Intelligence

'IT'S IN VOGUE IN U.S. TO DISLIKE RUSSIA': Russian media dwelled on what the Bush administration's "first moves" directed at Moscow portend for overall U.S. policy toward its former rival. One Moscow daily posited that disliking Russia is "very much in vogue" in the U.S. right now, while others saw the new "tough guys at the helm" in Washington as determined "to put us in our place." As centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta wrote, "We are witnessing the beginning of a carefully planned campaign to cut Moscow down to size." Nevertheless, some analysts--writing in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta and reformist Kommersant--suggested that the spy stories have been over-dramatized, and held out hope that "the 'reasonable' wing of Bush's foreign policy team," that is, "people who favor a realistic and constructive approach to Moscow," will prevail. Some further advised that the Kremlin, playing with a weakened hand, "keep its cool" and simply ride out the recent "brawls."

DON'T GIVE MOSCOW 'COLD SHOULDER': Outside Russia, the perception that Mr. Bush favors a "harder," "less conciliatory" line toward Moscow than his predecessor raised alarms for some West European and East Asian writers, who saw the U.S. being unnecessarily confrontational in "swinging the big diplomatic club" and "not shying away from a row with 'big shots' such as Russia and China." Noting that no Bush-Putin summit is on the docket and that close U.S.-Russia ties are "not on Bush's wish list," analysts warned that the U.S. "is steering a dangerous course" by, in their view, not making stable relations with Russia a priority.

EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr

EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 64 reports from 21 countries, February 24-March 30. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

Europe

RUSSIA: "Making An Inventory Of Problems"

Boris Volkhonsky mused on page one of reformist, business-oriented Kommersant in the wake of yesterday's telephone conversation between Colin Powell and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov (3/29): "Apparently, those who cautioned against dramatizing the situation over the expulsion of diplomats were right. The Russian president expressed the same view.... We'd do better to view what happened as a desire to make an inventory of problems left behind by the previous administration. But then, the Americans might soften up owing to internal factors such as differences between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in how they see foreign policy."

"Emotions Prevail"

Reformist Izvestiya front-paged this commentary by Georgy Bovt and Aleksandr Shumilin (3/28): "Relations between Russia and America increasingly look like a howling brawl in a market place. They can't react normally to each other or find time and energy to discuss important global and bilateral issues. Rhetoric, hurt feelings, and recriminations prevail. The best minds on both sides are busy working on new notes with protestations and accusations. Yesterday John Beyrle talked for three hours with the Chechen separatists' envoy Ilyas Akhmadov shortly after bloody terrorist acts in the North Caucasus. The Russian Foreign Ministry had every reason to call that meeting 'immoral'.... It is very much in vogue in the United States these days to dislike Russia--Russians are corrupt, can't manage reform, and make friends with nasty regimes.... Russia can't afford another cold war, even though many here would readily volunteer for it. A war spells trouble for ordinary people. It is they who would have to pick up the tab for an 'appropriate response' and suffer for Russia's no longer making rules of the game."

"Moscow's Reaction Predictable"

Boris Volkhonsky commented in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (3/28): "Explanations by an official spokesman for the U.S. State Department could well have been accepted--you must know the opinion of every side to a conflict to have a full picture--had it not been for two things: One, Akhmadov was last in Chechnya back in 1999; and two, Washington stubbornly refuses to receive the head of the Chechen administration, Akhmad Kadyrov. The only conclusion to be made is that meeting with Akhmadov in the State Department was a political gesture addressed to Russia. So the reaction to it was quite predictable."

"U.S. Tried To Cushion Impact"

Yevgeny Antonov pointed out on page one of reformist Vremya Novostei (3/28): "In all fairness, Washington tried to lessen the 'moral damage' by having a lower-ranking official stand in for Under Secretary of State Mark Grossman. Also, the meeting took place in 'neutral territory,' outside the State Department building. That 'concession' shows how far the new U.S. administration will willing to go in seeking a compromise with Russia. Washington is hinting that it won't totally ignore Moscow. But Bush is only willing to do so much, suggesting that the Russians do the rest. It is not that the Americans don't particularly like us. It is just reality--the weaker side ought to be more flexible."

"State Meets With 'Good' Terrorist"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta remarked in a page-one commentary by Yelena Shesternina (3/28): "The U.S. State Department managed to do two absolutely incompatible things in one day by receiving an emissary of the Chechen rebels and condemning the latest terrorist acts in the North Caucasus."

"Spies Sent Packing. What Happens Next?"

Under this headline, reformist Noviye Izvestiya carried a commentary by Yuri Sigov in Washington (3/27): "Trading 'spy niceties' has zapped relations between the Kremlin and the White House at least for the rest of the year, and it is unlikely that summits or assurances by Putin and Bush that 'not all is lost yet' will improve bilateral ties. When Bush, commenting on the expulsion of Russian diplomats, and then Putin, hinting at a tit-for-tat, claimed that the expulsions will not impair bilateral relations, they did not merely try to be naively cunning but simply lied to their citizens and the world's public. Relations between Moscow and Washington, marred for a long time, are sure to become very bad. With trust between Russian and U.S leaders undermined, not to be repaired any time soon, ordinary Russians and Americans will suffer the most, seeing each other as disguised spies, if not enemies."

