RUSSIAN DENVER / HORIZON 8 N<strong>30</strong>/<strong>859</strong> от 08.12.2016 e-mail: info@gorizont.com Simply the best would be less afraid of their former imperial master and would accordingly be better able to set aside their past grievances to begin new relationships with Moscow. Since Yeltsin was instrumental in achieving relatively peaceful independence for the Baltic states by refusing to allow Russian citizens to participate in any military action against them, some expected Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to be especially grateful. Nevertheless, all these arguments were either incomplete, superficial or just plain wrong. It is true that the George H. W. Bush administration did not provide any formal guarantees that NATO would not expand further east. That was perfectly appropriate since neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin asked for a legally binding agreement. Nevertheless, as their memoirs and other documents make clear, President Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft may not have considered post-Communist Russia to be a superpower, but they did view it as a friendly power. They intended to treat Moscow with respect and dignity and to work to provide it what they saw as an appropriate place in the new European security architecture. This attitude discouraged Gorbachev and Yeltsin from insisting on legally binding David Bromwich IN THE early 1970s, Hillary Clinton was a familiar face in the left-liberal milieu she had cast her lot with: a volunteer for the Yale Law School watchdog committee to monitor fairness in the guarantees. With this in mind, the Clinton administration had every legal right to proceed with NATO expansion. What U.S. officials had no right to do was to think that they could move NATO’s borders further and further east without changing Russia’s perception of the West from friend to adversary. The first Bush administration had no plans to expand NATO and was hesitant to involve the United States in the emerging civil wars in the Balkans. Clinton-era NATO interventions in Bosnia (with Russia’s reluctant consent) and Serbia (without Russia’s consent or a United Nations mandate) could not but shape Moscow’s views. The Iraq War and 2011 Libya intervention cemented NATO’s transformation in Russian eyes from a nonthreatening organization to a military alliance prepared to act without a UN endorsement and in disregard of Russian perspectives around the globe. Irrespective of NATO, Russia remained weak for some time, without real allies or friends, and eager to integrate itself into a world order dominated by the United States and Europe. Dmitri Medvedev’s term as Russia’s president was a last-gasp attempt to realize this goal, but even with Medvedev’s more amiable leadership, NATO continued to dismiss efforts like Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s proposal to negotiate a European security treaty without much debate. Many interest exists, and infusing into ВНИМАНИЮ one the enmities ВЛАДЕЛЬЦЕВ of the other, КРУПНЫХ, betrays the former into a partici- anti-Western militarism? СРЕДНИХ И МАЛЫХ БИЗНЕСОВ! pation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.» This and mollifying them outweigh the danger of provoking Russia’s Many say that without Ukraine Russia cannot be an empire. This is true, to a point. Con- Закаленный в победах доблестный отряд should be «particularly alarming славных to the вебмастеров truly enlightened and газеты independent о начале patriot.» грандиозного строительства... "<strong>Горизонт</strong>" объявляет единой русской In the absence электронной of a serious for-общины Колорадо. in the West feared that it could versely, however, Russia’s elite create anxiety among some new and much of its public believes members over NATO’s security that Russia can never be secure guarantees. if Ukraine becomes a hostile nation Yet if Russia was not a threat, eign-policy debate, few Americans and particularly if it joins a as Western leaders insisted it understood what an ambi- hostile alliance. Russian leaders was not, why would avoiding the tious project Washington was have already seen how NATO’s Baltic states’ anxiety be a higher undertaking in allowing NATO’s new members have changed the priority than stabilizing U.S. and expansion and interventionism character of the alliance in its European security relations with to proceed blindly until the alliance dealings with Moscow. A NATO Russia, a huge country with almost had incorporated most of influenced by not only Poland 150 million people and a Europe. Yet looking at the last and the Baltic states, but also massive nuclear arsenal? This two centuries of Europe’s history, Ukraine, may form an existential is especially difficult to answer a nation or a group of nations threat for Moscow. This in when the Baltic