Cheney Drops The Hammer
In a reflection of the current mood of the White House, Vice President Cheney gave a speech yesterday that showed everyone where we stand on Russia. The New York Times has the story. (HT: Captain Ed)
Vice President Dick Cheney today delivered the Bush administration's strongest rebuke of Russia to date, saying the Russian government "unfairly and improperly restricted" people's rights and suggesting that it sought to use the country's vast oil and gas resources as "tools of intimidation or blackmail."
"In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people," Mr. Cheney said in a speech before European leaders in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. "Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries."
Mr. Cheney's remarks, which officials in Washington said had been heavily vetted and therefore reflected the administration's current thinking on Russia, appeared to lay down new markers for a relationship that has become strained and could become significantly more so in the months ahead. The remarks came amid an international confrontation over Iran's nuclear programs, where the United States has tried to enlist Russia's help in pressuring or punishing Tehran. Mr. Cheney's criticisms would seem to complicate those efforts, but they could also reflect a growing impatience with Russia's unwillingness to back stronger measures against the Iranians, like sanctions. Mr. Cheney did not mention Iran in his speech.
Mr. Cheney's remarks also previewed what is shaping up as a tense meeting between Mr. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin as part of the gathering of the Group of Eight leading industrial democracies in St. Petersburg in July. Some in Washington, notably Senator John McCain, have called on Mr. Bush to boycott the meeting as a signal of displeasure with Mr. Putin's anti-democratic course, though Mr. Cheney did not address that matter on Thursday.
Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, disputed Mr. Cheney's remarks, calling them unfounded and "completely incomprehensible." At the same time, he discounted the message Mr. Cheney sent, saying it would cloud neither the coming meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin nor their relationship generally.
"The relations between the two presidents are much more constructive than these statements," he said in a telephone interview. "And they are more oriented to the future."
Stephen Sestanovich, who served as a senior Russia policy official in the Clinton Administration, said the speech was likely to infuriate Mr. Putin and his circle of advisers, adding to the strains between the countries.
"However much you try to sound hopeful notes, the folks around Putin are likely to say this is proof of Washington's hostility and say, 'How dare they tell us to be more democratic?' " said Mr. Sestanovich, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, based in Washington.
Mr. Sestanovich said the speech "definitely reflects a scaling back of expectations of the relationship with Moscow. For the vice president to say Russia can be a strategic partner is already to imply that it isn't."While Mr. Cheney has always voiced greater skepticism toward Russia than his boss, President Bush, his remarks underscored a deepening rift that has emerged since Mr. Bush famously said in 2001 that he had looked into President Putin's eyes and "got a sense of his soul." Indeed, in many areas, the United States and Russia have rarely seemed more at odds since the cold war ended.
In Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, the two countries, if not their leaders, seem to confront each other more often than they cooperate. Their disputes include everything from elections in former Soviet republics like Ukraine and Belarus to Russia's exploitation of its energy resources for political ends.
"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation," Mr. Cheney said, weighing in on a heated European debate over Russia's reliability as an energy exporter following a brief New Year's shutoff of natural gas to Ukraine. "And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."
The latter were clear references to Georgia and Moldova, both former Soviet republics with unrecognized separatist enclaves abetted by Russia, and to Ukraine, where Mr. Putin openly sided against the current president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, during the public protests of electoral fraud in 2004 that ultimately swept him to power.
Mr. Cheney spoke at an international conference in Vilnius that gathered together leaders of nine former Soviet republics or Warsaw Pact satellites along Russia's western border, as well as the United States, European Union and NATO.
The bulk of his address was a celebration of the democratic progress these countries have made since the Soviet sway over Europe began to collapse in 1989. And Mr. Cheney sounded very much like a triumphant cold warrior. He evoked Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and the dissident leaders of the Soviet bloc who threw off "the stagnation of imperial dictatorship."