"Eye-For-Eye Can Leave Both Sides Blind"

Robert Shemak said in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (3/24): "With striking ease, the Americans have agreed to trade their agents-cum-diplomats in Moscow. The matter, clearly blown up, could have been settled otherwise--U.S. and Russian special services are in good contact, so, experts say, they could have solved the problem 'in a professional way.' Acting eye-for-eye can really leave both sides blind. Even worse, it can ruin what good the two countries have gained in post-Soviet years. Hopefully, the 'reasonable' wing of Bush's foreign policy team will prevail. The Republicans do have people who favor a realistic and constructive approach to Moscow."

"U.S. Action Politically Motivated"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta stated in a comment by Dmitry Gornostayev on page one (3/24): "Without a doubt, Washington's action is politically motivated. But it clearly misfired.... The U.S. leadership certainly has people who are well versed in national affairs, but the last time they had real power was ten years ago. Since then, the world has changed a great deal more than their perceptions of it. Not surprisingly, the American administration has picked the road of confrontation."

"The Hard Job Of Adjusting To Each Other"

Reformist Izvestiya front-paged this by Yevgeny Bai and Georgy Bovt (3/23): "We are fighting a new spy war with America. Some people already hint at Cold War-2. In fact, the situation is more banal. The new U.S. and Russian administrations are trying to adjust to each other. New leaders bring along new spies. It looks rough, indeed. The 'tough guys' at the helm in Moscow and Washington are used more to playing the tug-of-war than making friends with each other. A cold war implies parity between the antagonists. Rather than being after a war, the United States...is attempting to put us in our place.... Bush's Republicans, contrary to Moscow's recent illusions that they are easier and more pragmatic to deal with, aren't particularly fond of the Putin line-up, ex-KGB men."

"Someone Must Reap Benefits"

Robert Shemak remarked in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (3/23): "Some people in the upper crust of the U.S. political elite, instilling the spirit of the Cold War, must benefit from having Russian-American relations seriously harmed."

"Carefully Planned Action"

Dmitry Kosyrev stated on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (3/23): "Needless to say, we are witnessing the beginning of a carefully planned campaign to cut Moscow to size. This is about how another Republican, Reagan, started out with regard to Moscow."

"Old Guard Back In Washington"

Yevgeny Antonov and Aleksandr Timofeyev held on page one of reformist Vremya Novostei (3/23): "Now that the old guard is back in big-time politics, eager to use the fruits of the victory over communism it prides themselves on winning under Reagan and Bush Sr., it is determined to realize its dream of what the would should be like."

"Return To Cold War, Texas-Style"

Mikhail Loginov commented in St. Petersburg's pro-reform Nevskoe Vremya (3/23): "Most Russian analysts argued before the U.S. presidential election that whatever the outcome, it would not have a serious impact on U.S.-Russian relations. If the information on the expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats turns out to be true, these relations will move to a totally new level. More precisely, they will return to Cold War levels. There should be a demonstration of force in response to the force of the new U.S. administration. George Bush clearly intends to use 'Texas methods' similar to the style of his father's presidency."

"How About Inviting Texan Separatists to Moscow?"

Yevgeny Antonov suggested on page one of reformist Vremya Novostei (3/22): "Based on the rules of formal logic, an 'appropriate' answer would be for Russia to have one of its deputy foreign ministers meet with representatives of, say, the Texan separatists. Texan George Bush would certainly be outraged. The U.S. separatists, however, are hardly planning on such a meeting."

"It's Not Cold War Yet"

Vitaly Portnikov commented in reformist, business-oriented Vedomosti (3/21): "A steady chill has set in between Russia and the United States. The failed visit to Washington by Russian National Security Secretary Sergei Ivanov, with the Americans virtually rejecting the proposed summit meeting, and the warm welcome for Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in Russia, with reports about Moscow's plans to sell Tehran rocket technologies, all that, combined with rumors and emotions, causes concern about the future of Russian-American relations. Even so, it is not a cold war yet.... Russia can do many things, but it can't undermine the U.S. economy. So it can't really wage this as a yet-undeclared war against the Americans, or make indifferent Europe accept it as a defense alternative, or prevent the deployment of a missile defense, or scare the Americans by expanding ties with a rogue state.... Russia needs to be smart in the first place.... Therefore, for Russia--mad at Bush and hurt by a possible expulsion of a hundred Russian agents--the worst thing to do would be to lose its cool and sacrifice what little has left of its economy to confrontation. Then it will lose the cold war even before it begins."

"What Kind of Moscow Does U.S. Want?"

