Participants in the discussion, largely Russian experts on the United States, disagreed widely on what the result of the American election would mean for Russia.

The event was held in line with a presentation of The Audacity of Hope, a memoir and policy book written by Obama.

Valery Garbuzov, the deputy director of the Institute of USA and Canada in Russia’s Academy of Sciences, said that people in US have been “living by these elections” for over a year. In his opinion, the active nationwide discussion of the problems facing the US in recent years shows that American democracy is not in crisis. “These grueling, expensive, exhausting American elections still accomplish their goal after all,” he said.

Andrei Kartunov, the president of the New Eurasia Foundation, said the current US presidential campaign was the most interesting he had ever watched. “These days, two Americas have collided,” he said. “McCain is the last major politician of the 20th century. He formed his beliefs under the conditions of the Cold War, and fought in Vietnam, which naturally left a mark on him. Obama is the first major politician of the 21st century. This is a completely different generation and upbringing.”

Kartunov cautioned the audience not to expect sudden changes in US foreign policy, and said no one should assume that relations between Moscow and Washington will immediately improve. An Obama presidency would present Russia with new opportunities and new challenges, he said. “It was relatively easy with Bush. The Republican administration made so many mistakes in recent years that Moscow could easily polemicize against it.” If Obama becomes president, Russian-American relations may become more interesting and more complicated, the expert believes.

Another expert, Alexander Karavanov, proposed that an Obama victory could cause new problems for Russia. Drawing a parallel with president John F. Kennedy, who also had many sympathizers in the US and the USSR, Karavanov suggested this wasn’t enough. Under Kennedy’s watch, the major event in Soviet-American relations was the Cuban Missile Crisis. “The advantage of a Republican president above a Democratic one is that he will not need to prove his patriotism every day,” Karavanov said. “To answer any doubts of his patriotism, John McCain can show the scars from his Vietnam injuries.” Karavanov also noted that the most significant breakthroughs in Soviet-American relations came during the Nixon and Reagan administrations with a Republican in office. Democrat Jimmy Carter’s term, meanwhile, saw a crisis in Russian-American relations.

Responding to Karavanov, Andrei Kartunov remarked that one should not equate all of Russia with the Russian authorities. “Of course, for adherents of ‘sovereign democracy,’ who profess Russia as a fortress under siege, a McCain victory would be beneficial. Because McCain is the confirmation of all their ideas about America, about how it doesn’t change, about how it always conducts anti-Russian policies.”

Voter turnout in the United States is expected to reach an all-time high this year. 36 US states have already begun early voting, while the general election will take place on November 4th.

According to the aggregate of latest polls, John McCain trails Barack Obama by around 7 points.

—

For more information:

Watch John McCain and Barack Obama discuss Russian during the first presidential debate on September 26th.

Putin the Staunch Republican?

Kasparov-Obama Should Stand Up to Russia’s Regime

The article first ran in the Grani.ru online newspaper.

—

Coercion to McCain
August 29, 2008
Ilya Milshtein

Prominent Russian political figure Vladimir Putin is a staunch supporter of the US Republican Party. One can only guess at the reasons. Maybe, the word “democrat” is disagreeable to him from childhood. It’s also not impossible that our premier generally gravitates to conservatism in all its most diverse forms – from the East German to the North American. By nature and purely professionally. The KGB is a conservative organization.

One way or another, our national leader has “voted” for the republicans for at least four years already.

In the fall of 2004, the Russian president sternly spoke out against democrat John Kerry. Literally equating the liberal candidate to Al-Qaeda, Putin said that a defeat of Bush would be “a grandiose victory for international terrorism.” He repeated this thought he had grown fond of at the moment when America was counting the votes collected by the contenders. If George wins, Putin said, this would mean that “the American public did not allow itself to be frightened, and made a wise choice.”

As you know, the American public lived up to his expectation.

Incidentally, debates had already started then as to how sensible Putin’s own decision to participate in the electoral campaign of Bush junior was. For example, that same fall, he actively supported Yanukovich as a candidate in Ukraine, and twice congratulated him with victory, which didn’t end very well. Both for Yanukovich and for Putin. There were even talks that if the Russian leader had behaved more humbly, then his protege would have had more of a chance. However, it’s already impossible to believe this, as the story doesn’t know that potential inclination. Especially when is deals with the national leader.

One can still assume that Putin’s heartfelt speeches didn’t hurt Bush. After all, they hadn’t completely forgotten in America, who was the first to express solidarity on September 11th. Relations between the Kremlin and the White House were already lukewarm, but years still remained before another cold war. Overall, one can assume that Putin helped his friend little, but expressed his own candid opinion. Which was what he was aiming for.

Today, when they are starting to use [Putin’s] name to scare small children in America, and when children seriously get scared, one must exercise caution when expressing sympathies for our premier. One cannot simply call on the American electorate to vote for McCain like this, saying that otherwise, bin Laden will celebrate his latest victory over the US. One must weigh every word. Otherwise, Obama will become president.

In yesterday’s interview with CNN [(English transcript)], Vladimir Vladimirovich found these words. He told the American voter that the war in Georgia, probably, was intentionally provoked by someone, in order to “to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency.” True, this was just a “hypothesis” as of yet, but “if it is confirmed,” then everything will become clear to Putin. Both about the Georgian war, and about the dirty, bloody election techniques in the US.

Every word here is worth its weight in gold, and each is clear as crystal.