Mr. Cheney did not mention Mr. Putin by name. And he said that Russia was not "fated to be an enemy" and that it "can be a strategic partner and a trusted friend." But he urged that Russia follow the course embraced by its former subjects in the Soviet bloc. He added that the meeting in St. Petersburg would be an opportunity for Mr. Bush and the other G-8 leaders to make that case.
"Russia has a choice to make," he said.
Mr. Cheney also reiterated the administration's strong condemnation of Belarus, where President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko was elected to a third term in a vote denounced as a fraud. He said that he had planned to meet Mr. Lukashenko's leading opponent, Aleksandr Milinkevich, in Vilnius, but that Mr. Milinkevich's arrest last week prevented it. He called for his release.
"There is no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this kind," he said, calling Mr. Lukashenko's government "the last dictatorship in Europe."
Russia, by contrast, has praised Mr. Lukashenko's victory, most recently when Mr. Putin met the Belarussian leader last week.
Mr. Cheney's speech was barely mentioned in Russia's state-owned or controlled media, but nevertheless set off a torrent of criticism here.
"The United States has to deal with an absolutely different Russia today — a Russia that has restored its real sovereignty in many areas," Andrei A. Kokoshin, a member of the lower house of parliament, told the Interfax news agency.
His remarks reflected an increasingly confident view of Russia's status that is widely held here. It is a view that has required the Bush administration to calibrate its criticism over democratic backsliding with the realization that Russia's growing economic might, largely fueled by oil and gas, made it an indispensable player.
"The vice president was clear about our concerns," a senior administration official traveling with Mr. Cheney said, according to a transcript provided by the White House, "but also clear that we want to work with Russia."
This is what you get when you put a former IKGB guy in charge of a country. Putin's specialty in the KGB? Suppressing dissident activities in Saint Petersburg. Yep, that's the ticket. What's that old line? "You reap what you sow," or something like that?
I've never trusted Putin. I always thought that putting a former KGB officer in charge of the government was kind of like letting the fox protect the henhouse. And with the natural resources in Russia that Putin is playing strategy with, it's no wonder why we're having some problems with him. His defense of Lukashenko has also strained relations recently, and Washington has made that clear. But the most disturbing thing to the US is the fact that Russia refuses to take any steps against Iran.
Russia and China have been business partners with Iran long enough that they don't want to lose that particular partner. And while no one can blame them for that attitude, they must know that they are the ones standing in the way right now in dealing with Ahmadinejad. This is not a matter of us flexing our muscles, as I'm sure many on the Left believed we did in Iraq. This is about trying to prevent a madman from getting his hands on the most destructive weapons in the world; weapons, I might add, he has said he will use against our interests over there. And should his business dealings bring him new missiles to mount warheads on that can reach our shores?
Well, let's just say all bets are off, and I've got no problem dropping a pre-emptive nuke on Tehran. It might be a quiet little neighborhood for the next 10,000 or so years, but that's the point--it'll be quiet, and free of any saber-rattling.
I know that a lot of people will call that a "chicken-hawk" mentality. They can, and they'd be dead wrong. If I were president, I'd play this game only so long before we go back to the Bush Doctrine. The same doctrine that we used in the UNSC to begin with. "Come clean, disarm, or else." Of course there are a couple problems in relation to Iran that we would have to deal with (like ridding them of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard), but it will be awhile before a military confrontation occurs. And, if we can avoid that, we will in favor of helping to train and arm a dissdent movement in Iran that is quite clear on their goals.
They want Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs out as much as we do.
But Russia is a problem, and I'm happy to see that the administration is recognizing that now. It's about time they did. Russia, while they were nice to have on our side solidly in the subsequent years since the fall of the Soviet Union, is still at odds with us, and is a competitor on many levels. This speech by Cheney should signal Putin that we're not exactly happy with things right now.
Captain Ed brings up the point that the G-8 summit is slated to be in Saint Petersburg this July. He states that the president should contact the other members of the G-8, and insist they meet elsewhere to finish sending the message to Russia that the world isn't too happy with them right now. I agree. Hold it in the US, England, or Germany, but keep it out of Putin's backyard.