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta ran this view by Maksim Makarychev (3/15): "It is clear by now that the Bush team...will try to dissociate itself from the Democrats' 'special' policy toward Russia as soon as possible. But apparently, it will keep 'long-playing records' such as Chechnya, democracy, and press freedom in the U.S. collection of political 'singles.' With the White House considering ABM the top priority in its relations with the Kremlin, the Russia powerhouse, evidently, will move to Vice President Cheney's staff and the Pentagon. As Washington is making its first moves in the big game of politics, we can see how it really feels about Russia and whether it really wants it to be strong. After all, besides differences on ABM or Iraq, the two countries have a lot to share: nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the exploration of outer space, successes in combating international terrorism and organized crime. That the United States sees a need for painstaking pragmatic work is encouraging. Hopefully, Washington realizes also that Russia is past the time of kowtowing to the West never to return to it again and will only talk to the West as an equal."

"Idyll In Bilateral Ties Over"

Aleksandr Chudodeyev commented in reformist Segodnya (3/15): "The idyll of the Yeltsin-Clinton days is over. The new U.S. administration does not hide its being far more wary of Moscow than the old. Condoleezza Rice's recent statement about Russia as the main threat to stability in the world clearly does not help bilateral relations. But then, Moscow is in no hurry to dissuade Washington from seeing it that way. Its uncompromising stand on NMD and expanding ties with rogue states do not contribute to mutual understanding."

"Risky Deal"

Maksim Yusin commented in reformist Izvestiya on an arms deal between Russia and

Iran (3/14): "The Kremlin should realize that Iran may (has) become a serious problem in relations between Russia and the United States. Unless the Kremlin wants to quarrel with the new administration in Washington, it will have to heed its opinion one way or other."

"Do Russians Want Cold War?"

Andrei Piontkovsky wrote in reformist Obshchaya Gazeta (3/7): "Two things have long since been clear to Russian experts: One, the United States will deploy a missile defense; and two, the NMD plans pose no danger to Russia's nuclear deterrent. Realizing that would give Russian diplomacy considerable room for maneuver, enough to find a compromise solution and have it accepted even if it had favored Russia. Instead, our diplomats have all these years harped on the 1972 ABM treaty as a 'cornerstone of strategic stability.'"

"Why Dig Up this Story Now?"

Boris Volkhonsky queried in reformist Kommersant (3/6): "Who wanted this story out and why? This is really perplexing. Moscow's reaction to the New York Times publication is weird, to say the least. Both the Foreign Ministry and the External Intelligence Service are acting as if they have not heard of this tunnel before.... It must be that Russia and the United States have opened a new chapter in their relations, one from a cheap spy novel."

"Nothing New"

Yelena Shesternina pointed out on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (3/6): "Digging a tunnel under the Soviet (now Russian) Embassy in the 1970s is nothing new in the area of special operations. Since the KGB allowed for such a hypothetical possibility, it must have taken the necessary countermeasures. So the Americans, most probably, wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars."

"Russia Totally Depends On West"

Leonid Radzikhovsky held in reformist Izvestiya (2/27): "Were the Americans to start a cold war out of their internal political, economic or any other considerations, Russia would have to retaliate. For our nationalists, it would be like having a dream come true. What dream? They give it different names: The resurgence of Great Russia, economic independence, the repudiation of pernicious Westernization, the development of a national philosophy, etc. You would be more precise calling it the patriots' dream to see Russia die soonest.... Needless to say, we totally depend on the West economically. Also, we totally depend on the West ideologically--we simply have nothing to set against it in terms of ideas, nothing to fight for."

"Ivanov And Powell Have A Chance"

Yevgeny Verlin observed in reformist Vremya MN (2/24): "Igor Ivanov and Colin Powell can paper over at least some of the cracks emerging in bilateral relations. But it is necessary to gain mutual understanding on at least one issues on the agenda: NMD, NATO expansion, nonproliferation of strategic weapons, Iraq and the Middle East."

BRITAIN: "U.S.-Russian Chill"

The independent weekly Economist observed (3/23): "Russian-American relations are fraying fast. Tit-for-tat expulsions of spies in Washington and Moscow and a harder line from Washington on a range of issues will put pressure on Putin.... Clearly, America's relationship with Putin...will be nothing like its romances with his predecessors. Amid its love affairs with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, America approached Russia with indulgence and optimism: frequent large carrots and occasional small sticks. The present spat over spies...heralds a very different approach by Bush's administration.... The first big change in Washington is that Russia is no longer seen as very important.... That makes it a lot easier to be tough on things that American officials find important. The most obvious example is Bush's plan to build a network to shield America from missile attack.... Now, America simply brushes Russian squawks aside.... Another example is...[that] the Clinton administration played down Russian misbehavior on issues such as...the export of nuclear technology to pariah states.... The new administration has harshly criticized Russian arms exports.... The new policy also dictated a much tougher response to the arrest of Robert Hanssen.... The Bush administration is also taking a harder symbolic line with the Kremlin on Chechnya.... America's new approach is also likely to put enormous pressure on Putin.... [But] Russia wants--and needs--to be part of the civilized world. It covets [WTO] membership, foreign investment and a ready welcome at international gatherings.... All of this precludes most of the things that would really annoy the West, such as letting rip with arms sales to rogue states or openly intimidating former Soviet satellites. A chill wind may be blowing between Washington and Moscow, but that is still a long way from being a cold war."