states themselves could not have felt particu- Europe three times. Napoleon and NATO’s security in terrible has Интернет only attempted сайты to dominate ВСЕХ русских turn would бизнесов place both Ukraine’s larly threatened since only one Bonaparte, и частных World предпринимателей War I’s victorious на одном allies and гигантском the Third Reich портале. America should seek to avoid. jeopardy–a development that of them, Estonia, was prepared to spend 2 percent of its GDP each tried and failed. Napoleon Relations between the two on defense in line with NATO Все бизнесы and Hitler могут were defeated принять by a участие sides have в проекте deteriorated to dangerous levels. It’s in the U.S. guidelines. Latvia was spending countercoalition; the World 1.3 percent and Lithuania 0.8 percent, all while pursuing polariz- независимо tainable от security особенностей architecture других in ter видов relations рекламы. with Russia from a War СОВЕРШЕННО I allies created an unsus- БЕСПЛАТНО national interest to explore beting anti-Russian polemics. Europe that contributed to the position of strength, something Both Bill Clinton and George rise of Nazism and World War that will require both patience W. Bush ignored George Это Washington’s II. Новогодний Moreover, while Westerners подарок and realism in acknowledging famous warning in his may believe that NATO’s east- that the effort may not succeed. от газеты "<strong>Горизонт</strong>" Farewell Address about the ward expansion has been peaceful If Moscow refuses to oblige, and perils of permanent alliances: Для этого voluntary, надо Russians занести see информацию Washington should do whatever is necessary to protect its «Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion it as inseparable from NATO’s о of своем European бизнесе and ДО global НОВОГО military ГОДА interests. по Since адресу this is likely to be an imaginary common interest exploits. How could bringing risky and costly, it should not be in cases where no real common small www.gorizont.com/letmein new members into NATO America’s first choice The Roots of Hillary’s Infatuation with War An incorrigible belief in the purity of one’s motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess. trial of the Black Panther leader Bobby Seale; a worker for Marian Wright Edelman’s Washington Research Project (the precursor of the Children’s Defense Fund); a member of the legal staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. In one cause, however, she was mostly absent and unaccounted for: the protest against the Vietnam War. A friend of the Clintons, Greg Craig, told the New York Times reporter Mark Landler that while others Все вопросы по тел. 720-436-7613 in their circle were «heavily involved» in antiwar activism, «I don’t remember Hillary having much to do with that.» Clinton gave two pages to the war in her memoir Living History. She sympathized there with the burden of responsibility borne by President Johnson for «a war he’d inherited,» which turned out to be «a tragic mistake.» Johnson is her focus: the man of power who rode a tiger he could not dismount. On a second reading, «mistake» may seem too light a word to characterize a war that destroyed an agrarian culture forever and killed between one and three million Vietnamese. «Mistake» is also the word that Hillary Clinton has favored in answering questions about her vote for the Iraq War. Like every Democrat who has run for president since 1960, Clinton sometimes talks as if she wished foreign policy would go away. A president’s most important responsibility, she agrees, is to strengthen the bonds of neighborhood and community at home, to assure a decent livelihood for working Americans and an efficient system of benefits for all. Yet her four years as secretary of state–chronicled in a second volume of memoirs, Hard Choices–have licensed her to speak with the authority of a veteran in the world of nations. War and diplomacy, as that book aimed to show, have become an invaluable adjunct to her skill set. Clinton would want us to count as well a third tool besides war and diplomacy. She calls it (after a coinage by Joseph Nye) «smart power.» Smart power, for her, denotes a kind of pressure that may augment the force
RUSSIAN DENVER Colorado Russian Newspaper published in English 720-436-7613 www.gorizont.com/rd 9 2600 S. Parker Rd., Bldg. 3, Suite 237 Aurora, CO 80014 AMERICAN HERITAGE Insurance Brokers, Inc. Peoples National Bank Able to lend in all 50 states. One of Colorado’s leading mortgage sources Peoples National Bank Five Star Mortgage Professional five year winner Sr. Mortgage Banker NMLS # 777144 Peoples National Bank <strong>30</strong>3-721-1120 Office <strong>30</strong>3-224-3432 Direct 720-329-8195 Cell <strong>30</strong>3-224-3437 Fax 6025 S Quebec St #120 Englewood, CO 80111 bblyakhman@epeoples.com