It is hard to accept that Putin, one of the most informed people on the planet, doesn’t know something. And who could strive for “escalation” and win percents over it? Only McCain, which some of our political figures and experts have already spoken out about –as a rule, those who welcome the coming cold war epoch with a joyous song.

Now Putin has joined with them. Taking into account past experience, Vladimir Vladimirovich today acts from the opposite side. It’s as if, in Ukraine four years ago, he had recruited the local people into the ranks of the “Orangists” and twice congratulated Yushchenko with a glorious victory. He accuses the republicans of initiating the war in the Caucasus, knowing full well, that the majority of Americans won’t believe him. Instead, they’ll clearly adopt it: this unpleasant Russian is against our John. That’s why many of those who waver between McCain and Obama, will now vote for the republican candidate. Simply because Putin alluded to him with disapproval.

The time at hand is completely different, after all. It is a very cold time, forcing Americans, with a sigh, to remember the late Ronald Reagan, with his firmness in leading the operation which today can be called “coercion into perestroika.” It is exactly McCain who is conducting his electoral campaign with Reagan’s name on his lips.

In a word, just a couple more of these interviews on American TV channels, and our cunning premier will celebrate a victory with the republicans. Why they are so dear to him is uncertain. But one wants to believe, that coming into power, John McCain won’t forget the efforts of his Russian partner in the cold war, and will reward him with some kind of secret decoration.

translation by theotherrussia.org

Berlin is an ideal place for an American president, even a would-be president, to speak to the world about freedom and shared values. Barack Obama’s recent visit evoked the famous speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that defended the U.S. stance against the Soviet Union and tyranny in Eastern Europe. Both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union are now gone, but dangerous, nuclear-armed dictatorships are not. Sadly, Mr. Obama declined to mention this in Berlin.

The stage for his disappointing performance was set several weeks ago, when the Illinois senator rejected John McCain’s proposal to eject Russia and exclude China from the Group of Eight (G-8). Mr. Obama’s response during a July 13 interview on CNN — “We have to engage and get them involved” — suggests that it is impossible to work with Russia and China on economic and nuclear nonproliferation issues while also standing up for democracy and human rights.

It has repeatedly been shown that the exact opposite is true.

The U.S. does not cede leverage with authoritarian governments when it confronts them about their crimes. Instead, the U.S. increases its credibility and influence with foes and friends alike. Placating regimes like those in Russia and China today only entrenches hostile, antidemocratic forces.

Commercial agreements, arms control and other mutually beneficial projects can be pursued without endorsing dictatorship. During the same interview, Sen. Obama spoke of enlisting China to help write the “international rules of the road.” This is the same logic that led the United Nations to place China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on its current Human Rights Council. Do we really want to live under rules created with the approval of such regimes?

While Mr. Obama talked about the importance of receiving Russia’s help in containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Reuters reported that Tehran is acquiring advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles from the Kremlin. This is the cooperation the West has earned by including Russia in the G-8.

In Berlin, Mr. Obama repeatedly mentioned the 1948 Berlin airlift. On CNN, he said he would like to “bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan.” A strange statement, since President Harry Truman fought against giving up an inch to the communists on any front around the world. Not only did Truman save West Berlin; South Korea, Taiwan and Western Europe also have much to thank him for. By contrast, in their July 9 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Obama advisers Madeleine Albright and William Perry, secretaries of state and defense under Bill Clinton, criticized Sen. McCain’s proposal to respond to major powers’ human-rights abuses with more than lip service.

Mr. Obama also asked if the West would stand up for “the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe.” Commendable, but what about the political prisoner in China and the recently convicted blogger in Russia? Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev both came to power in blatantly fraudulent elections. The hypocrisy of condemning one while embracing the other destroys American and European credibility, and undermines any attempt at global leadership. Those of us living behind the Iron Curtain at the time were grateful Ronald Reagan did not go to Berlin in 1987 to denounce the lack of freedom in, say, Angola.

In short, the candidate of change sounds like he would perpetuate the destructive double standards of the current administration. Meanwhile, the supposedly hidebound Mr. McCain is imaginative enough to suggest that if something is broken you should try to fix it. Giving Russia and China a free pass on human rights to keep them “at the table” has helped lead to more arms and nuclear aid to Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and interference from both nations in solving the tragedies in Darfur and Zimbabwe.

Would all of this have occurred had the U.S. and Europe threatened meaningful reprisals? At least Mr. McCain wants to find out.

Reagan’s Berlin speech is remembered for his command: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” But he also made a critical point about negotiating from strength, a point Mr. Obama seems to be missing. Reagan knew that if the U.S. backed down on the Strategic Defense Initiative, his speech would just be pretty words the Soviets would ignore.

Reagan avoided the mistake John F. Kennedy made when he met with Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, Kennedy was weak in Khrushchev’s eyes and keen to make a deal, and the Soviet premier bullied him mercilessly in Vienna. The Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis were soon to follow.

Today, instead of communists there are deal-making capitalists and nationalists running the Kremlin and China’s National People’s Congress. They, and blowhards like Hugo Chávez, hardly represent the existential threats faced by Truman, Kennedy and Reagan. Yet Mr. Obama still is reticent to confront them, saying in Berlin that “we must reject the Cold War mindset of the past and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must.” But the Cold War ended and democracy became the global standard not because Western leaders merely defended their values, but because they projected them aggressively.

On Sept. 11, 150 years ago, another Illinois politician to run for president, Abraham Lincoln, said: “Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere.” Not where it’s convenient. Not in countries lacking large energy reserves. Everywhere, Mr. Obama, everywhere.

Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved