By Andrei P. Tsygankov
Crew members of the U.S. Navy's guided missile destroyer (not the presidential candidate!), USS John S. McCain, carry U.S. and Russian flags as they march during World War II victory celebrations in the far-eastern city of Vladivostok May 9, 2007. (Photo by Reuters)
Most Russians are indifferent to the U.S. presidential elections and don't expect better relations with America. One poll found that only 9 per cent of respondents think new Russian President Dmitry Medvedev should focus on improving the bilateral ties. Medvedev himself expressed desire to work with a "modern" U.S. leader rather than one ``whose eyes are turned back to the past.''
In the meantime, some Russian elites have voiced their support for Senator John McCain. This may seem surprising considering that McCain's Russia record includes warnings of "a creeping coup against the forces of democracy and market capitalism", accusations of Kremlin involvement in nuclear blackmail, energy imperialism, cyber attacks, as well as multiple calls to expel Russia from the G-8. Although the Arizona Senator has recently expressed willingness to cooperate with Moscow on nuclear issues, there is hardly any doubt that he remains one of the toughest (and most prejudiced) critics of Russia in the U.S. establishment.
Some Russian leaders would welcome McCain's election as confirmation that Russia must be more confrontational with the U.S.
Last week the Russian daily Izvestia published an article favoring McCain and explaining why he may be a better choice than Democrat Senator Barack Obama. The article argues that, however hawkish, Mr. McCain is more predictable. Even though he advocates tough policies toward Russia, he is straightforward and therefore won't confuse Russia (The image of a "straight shooter" cultivated by the Republican Senator's campaign managers in America seems to have been bought by the Russians as well). Besides, Russia is doing spectacularly well, while the United States loses one position in the world after another. Confronted with the American threat, Russia will only get stronger and consolidate its status of a sovereign great power.
Russian hard-liners are, of course, playing the public. The United States, while undoubtedly damaged by the Iraq war and the recent economic downturn, remains strong and attractive as an international partner. But Russian hawks in and around the Kremlin are a product of external threats, and they depend on an image of foreign enemy for their survival and prosperity. Much can be achieved by a small, well-organized group that possesses a powerful manipulation technique in a society of consumers, rather than citizens.
The hawks have worked hard to justify the need for greater military expenditures and a greater separation from the West in areas such as energy supplies and relations with the former Soviet states. According to them, Russia has fully recovered as a great power, and it does not need to seek the West's approval of its actions and intentions. Russia must now create energy cartels, exclusive military alliances and push the arrogant Americans out of Eurasia once and for all.
For instance, the recent influential volume Russkaya doktrina (the Russian doctrine) insisted on the toughest possible policy as the way toward restoring Russia's self-sufficient and imperial nature. Believers in a rapidly approaching decline of the West, the volume's authors projected the United States' retreat from Eurasia between 2010 and 2015 and called for a political, economic and military union in the manner of a Warsaw Pact with China, India, Iran and other non-Western nations.
The hawking philosophy has been often shared by Putin's former deputy head administration Igor Sechin, who is in control of the second largest state-owned oil company Rosneft and who has numerous allies in the media and political circles. However, the hawks have suffered important blows by not getting their candidate to the president's office and by losing some prominent positions as a result of Medvedev-Putin's government shake-up. The hard-liners are eager to stage their comeback, and having McCain in the White House suits their agenda. It is arguably even better than the threat of terrorism -- the enemy is more visible by providing everyday excuses to crack down on domestic openness and fortify external defenses.
Russian hawks remain a force to be reckoned with. To the American voters, however, their preference tells something important about Mr. McCain who is popular with the wrong people. Nationalist phobias in both Russia and America need each other, and they advocate similar objectives. Rather than concentrating on development of human potential, stronger social programs and improvement of people's life, their main concern is with rebuilding power and geopolitical influence. In the meantime, the world remains divided and prone to violence. The hard-liners on both sides will continue to get stronger if American and Russian societies are too weak to fight back.