"Cold Warrior"

The independent Financial Times opined (3/23): "Washington's decision to expel 50 Russian diplomats is a worrying return to the symbolism of the Cold War. U.S.-Russian relations were already getting bad but may now deteriorate faster.... While the Russians probably provoked Washington, the U.S. response may well have been disproportionate. The consequences could be felt widely. While Russia is not as threatening as it was in the Cold War, it has the capacity to make serious difficulties by, for example, impeding peacekeeping work in the Balkans. That is why the scale of the U.S. action is so ill-judged.... So large an expulsion suggests that an influential body of opinion in Washington still thinks of Russia as the Soviet Union. The expulsions risk strengthening Russian suspicions that the Bush administration takes a Cold War view or--worse in Moscow's eyes--sees Russia as a secondary power."

"Squaring Up To Russia"

In its lead editorial, the conservative Daily Telegraph judged (3/23): "The expulsion of 50 Russian spies from the United States highlights the differences between the Clinton and Bush administrations over how to handle relations with Moscow. The Clintonistas' bastardized form of great power politics, which led them to soft-pedal Russian violations of the Missile Technology Control Regime and much else besides, has been abandoned. Instead, leading officials have drawn attention to Russia's contribution to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in a way that would have been unthinkable during the Clinton years. Likewise, the new administration is more concerned with the need to construct an anti-ballistic missile system...than about Russia's hypersensitivities concerning the sanctity of the 1972 ABM Treaty. The interests of America and her allies come first."

"That Sinking Feeling"

The liberal Guardian editorialized (3/23): "The coming to light of a Russian-paid mole deep within their ranks was...a doubly shocking horror that provoked, but only in part, this swinging retaliation. Mr. Bush thinks he has other reasons for concern. Donald Rumsfeld again lambasted Russia this week as an 'active proliferator' of mass destruction weapons. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was ruder still. 'These people seem to be willing to sell anything to anyone for money.'... While Mr. Putin may enjoy the irony of a Pentagon chief excoriating Russian capitalism, he cannot mistake this toughening tone. Mr. Bush is trying to fashion a more 'realistic' Russian policy, one supposedly more focused on America's national interest than that pursued by Bill 'Mr. Softy' Clinton."

FRANCE: "Washington-Moscow: The Spy Match"

Veronique Soule held in left-of-center Liberation (3/23): "The massive expulsion of Russian diplomats from Washington is only the latest sign of the deteriorating relationship between Washington and Moscow.... First, there was the Kremlin's obstinate opposition to NMD.... In mid-March, there was Khatami's visit to Russia and Putin's disregard for Washington's complaints.... Other subjects of contention, such as Russia's hostility to NATO's expansion or Washington's criticism of the Chechnya war are not new.... With his campaign promise to give Russia back some of its past pride and glory, Putin is concentrating on national interests, while trying to build closer ties with former Soviet republics and Europe.... But Putin is also a pragmatist.... Russia's economic revival is dependent on the West. Behind his rhetoric of challenge, Putin doesn't really believe in confrontation."

"Playing With A New Deck Of Cards"

Bernard Guetta told listeners on state-owned France Inter radio (3/23): "Washington's move in this latest spy incident is not a return to the Cold War. It is a message sent to the Kremlin to say that Russia no longer counts, that it no longer intimidates, that it is the end of an era when the two superpowers shared the onus of saving the world.... Today, the United States wants to break away from deterrence and turn to a defense system that will transform the United States into a sanctuary.... The United States is provoking Putin and pushing for a split, certain that Russia's reprisal cannot be very forceful."

"Moscow Courts Tehran"

Patrick de Saint Exupery argued in right-of-center Le Figaro (3/13): "In spite of American pressure, Putin made his position clear from the start and asserted that 'for economic reasons, we are in favor of military cooperation (with Iran).... For the United States, which had previously expressed its 'concern' and later accused Russia of being an 'active proliferator,' the gesture is a major snub."

GERMANY: "Not Cold War, But Cold Shoulder"

Leo Wieland maintained in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (3/26): "Moscow's claim that Washington is engaging in 'Cold War rhetoric' may be exaggerated, but it is obvious that Bush is showing Putin 'the cold shoulder.' Putin's behavior has increased U.S. determination to pursue, if necessary, unilateral steps to...nuclear disarmament, to build a missile defense without worrying about the ABM Treaty, to favor a second round of NATO expansion, and, in general, to let the Russians feel that one considers them a second-rate major power."

"Afraid Of A New Cold War"

Ernst Cramer observed in mass-circulation, right-of-center Bild Zeitung of Hamburg (3/26): "There is plenty of tension in U.S.-Russian relations. It is certainly true that the Bush administration has embraced a new, tougher approach vis-à-vis Russia. The United States is annoyed, for example, by Moscow's technological support for Iran or its human rights abuses in Chechnya. But President Bush does not want a return to the Cold War. And what about Russia? It could not even afford such a change of course."

"New U.S. Policy Is Creating A Dilemma For Europe"

Torsten Kleditzsch pointed out in right-of-center Mitteldeutsche Zeitung of Halle (3/26): "Relations between Washington and Moscow are marked by increasing tensions. Some observers are already talking about a Cold War. Such a view is certainly an exaggeration. However, the new U.S. administration is steering a dangerous course. It is too early to tell whether it is doing so out of a lack of experience or out of strategic considerations. It is a fact, however, that Washington's current approach is creating great difficulties for the Europeans who are torn between opposing forces. On the one hand, it is inevitable that relations with the United States will remain stable. On the other hand, Europe also needs Russia."

"The Spy, Who Points To The Cold"

Wolfgang Koydl said in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (3/23): "Indeed, much and, at the same time, little, has changed in U.S.-Russian relations, and the most recent espionage scandal is probably the best example of Washington's dilemma. On the one had, the U.S. foreign policy elite tends to no longer take the weakened Russia as seriously as in the past, but, on the other hand, its reactions to events in the Kremlin are still very erratic.... We must be fair and concede that U.S. fears are nurtured when it sees Iran's President Khatami in Moscow.... But, at the same time, the question must be raised whether the United States, with its friend-foe thinking, is not involuntarily driving these states into each other's arms. The fact that Russia and China are narrowing their views in strategic questions is also a direct consequence of this policy. That is why it would be politically more reasonable if the United Stated integrated Russia as far as possible. Europe does this, and it was Bill Clinton's strategy."

"An Unnecessary Duping Of Russia"

Dietrich Alexander had this to say in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (3/23): "[The case of Robert Hanssen] is only a pretext for Washington. Since Bush has taken over the presidency, a different wind is blowing in Washington. Unlike his conciliatory predecessor Clinton, the new U.S. president avoids potential mine fields in foreign policy such as Northern Ireland and the Middle East, but does not shy away from a row with the 'big shots' such as Russia and China. An example is missile defense. It is certainly true that Russia is now surrounding itself with false friends, is flirting with Iran and North Korea. Bush cannot like this, but is it really necessary to swing the big diplomatic club? Without any need, the Texas man is now turning a rather embarrassing espionage affair into a global policy crisis. Russia may have lost influence and power, but it does not allow anybody to dupe it."

"Mass Expulsion"

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger argued in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (3/23): " Clinton did not want to burden relations with Russia with a reaction from the times of the Cold War. But the Bush government is now changing the tune toward Moscow.... The United States is using the unmasking of a double agent to send a clear message to Russia: the times of sentimental gestures and cover-ups are over. As far as the expulsions themselves are concerned...it is an indication of a downward spiral in U.S.-Russian relations."

ITALY: "Dangerous Games In America"

Former Italian ambassador in Washington Boris Biancheri commented in centrist, influential La Stampa (3/25): "The expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats from the United States, and Moscow's reprisal...is manly a media event, an unexpected warning to Russia (and others) that the future will not necessarily be all smiles.... Similar expulsions have already occurred in the past and, as in the past, the Russians will start spying again and the Americans will do the same. What seems more dangerous to me is the temptation that seems to emerge--not on the part of Bush or his closest collaborators, but on the part of other minor contributors to U.S. foreign policy--to keep Russia on the ropes by secretly dealing with Chechen rebels."

"More Spies Than During The USSR Era"

New York correspondent Anna Guaita wrote in Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (3/24): "America's decision to expel 50 Russian diplomats would appear less serious were it not for the fact that, since George Bush's arrival at the White House, anti-Russian signals have multiplied."

"U.S.-Russia Spy Game Game"

Left-leaning, influential La Repubblica noted from Moscow (3/23): "Not since the collapse of the USSR have U.S.-Russian relations reached such a low point. In the absence of direct dialogue between Bush and Putin, what prevail are tensions and differences: on anti-missile defense, on weapons supplies to Iran, on Chechnya."

"Bush's And Putin's New Cold War"

Marcello Foa observed in leading, center-right opposition Il Giornale (3/23): "Clearly, a 'Cold War' similar to that of the '50s is very unlikely at the present time.... Yet the present crisis is alarming, since it is provoked by deep cultural and psychological differences. Moscow and Washington no longer speak the same language."

BELGIUM: "Deteriorating Relations"

Foreign editor Paul De Bruyn in conservative Catholic Gazet van Antwerpen opined (3/29): "Since George W. Bush took office, the relations with Russia have deteriorated rapidly.... The comradely atmosphere under Clinton-Yeltsin is over. As recently as last week...Rumsfeld denounced Moscow as an 'active proliferator.'... Condoleezza Rice...views Russia as a weakened but strategic threat. It is premature to conclude from this that a new Cold War is in the offing...but, irritations are increasing. That may be dangerous. The Americans are increasingly irritated by President Vladimir Putin. With his visit to Cuba, his meddling in Korea, his rapprochement to Iran and his opposition to NATO's enlargement, he is an obstacle to Washington.... However, nothing weighs heavier on relations than the American plans for a space shield.... Moscow has realized for a long time that it cannot compete with the old enemy any longer, but playing a second place role in all areas is unacceptable.... It desperately wants to delimit a sphere of influence again. That collides with America's ambitions. Maybe, a summit meeting might eliminate most tensions, but talking to the Russians is no priority for Washington. That is bad news."

