"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Monday, May 14, 2007

Rice Sees No(t) – Cold War with Russia

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said “there were no grounds for talk of a new Cold War,adding:

‘"I know people talk about, throw around terms like new Cold War. As somebody who came out of that period as a specialist in it I think the parallels ... frankly, they have no basis whatsoever."’

Our disagreements with Russia are by no means what they used to be, and “throw around” terms as stated by the Secretary of State and the “parallels” between then and now sounds like an apt response. But, just as Iraq is no Vietnam, a new Cold War would not have to be based word for word on the old Cold War.

Russia is none too thrilled about the U.S.’ planes of placing missile interceptors in Poland, nor the planned radar in the Czech Republic; if it makes them feel any better, Democrats don’t much care for it either.

Russia is also not all gushy-eyed about the possible independence of Kosovo. Setting aside any media alarmist reactions to the previous disagreements, Secretary Rice, as a means of allaying fears and hoping to proactively address any media onslaughts, offered:

“Areas where Russia and the United States cooperated, such as reining in nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.”

"It's not an easy time for the relationship. It's not. But it's also not a time in which ... catastrophic things are happening in the relationship. It's mixed."

"If you look at the actual ... facts on the ground and you look at the level of cooperation that we have had on North Korea, on Iran, if you look at the WTO agreement that we've signed with Russia ... it just doesn't accord with some of the rhetoric that does sometimes come out."

"It's a big, complicated relationship, but it's not one that has anything like the implacable hostility which really did lead to zero-sum politics between the United States and the Soviet Union."

Rice, having specialized in this relationship prior to signing on in the first four years of GW Bush’s administration is obviously no stranger to the ins and outs of the U.S.’s relationship with Russia over the years, however we don’t have to reach Cold War levels to run into difficulties.

Secretary Rice refers to cooperation with Russia on Iran for one and regardless of what assistance Russia has offered on paper, it sure hasn’t accorded with anything running seriously enough to have any effect against the Islamic regime. It’s been business as usual and taking the U.N. type route with talks has just wasted time. Time that will eventually lead to Iran having its “peaceful nukes,” and the rest of us with no more problem (???), as there will be nothing to talk about after that; we’ll just have to figure out how to address the very HOT, Cold War in the Middle East.

I recall years ago, my informing a friend that I wanted to learn Russian so as to work in the intelligence area, studying and listening in on that nation. His response was along the lines of, ‘Russian? What for, we’re not enemies anymore…’

No, we’re not. But we’re also not lovers either. Considering Russia lost a little bit of business opportunities in Iraq thanks to that troublesome Bush; I’m sure they would hate losing more elsewhere.

Interesting tidbits of previous Russian assistance, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

More than a few here, heres here, huh?

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks