Чейни решил отчитать Россию

[MaxSt]

Ничего не понял...

[machineHead]

Ничего не понял...

Так на это я Вам уже третью страницу намекаю

[MaxSt]

Ничего не понял...

Так на это я Вам уже третью страницу намекаю

Не понял. На что намекаете?

[machineHead]

Не понял. На что намекаете?

На то, что зациклившись на деталях, Вы не хотите понять суть

[MaxSt]

На то, что зациклившись на деталях, Вы не хотите понять суть

Хочу понять. Объясните.

MaxSt.

[VladG2]

http://www.inosmi.ru/stories/01/05/29/2996/227396.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/11/ ... lieven.php

Cheney's tub-thumping speech in Vilnius, Lithuania, attacking Russia for lack of democracy and energy "blackmail," coupled with his attempts to create an energy alliance against Russia, invited a blistering response from the Russian president. With perfect fairness, and with the approval - in this case - of most of humanity, Putin could have torn Cheney's speech apart on a whole range of issues.

These include the hypocrisy of denouncing Russia over democracy and going straight on to lavish praise on the oil- rich dictators of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan; the general weirdness of Cheney talking about human rights at all; the insolence of an administration with the Bush-Cheney team's record in the Middle East daring to demand automatic Russian support against Iran in the name of "the international community," and so on.

If Putin had issued such a response in his state of the union address on Wednesday, he would have had the approval of the overwhelming majority of Russians - while of course doing still further damage to U.S.-Russian relations.

It is hard to imagine a U.S. president turning down a domestic political opportunity like this, whatever the likely effect on his country's interests. But apart from a couple of mild and indirect comments, Putin said none of these things. Instead, he focused on the issue that is indeed the greatest threat to the Russian nation, namely demographic decline

[MaxSt]

LATimes: Resurgent Russia Is Unlikely to Heed U.S.

WASHINGTON — In its campaign to bring about a more democratic Russia, the Bush administration is speaking ever more loudly, but carrying a small stick.

Although the administration has served notice that it will press the Kremlin to govern democratically at home and play by the rules abroad, it has less and less leverage to bring this about. Despite the Bush administration's hopes and sometimes wishful rhetoric, the Russia that once was poor and dependent has found it can ride its energy riches to global influence.

In the 1990s, Russia depended heavily on international loans and yearned to be seen as a world power. Now, with oil selling for more than $70 a barrel and with $220 billion in gold and hard currency in the Russian treasury, Moscow needs less in the way of aid or international recognition. The shift is a potent reminder of how oil prices can alter the balance of power.

As a result, Washington is likely to make little headway in changing Russia's policies and faces a difficult relationship with the Kremlin for years to come, say current and former U.S. officials and other experts.

...

U.S. officials have notably avoided commenting on ways they could penalize Russia if it failed to change. The implication of their warnings is that they would no longer treat Russia as a democracy in the inner circle of U.S. allies, but instead more like an authoritarian government.

But it is not clear how much of a punishment this would be, given the lack of U.S. influence.

"The problem for the Bush administration is that we really have very little leverage," said Andrew C. Kuchins of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"There are lots of thing we want from them. But we have really very little leverage."

MaxSt.