"Reverting To Cold War Attitudes"

Philippe Paquet commented in independent La Libre Belgique (3/23): "Of course, the excellent relations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin were already ancient history...but it is clear that, with the new U.S. administration, the cooperation of before has turned to a dialogue of the deaf.... The [Hanssen arrest] as such, would not be that serious if it did not take place in an extremely bad climate. Russians and Americans disagree on many issues: the NMD project...the sale of weapons and military cooperation which Moscow contemplates with Tehran, Putin's interest in North Korea...and Moscow's relations with rogue States like Burma. And there are other vexations.... The State Department upset the Kremlin by preparing a meeting...with the 'Foreign Affairs Minister' of the Chechen separatist government. Trained during the administrations of Ford, Reagan, and Bush father, is the U.S. president's diplomatic team...reverting to Cold War attitudes? The Russians are not the only ones to be afraid of it."

"Two Hawks"

Freddy De Pauw wrote in independent Catholic De Standaard (3/23): "With George W. Bush in the White House and Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, the time of harsh words has come again and large numbers of diplomats are expelled.... It is true that, under Clinton, there were some issues that caused tension--but, they can become more acute under...Bush. Moscow sees the so-called anti-missile shield as an attempt to erode the existing arms control accords.... Earlier, the supply of Russian nuclear and missile technology to Iran angered Washington. Today, Donald Rumsfeld is denouncing Russia with very harsh words.... With the massive expulsion of diplomats, Bush puts an end to the policy of tolerance of his predecessor."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Russian Diplomacy Irritating Washington"

Marta Stolarova maintained in economist Hospodarske noviny (3/27): "It seems that Bush's administration will not pretend that Moscow is more important to them than it actually is.... The White House does not like the Kremlin's cleverly selective diplomacy.... What will happen next? It seems that Moscow cares about direct contact with George Bush; on the other hand, it sends clear signals that it will not limit its flirtation with Iran. Bush also will be forced to articulate more clearly U.S. policy toward Kremlin."

DENMARK: "Bush Administration Seeks To Isolate Russia"

Center-right Jyllands-Posten's Washington correspondent observed (3/27): "In the space of just two months, Bush had made it quite clear that he is willing to push Moscow into a corner, safe in the knowledge that the only way it can respond is by using angry words. Close [U.S. - Russian] relations are not on Bush's wish-list, and he seems to see no reason for hiding the fact behind a lot of diplomatic niceties.... At the present time, Bush is yet to formulate his policy regarding Russia. However, it is difficult to imagine how he intends to maintain security and stability without showing even a modicum of respect to Moscow."

"Bush Playing Hardball"

According to center-left Politiken (3/26): "It appears that Bush is intent on playing hardball [in the foreign policy arena]. According to Bush, Clinton was too acquiescent and...this helped consolidate Russia's corrupt regime. Bush may have a point, but criticism of Clinton does not, in itself, add up to a new foreign policy.... Nonetheless, Bush deserves praise for his policy regarding Chechnya. He continues to call for dialogue with the Chechen leaders and he is maintaining his criticism of Russia's role in the conflict."

FINLAND: "Washington And Moscow Sulking"

Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat's editorial read (3/24): "What does [the spy row] say about the current status of relations between Moscow and Washington?... Bush adopted a relatively tough policy.... Russia annoyed the United States even more with its recent announcement about arms deals with Iran. As a foreign policy leader, Bush is inexperienced. He seems to prefer those advisors who give straightforward and tough advice. Putin is a former intelligence officer. In his view, Moscow's prestige requires independent and uncompromising policies without too many concessions to the world's only superpower. The Hanssen case and its follow-up...are now enough to launch a new Cold War."

"Russia is No Longer Bush's Number One Partner"

Independent Aamulehti's editorial read (3/24): "The recent expulsions of diplomats strengthen the notion that Bush does not consider Russia as important a factor as Clinton did.... Bush is not hastening to set up a bilateral meeting with Putin.... Western Europe and Asian countries...are given priority. But is this wise? Despite its current status of economic weakness, Russia is a military great power."

HUNGARY: "Spies And Ghosts"

Moscow correspondent Zoltan Szalai editorialized in top-circulation Nepszabadsag (3/24): "The Cold War is dead but the ghost of it lingers. Bush the Younger has made it clear that the Clintonean 'kidglove' policy is over. In the Republicans' view, Russia is a groggy giant.... The whip has replaced the carrot. The new resident of the White House, faithfully to the Reagan time traditions, wishes to run the dialogue from a position of power.... But it should not be feared that the Cold War is being revived, partly because an economically exhausted Russia could hardly afford a second arms race."

