The U.S. Treasury is printing a lot of money, and that has Moscow and Beijing nervous about the value of their dollars. Meanwhile, the U.S. and NATO need Russia's help for secure northern supply lines into Afghanistan. But while these facts have captured the attention of bipartisan foreign policy experts, these realities do not seem to be slowing down Washington's anti-Russia lobby

Don't Just Blame "The Neocons" for Poor U.S.-Russia Relations

Interestingly, the two schools include individuals both on the Left and on the Right of U.S. politics, but as far as influence on the powers-that-be goes, the "Pro" lot have, until recently, been far outnumbered by the "Contras." Thus, until recently apart from university professors, think tank experts, lawyers and businessmen, there were among the "Pro" people a mere handful of Congressmen and prominent politicians and journalists. Those with the most political weight were Patrick J. Buchanan and the late Paul Weyrich, well known ideologues on the far Right flank of the Republican Party. Weyrich had a direct access to the George H.W. Bush Oval Office from 1989 to 1992, but his lobbying for Russia's speedy integration into the West was cut short by none other than Condoleezza Rice, or so Paul Weyrich himself believed.

The "Contra" school is assumed to be dominated by the neoconservatives, but this is not a whole story. During President George W. Bush's presidency, when U.S.-Russia relations were only marginally better than they were in Soviet times, Bush was greatly influenced by the neocons, including the most influential neocon of all, Vice President Dick Cheney. Before entering the White House in 2001, George W. Bush had been a virtual stranger to international affairs and primarily dealt with Mexico as the Governor of Texas.

The Wall Street Journal and George Soros Together?
How the Anti-Russia Lobby Creates Strange Bedfellows

Besides the neocons, a tough policy toward Russia is also favored by numerous former Clinton Administration officials, Eastern European, Baltic and Ukrainian ethnic lobbying groups, military-industrial complex lobbyists, certain human rights organizations, and most of the U.S. media, both conservative and liberal, including The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Washington's anti-Russia lobby creates strange ideological bedfellows.

For example, many hawkish conservative Republicans who despise the hedge fund billionaire George Soros for his having spent hundreds of millions to defeat President Bush in 2004 and extensive support for Democratic Party think tanks nonetheless strongly supported the so-called Colored Revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia -- revolutions that were partially financed with Soros money. Many Democrat hawks who have never been keen on missile defense, seeing "Star Wars" as a costly boondoggle leftover from the Reagan years, nonetheless support building some installation in Poland and the Czech Republic to use as bargaining chips with Moscow.

Hypocritical Pipeline Politics -- Bypassing Russia at All Costs, Playing Up Human Rights for Russians, Downplaying the Same for Oil and Gas-Rich Central Asian Republics

The "Contra" reasoning is as follows: given that the Russian treasury gets most of its revenue from selling energy resources, Russia must be prevented from turning into an energy superpower that could "blackmail" Europe. To that end, consumers of Russian oil and gas in Europe should be led to believe that Russia is an unreliable supplier, while oil-and-gas-rich Central Asian countries are insistently encouraged to enter into joint ventures to build pipelines bypassing Russia. To lend the process maximum efficiency, all talk of deficient democracy in the former USSR is to be confined strictly to Russia, while turning a blind eye to the sorry plight of democracy under authoritarian regimes in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.

Ukraine's "Gas Wars" and NATO Expansion

In terms of isolating and containing Russia, they pin their hopes on NATO enlargement. Accordingly, first President Bill Clinton, and later President George W. Bush broke the promise not to expand NATO, which President George H.W. Bush had given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. A special role in this expansion has been reserved for Georgia and Ukraine. The former is to ensure the safety of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BKC) oil pipeline, and possibly also secure some future gas pipelines from Iran that would bypass Russia . While anti-Russia lobby members claim that Russia wants to ruthlessly exploit a monopoly position over European gas supplies, in reality, with 80 percent of Russian gas for Europe going through Ukrainian territory, it is the Ukrainian government that is well positioned to hold Europe hostage anytime paying the gas bill to Moscow becomes inconvenient. Russia was perfectly justified in discontinuing gas supplies this winter after Ukraine failed to pay its debts, while indulging in the theft of transit gas for Europe. Even though the Western media was more balanced this time than in its portrayal of the standoff back in 2006, the latest "gas war" was still frequently described in the West as Russia "bullying" neighboring countries and exploiting energy resources for political ends.

Why Europe Balked at Expanding NATO

Many influential members of the George W. Bush Administration wanted to cap off Bush's foreign policy legacy with the accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO. This would have finalized the process of isolating Russia, but it was not to be. America's European allies, led by France and Germany, balked at extending a military commitment to countries with ongoing territorial disputes (such as Georgia's persistent claims on Abkhazia and South Ossetia which led to war with Russia in August 2008).