Andrei P. Tsygankov is a Professor of International Relations and Political Science at the San Francisco State University.
Hi,
If you want to get acquainted with Mr McCain a little bit more read the text from The American Conservative:
The Madness of John McCain
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html
Regards
On Russia, just how different are the views among Obama, H. Clinton and McCain? It's perhaps more on cosmetic side, with McCain looking the harsher when it comes to rhetoric.
Likewise, maybe too much is made of hard-liners among Russia's foreign policy elite.
It has been said that the Obama-H. Clinton differences are more related to a competition between the two for the same job. Take that facet away and their views don't appear so different on a number of major issues. Vis-Ã -vis political appointments, does a similar situation not exist in Russia?
Take the issue of Kosovo as one example. Do McCain, H. Clinton and Obama have significant differences with each other? On the Russian side, which Russian foreign policy elite supports an independent Kosovo?
Meantime: it's best to get the differences out on the table in a straight forward manner, as opposed to bland discussions that blame both countries for the current state of relations, without getting down to the specifics.
Good clean, hard hitting exchanges over a timid: is this okay to say?
I do not see John McCain as being a good choice for Russia (or any country to be exact). If he is elected, consider Russia's bid for WTO entry over, consider cooperation to decrease and most likely economic restrictions with Russian companies to be increased.
Considering the offer for a new nuclear treaty to reduce stockpiles, I would highly advise against this to any Kremlin representative. With a reduction in nuclear capacity, the US would intern gain an incredible military advantage over Russia.
As it stands, multiple nuclear weapons are targeted per single target in case of mis-detonation (failure to detonate). If this is taken into account that the US nuclear weapons are also rated at lower chance of non-detonation, Russia is going to be left severely venerable.
Decreased Russia’s nuclear capacity would lower its strike power and defence. If this is coupled with the United States immense conventional weapons strike capacity, Russia would be severely disadvantaged. Russia simply does not have capacity or military budget to compare with US defence.
Consider the Defence Expenditure of 2008 Budgets: Russia=$40 billion Vs US=$583 billion which is more than twice the expenditures of the ENTIRE Russian budget ($243.6 billion as of 2007).
Decrease in nuclear capacity of both countries is only going to benefit the United States.
A couple of weeks or months ago John McCain was in London as part of a foreign fund raiser which was hosted by Jacob Rothschild allied with the Former Yukos company and is a main contributer to McCains financial campain. Seeing how the Rothschilds have historically used there vast wealth (the richest family in the world) to buy political clout do you not think that this will influence McCains foreign policy. The same can be siad for the other candidates Obama is backed by Russian hating Brezinski and international CIA revolutionary George Soros.
Nobody likes Mcain! Atleast not if you ask… the rest of the WORLD!
It appears that BBC recently did a survey in 22 countries, asking people who they belive would improve Americas relation with the rest of the world. Well to summon up …
46 percent voted for Obama and
20 percent for Mcain and
34 percent said they where not shure!
AH… In Canada which after all is the neighbouring country 69 percent voted for Obama, Italy 64%, France 62% and Germany 61%…
ONLY in USA… in a new survey it reveals that Obama gets 47 percent of the votes and Mcain 46! How in the world is it that the rest of the planet, people like Obama vastly more than Mr Mcain … while only in The US, it appears to be equal?
No matter the reason, I believe the rest of the planet also should get their say in this election… (or at least the 100 countries America has put under their military control !!) Anybody more affected by an election should be able to vote… otherwise it cant under any circumstances be called a democratic system. We live in a global world where no nation stands excluded from neighbours around. Obviously its hard to have a global election for the president-post in every country, but think about it… don’t you believe a great deal of people in Iraq are more affected by this election than a whole lot of people in the USA… ? I do! If the US e´wants all this global military/financial responsibility, they can atleast hear what the world has to say… jao!
But hey … anywho anyways anywhat, that just me right!?