KAZAKHSTAN: "Light Spring Frost Or An Eye For An Eye"

Independent weekly Novoye Pokoleniye commented (3/30): "Of late, the political thermometer shows a stable temperature close to zero.... Everybody understands that the essence of the described conflict is deeper. The persecution complex of the U.S. administration is nothing but a irritation toward Russia that is conducting its independent international game [and] not listening to the opinion of the planet's hegemonist. The Russian position towards Iran, events in the Balkans...has forced the Americans to act.... Chechnya, which played the role of a small [irritant]...during Clinton's presidency, has actually become a trump card of Bush's administration, and has the potential to become the reason for heightening 'the cold war.' It wouldn't be true to say that nobody wishes for something [like a cold war]. The United States...needs an opponent. For that reason, [trying] to justify its tough positions on national security will raise doubts."

LITHUANIA: "Smells Of Cold War On Both Sides Of Atlantic"

Columnist Ceslovas Iskauskas judged in top-circulation, independent, national Lietuvos Rytas (2/26): "The revival of the Cold War is not just a relic of the deep past. The tension between the United States and Russia is increasing remarkably.... The spiral of the new propaganda war between the two great states may carry us back to those times when the hands of generals on both sides of the Atlantic were reaching towards nuclear missile buttons, and when an airtight iron curtain fell between the East and the West. "

NORWAY: "The Cowboy Kicks, The Cossack Kicks Back"

In newspaper-of-record Aftenposten (3/24), Kjell Dragnes held: "That there would be a countermove...the expelling of 50 Americans from Russia, was expected.... This weekend the Putin is a special invited guest to the EU summit in Stockholm. It might be that Putin uses this occasion to change the Russian policy more in a European direction.... It is not unknown that there are economic and security tensions between the United States and Europe. Missile defense is one example. The U.S.' kick to Russia's shin might be used to support these tensions. The world is not like it was in the cowboy books."

POLAND: "Washington Showing Its Muscles"

Krystyna Szelestowska wrote in leftist Trybuna (3/26): "Even though U.S. foreign policy should not lead to a permanent return of the Cold War, it is evident that the best times for détente is over. The Republicans will undoubtedly demonstrate their muscle in international relations--first of all, toward Russia, but also toward some other countries.... On the other hand, it is not likely that the U.S. allies...will agree on the return to the Cold War. This era is gone. The current occupant of the White House and his aides will certainly understand it with time."

ROMANIA: "A Defiant Visit"

Mihai Harashian penned this editorial in English-language Nine O'Clock (3/15): "The visit of Iran's president [to Russia]...could be seen as a defiance of the United States...that could be the natural consequence of a...decision by Moscow and Beijing to draft a strategic partnership...[as] an attempt to build a multiple-polar world opposed to the United States.... Russia and Iran are thus in (the) process of identifying the zones where each state's interests coincide. In this respect, Russia is far ahead of other Western states."

SPAIN: "Remains Of The Cold War"

Centrist La Vanguardia declared (3/26): "The incident, like a reminder of the Cold War, translates into a growing deterioration of the relationship between Russia and the United States. Russia...still needs Western help to navigate itself through the historic impasse it faces. But, with Putin as president, Russia also aspires to be a nuclear superpower and wants the recognition on the international scene that it had in days of the Soviet Union.... Moscow seems uneasy as a secondary power in a world with only one superpower. The application of the 'eye for an eye' principle in the case of the spies demonstrates this. This uneasiness is a concern for Europe, which has Russia at its back."

"Spies And Malaise"

Left-of-center El Pais opined (3/23): "The response has taken a month, but it has a tone that recalls the Cold War. The measures taken by Washington...further demonstrate the growing deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations.... The poor relations between the two countries causes concern for Europeans, for whom Russia is a strategic partner in the fields of commerce, energy and the environment, and for the construction of a new Europe, as the enlargement of the EU and NATO increases common borders with Russia."

"Russia And United States Fall Out Of Tune"

Independent El Mundo wrote (3/23): "With the uneasiness created by the decision of the United States to begin work on the anti-missile shield, small disagreements have taken on greater importance.... The confirmation yesterday that a State Department official will meet with a representative of the Chechen rebels has further heightened emotions within the Kremlin. They will never reach a level of understanding if Putin continues to think he can control U.S. foreign policy and Bush continues to act without taking into account Russian sensibilities."

TURKEY: "Tooth For A Tooth, Eye For An Eye"

Izzet Sedes commented in mass appeal/sensational Aksam (3/27): "Both Putin and Bush are trying their best to calm the situation regarding the recent spy scandal. However...reportedly, Russians still did not understand the U.S.' real intentions on this issue. According to Moscow sources, the Russian administration is disappointed over the Bush administration's cold-war like approaches.... There are certain issues, besides this spy scandal, which makes it difficult for the United States to find consensus with Russia. The war in Chechnya for instance; or the arms deal with Iran as well as re-establishing ties with North Korea."

East Asia

JAPAN: "U.S.-Russian Relations To Cool Off"

Liberal Asahi's Washington correspondent Nishimura observed (3/23): "Aside from the spy row, the Republican White House has been reiterating a tough stance toward Russia, while calling for a massive cut in U.S. assistance in Russia's nuclear safekeeping. The Bush government stands in sharp contrast to the former Clinton administration, which was eager to cooperate with Russia."

