republican presidential candidate John McCain, for a more stable and uses predictable Russia policy, for Russia would be a better choice than his Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. This opinion expressed
Alexander Konovalov, head of the Institute for Strategic Studies. "I am definitely for McCain," the expert said in an interview with RIA Novosti. Russia must not be loved by America, but it needs a predictable opponents. "McCain does not have any particular sympathy for Russia, but he has predictability and stability."
also have a Republican president has an advantage over a Democrat. "He should in fact prove not every day that he has not sold out to the Communists, "said Konovalov. Because no doubt the Americans to the Republicans, McCain would have as president more latitude in the design of the Russian policy.
In Russia have to always have the Democratic candidate in the U.S. the thumb hold. "We were thrilled by John F. Kennedy, but to get its Cuban missile crisis. With the Republican hardliner Richard Nixon, however, we have concluded that the first contracts for strategic disarmament. "
Under President Jimmy Carter (Democrat) has broken down the entire system of arms control, said Konovalov." Then came Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union "the kingdom of evil called ". With whom we have signed real deal on nuclear disarmament. "
Moreover, presidential candidate McCain veteran of the Vietnam War." If we know what war is, it can be do not want. "
COMMENT
Konowalows assessment initially sounds plausible, especially since the patriotism argument stands and because of the historical references, but first they are only part of the story and 2 already is downright wrong
an example. Konovalov wrong, because not Kennedy "gave" the Cuba crisis, but the continued pursuit of the two superpowers, each other to move with medium-range missiles on the fur - The U.S. with missile deployment in Turkey, Russia with the missile deployment in Cuba.
And what are hard-liners "predictable"? Alone in the agitation and militancy prone to self-righteousness. Or is "predictability" is his characteristic that someone has to make no change of course capable of? - Then the man on Cuba would have failed because it needed the final negotiating dynamics of a Kennedy and Khrushchev to the "turnaround".
And who brought the politics out of their antagonism? It was Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik and West Gorbachev's policy, which cut through the "Iron Curtain" with diplomacy and treaties, East and West economically and politically linked.
There were diplomatic leaders who directed the "Cold War" with the concept of "peaceful coexistence" overcame. And the "peaceful coexistence" was overcome, proved to be awakening to "peaceful cooperation."
This development would be with people who observe each other only through rifle scopes and from the other side just to talk to as an "evil empire" was did not create.
The fundamental changes for the better could obtain only diplomatic politician, while the hardliners, so numerous and periodically they were in power, and ultimately mitlächeln just had to sign and could.
Konovalov would quite possibly that McCain was "better for Putin's truce," but "better for Russia" is thus not synonymous. With Obama as U.S. president, however, "threatens" the whole world :-), that is no longer the policy of mere counter-sufficient.
Putin is no fool. And Medvedev not. The two can keep up with that, but you will have to motivate them. And this may work only if either the NATO dissolves or far enough open for Russia.
-Mark Rabago-
0 comments:
Post a Comment