Publius II
In a reflection of the current mood of the White House, Vice President Cheney gave a speech yesterday that showed everyone where we stand on Russia. The New York Times has the story. (HT: Captain Ed)
Vice President Dick Cheney today delivered the Bush administration's strongest rebuke of Russia to date, saying the Russian government "unfairly and improperly restricted" people's rights and suggesting that it sought to use the country's vast oil and gas resources as "tools of intimidation or blackmail."
"In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people," Mr. Cheney said in a speech before European leaders in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. "Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries."
Mr. Cheney's remarks, which officials in Washington said had been heavily vetted and therefore reflected the administration's current thinking on Russia, appeared to lay down new markers for a relationship that has become strained and could become significantly more so in the months ahead. The remarks came amid an international confrontation over Iran's nuclear programs, where the United States has tried to enlist Russia's help in pressuring or punishing Tehran. Mr. Cheney's criticisms would seem to complicate those efforts, but they could also reflect a growing impatience with Russia's unwillingness to back stronger measures against the Iranians, like sanctions. Mr. Cheney did not mention Iran in his speech.
Mr. Cheney's remarks also previewed what is shaping up as a tense meeting between Mr. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin as part of the gathering of the Group of Eight leading industrial democracies in St. Petersburg in July. Some in Washington, notably Senator John McCain, have called on Mr. Bush to boycott the meeting as a signal of displeasure with Mr. Putin's anti-democratic course, though Mr. Cheney did not address that matter on Thursday.
Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, disputed Mr. Cheney's remarks, calling them unfounded and "completely incomprehensible." At the same time, he discounted the message Mr. Cheney sent, saying it would cloud neither the coming meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin nor their relationship generally.
"The relations between the two presidents are much more constructive than these statements," he said in a telephone interview. "And they are more oriented to the future."
Stephen Sestanovich, who served as a senior Russia policy official in the Clinton Administration, said the speech was likely to infuriate Mr. Putin and his circle of advisers, adding to the strains between the countries.
"However much you try to sound hopeful notes, the folks around Putin are likely to say this is proof of Washington's hostility and say, 'How dare they tell us to be more democratic?' " said Mr. Sestanovich, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, based in Washington.
Mr. Sestanovich said the speech "definitely reflects a scaling back of expectations of the relationship with Moscow. For the vice president to say Russia can be a strategic partner is already to imply that it isn't."While Mr. Cheney has always voiced greater skepticism toward Russia than his boss, President Bush, his remarks underscored a deepening rift that has emerged since Mr. Bush famously said in 2001 that he had looked into President Putin's eyes and "got a sense of his soul." Indeed, in many areas, the United States and Russia have rarely seemed more at odds since the cold war ended.
In Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, the two countries, if not their leaders, seem to confront each other more often than they cooperate. Their disputes include everything from elections in former Soviet republics like Ukraine and Belarus to Russia's exploitation of its energy resources for political ends.
"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation," Mr. Cheney said, weighing in on a heated European debate over Russia's reliability as an energy exporter following a brief New Year's shutoff of natural gas to Ukraine. "And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."
The latter were clear references to Georgia and Moldova, both former Soviet republics with unrecognized separatist enclaves abetted by Russia, and to Ukraine, where Mr. Putin openly sided against the current president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, during the public protests of electoral fraud in 2004 that ultimately swept him to power.
Mr. Cheney spoke at an international conference in Vilnius that gathered together leaders of nine former Soviet republics or Warsaw Pact satellites along Russia's western border, as well as the United States, European Union and NATO.
The bulk of his address was a celebration of the democratic progress these countries have made since the Soviet sway over Europe began to collapse in 1989. And Mr. Cheney sounded very much like a triumphant cold warrior. He evoked Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and the dissident leaders of the Soviet bloc who threw off "the stagnation of imperial dictatorship."