"Russia Reacts Strongly To U.S."

Business-oriented Nihon Keizai's Moscow correspondent Ikeda opined (3/23): "There are concerns that the spy row will rekindle the mutual distrust and suspicion which gripped both nations during the Cold War. It is certain that the Bush administration's expulsion order will adversely affect future U.S.-Russian negotiations on arms control and nonproliferation."

INDONESIA: "Iran, Russia And U.S. Anxiety Over Russia's Expanding Power"

Leading, independent Kompas remarked (3/14): "If the United States truly wishes to allay suspicion, it should maintain a balanced stance on the Middle East. Suspicion, which always colors U.S. policy, should be replaced by transparency in a new relationship with Iran.... In the current international context...cooperation on arms sales between Russia and Iran can be viewed as only natural and rational."

SOUTH KOREA: "Worrisome Diplomatic Feud Between U.S. And Russia"

Independent Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (3/24): "Strong concerns are being raised that the United States might be returning to the Cold War era. The recent expulsion...of Russian diplomats seems to transcend a simple espionage incident. It appears that the United States is trying to take the initiative in relations with Russia, which have already become strained by U.S. missile defense. With the Cold War...barely ended, we do not want the two nations' struggle for hegemony to bring tensions back to the Korean Peninsula."

VIETNAM: "The Double Standard"

Newspaper-of-record Tuoi Tre, mouthpiece of the Ho Chi Minh City's Communist Youth League, wrote (3/29): "The U.S. Department of State has just taken two opposite actions toward Russia: on the one hand, it had an official meeting with a representative of the Chechen terrorists.... On the other, it condemned the recent bombings in Russia and recognized Russia's sovereignty in the matter. One can see that Washington wants to play a game by first dealing Russia a blow and then trying to appease it with a sop. However, these actions have finally caused an adverse reaction: The duality of U.S. diplomacy has been clearly exposed. Apparently, these 'unfriendly acts' by the United States only cause more difficulties in bilateral relations, which seem to be falling back to Cold War levels after the expulsions of diplomats."

South Asia

BANGLADESH: "Worsening Relations Between U.S. And Russia"

Anti-West, Bangla-language Inqilab commented (3/25): "Although mutual spying has been revealed, there are two reasons behind the conflict. First, Russia recently strengthened its military and other relations with Iran. Second, the United States announced...talks with...Chechen leaders.... There is no reason to believe that these two will ever be able to develop a genuine friendship between them, because they are inherently imperialist and hegemonistic.... We are seriously concerned that the whole world may face disaster due to the rivalry between Russia and the United States. We hope that the two nations will limit their conflict to the diplomatic arena and will not proceed to the path of destruction."

INDIA: "Cold War Politics"

Hyderabad-based, right-of-center Newstime judged (3/26): "Even by the standards of the past Cold War skirmishes between the superpowers, the arrest and expulsion of as many as 50 Russian diplomats...appears to be on the inordinately high side.... Basically, though, the issue is political.... Putin's show of righteous anger was in keeping with his belief right from the beginning of his tenure that he had to assert Russia's role as a rival superpower.... That is why he has introduced a new abrasive element in relations with America, and is determined to branch out on a non-cooperative foreign policy of his own. George Bush, a dyed-in-the wool cold warrior...is hardly likely to be outdone in such matters. A battle of bitter gamesmanship has ensued, but the international community can only hope that things do not get out of hand. The world can hardly afford another bout of cold war."

PAKISTAN: "U.S., Russia Diplomatic Row"

An editorial in Karachi-based, right-wing, pro-Islamic unity, Urdu-language Jasarat held (3/24): "This does not mean that the tussle for international supremacy between the [U.S. and Russia] has started. The main issue is that the U.S. leadership feels that Russia was not playing the role it was supposed to play under the New World Order."

Western Hemisphere

ARGENTINA: "Less Conciliatory Strategy"

Maria O'Donnell, daily-of-record La Nacion's Washington-based correspondent, held (3/23): "Of all the options Bush had in his hands, he chose retaliation, with the highest cost in terms of the relationship with Russia.... Bush's decision adds to others which show that the Republican government is determined to follow a less conciliatory strategy from Clinton's.... Bush's policy can also be interpreted...as a sign of a loss in the relative importance that a good relationship with Russia has in the agenda of U.S. foreign politics. U.S.-Russia relations were undermined at the end of Clinton's administration as a consequence of...Chechnya [and] NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.... Now, the difference is that Bush acts as if the search of a constructive dialogue with Russia was no longer something indispensable."

BRAZIL: "The Return Of The Spies"

Independent Jornal do Brasil carried this editorial (3/24): "The Republican president, after his predecessor Clinton's long period of courtship with Yeltsin, has demonstrated little praise for Russia's friendship in his first foreign policy moves.... [Bush] has made appointments with European and Asian leaders, without considering any rapprochement with the Russian colleague. Times have changed and the United States doesn't feel like supporting Russian political action in Chechnya, nor do Russians accept being judged by Americans.... The reality is that the Cold War is dead but has not finished dying."

##

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.