Who Will Pay for a New Cold War Anyway?
The Financial Motives Behind U.S.-Russia Reconciliation

The United States is now struggling with countless economic problems accumulated over the past generation, including excessive dependency on borrowing from foreigners, which was linked to the exhaustion of leverage, particularly in the housing sector. The U.S. (and to a lesser extent, Great Britain) have led the world into a global financial crisis, and Washington now finds itself weighed down by astronomical liabilities and deficits as far as the eye can see. Washington's massive spending binge has reached the point that Russia and China are now calling for a new international currency, so that their dollar-denominated assets will not be inflated away when the U.S. Treasury starts printing money to cover its liabilities.

Indeed, an inflationary monetary policy may have already been set in motion, and like a freight train at high speed, once accelerated, it will not be very easy to stop. The U.S. Treasury announced last week that it was purchasing $300 billion in mortgage backed securities, essentially creating $300 billion dollars out of thin air. All evidence suggests that foreigners, including not only Russians and Chinese, but Europeans, Japanese, Korean and Middle Eastern oil producers, have drastically reduced their appetite for and purchases of U.S. government bonds.

After peaking earlier this year, the dollar has been falling against the ruble in recent weeks, as currency traders speculate that Washington is going to keep on printing dollars rather than make the politically painful choice to actually cut spending during a recession -- a decision the Russian government has already made. Oil prices have creeped back above $50 a barrel this month based on speculation that the dollar will continue to fall until Washington stops the electronic and physical printing presses and starts living within its means.

Another Reason for U.S.-Russia Reset: Afghanistan

An end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan remains nowhere in sight. Iran will not give up its nuclear ambitions, and the situation in Pakistan, a country that already has a nuclear arsenal, is bordering on chaos. The Taliban have seized control over the border regions with Afghanistan and have even launched brazen attacks against the Pakistani government a few miles from the capital of Islamabad. NATO supply lines through Pakistan are tenuous, at best, and have come under repeated attack by insurgents. This has led the commander of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petreus, to quietly negotiate with Russia, China and the Central Asian republics for access to new bases and supply lines. Nonetheless, some Washington hands remain so wary of Russia that they have suggested talking to Teheran about supply routes through Iran.

As with the aforementioned gas pipeline politics, some veteran Cold Warriors remain so suspicious of Russian intentions that they would prefer to trust the Iranian mullahs over cutting a deal with the Kremlin. The Taliban are just as much enemies of Russia as they are of the West. The Kremlin fears that if NATO loses the will to remain, and Afghanistan falls to the Taliban, the Central Asian republics could face Taliban-backed insurgencies in the years to come.

Washington's Foreign Policy Establishment is Beginning to Turn

Under these circumstances it would be reckless, to say the least, to persist in the short-sighted policy of confrontation with Russia, and Obama apparently sees this only too clearly. Improving relations with Russia, dubbed "resetting," has become a major foreign-policy priority for Obama. The new President has pressed into service some really heavy artillery in the persons of Vice President Joe Biden, State Secretary Hillary Clinton, three ex-secretaries of state representing Democrat and Republican former administrations -- George Schultz, James Baker and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, Senator Sam Nunn, and numerous others. As Senator Nunn rightly observed, "we are in a state of racing between cooperation and catastrophe, but with the leadership of Obama and Medvedev our chances of cooperation are reasonably high."

Russia's Historically Poor Use of "Soft Power"

It should be noted that in Russia these issues are not nearly as busily discussed, particularly at the think tank and NGO level, as they should be. This weakens Russia's position, as the American and European publics are not getting the whole story and objective information. No one is sure where Russia's interests lie and what compromises the Russian side would be prepared to make, while the U.S. media is busy focusing on the negatives in the relationship.

Improving the Relationship - World Russia Forum

Several individuals from the Russian diaspora in the United States intend to improve the present situation through their own "public diplomacy", by organizing the World Russia Forum scheduled for April 27 -- 28, 2009 at the U.S. Senate auditorium in Washington, D.C. . Anyone with good ideas and suggestions can take part in the Forum by attending or by sending their proposals or questions to: wrf@discovery.org. Prominent American and Russian politicians and experts will be present at the Forum to answer some of the most important questions.

For further information about the Forum visit www.worldrussiaforum.org

Edward Lozansky is President of the American University in Moscow. A previous version of this article appeared at www.america-russia.net. Dr. Lozansky's other website is www.RussiaHouse.org.