Mr. Cheney did not mention Mr. Putin by name. And he said that Russia was not "fated to be an enemy" and that it "can be a strategic partner and a trusted friend." But he urged that Russia follow the course embraced by its former subjects in the Soviet bloc. He added that the meeting in St. Petersburg would be an opportunity for Mr. Bush and the other G-8 leaders to make that case.
"Russia has a choice to make," he said.
Mr. Cheney also reiterated the administration's strong condemnation of Belarus, where President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko was elected to a third term in a vote denounced as a fraud. He said that he had planned to meet Mr. Lukashenko's leading opponent, Aleksandr Milinkevich, in Vilnius, but that Mr. Milinkevich's arrest last week prevented it. He called for his release.
"There is no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this kind," he said, calling Mr. Lukashenko's government "the last dictatorship in Europe."
Russia, by contrast, has praised Mr. Lukashenko's victory, most recently when Mr. Putin met the Belarussian leader last week.
Mr. Cheney's speech was barely mentioned in Russia's state-owned or controlled media, but nevertheless set off a torrent of criticism here.
"The United States has to deal with an absolutely different Russia today — a Russia that has restored its real sovereignty in many areas," Andrei A. Kokoshin, a member of the lower house of parliament, told the Interfax news agency.
His remarks reflected an increasingly confident view of Russia's status that is widely held here. It is a view that has required the Bush administration to calibrate its criticism over democratic backsliding with the realization that Russia's growing economic might, largely fueled by oil and gas, made it an indispensable player.
"The vice president was clear about our concerns," a senior administration official traveling with Mr. Cheney said, according to a transcript provided by the White House, "but also clear that we want to work with Russia."
This is what you get when you put a former IKGB guy in charge of a country. Putin's specialty in the KGB? Suppressing dissident activities in Saint Petersburg. Yep, that's the ticket. What's that old line? "You reap what you sow," or something like that?
I've never trusted Putin. I always thought that putting a former KGB officer in charge of the government was kind of like letting the fox protect the henhouse. And with the natural resources in Russia that Putin is playing strategy with, it's no wonder why we're having some problems with him. His defense of Lukashenko has also strained relations recently, and Washington has made that clear. But the most disturbing thing to the US is the fact that Russia refuses to take any steps against Iran.
Russia and China have been business partners with Iran long enough that they don't want to lose that particular partner. And while no one can blame them for that attitude, they must know that they are the ones standing in the way right now in dealing with Ahmadinejad. This is not a matter of us flexing our muscles, as I'm sure many on the Left believed we did in Iraq. This is about trying to prevent a madman from getting his hands on the most destructive weapons in the world; weapons, I might add, he has said he will use against our interests over there. And should his business dealings bring him new missiles to mount warheads on that can reach our shores?
Well, let's just say all bets are off, and I've got no problem dropping a pre-emptive nuke on Tehran. It might be a quiet little neighborhood for the next 10,000 or so years, but that's the point--it'll be quiet, and free of any saber-rattling.
I know that a lot of people will call that a "chicken-hawk" mentality. They can, and they'd be dead wrong. If I were president, I'd play this game only so long before we go back to the Bush Doctrine. The same doctrine that we used in the UNSC to begin with. "Come clean, disarm, or else." Of course there are a couple problems in relation to Iran that we would have to deal with (like ridding them of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard), but it will be awhile before a military confrontation occurs. And, if we can avoid that, we will in favor of helping to train and arm a dissdent movement in Iran that is quite clear on their goals.
They want Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs out as much as we do.
But Russia is a problem, and I'm happy to see that the administration is recognizing that now. It's about time they did. Russia, while they were nice to have on our side solidly in the subsequent years since the fall of the Soviet Union, is still at odds with us, and is a competitor on many levels. This speech by Cheney should signal Putin that we're not exactly happy with things right now.
Captain Ed brings up the point that the G-8 summit is slated to be in Saint Petersburg this July. He states that the president should contact the other members of the G-8, and insist they meet elsewhere to finish sending the message to Russia that the world isn't too happy with them right now. I agree. Hold it in the US, England, or Germany, but keep it out of Putin's backyard.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home