Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONS: 'CLIMATE CHANGE' UNDERWAY?

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "You Can't Be Sure About Americans"

Vadim Markushin front paged this comment about Ms. Albright's visit in centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (1/28): "What progress has been made is certainly not commensurate with the status and political weight of the two countries. It is not even progress but merely the expression of a desire to get over a negative tendency in American-Russian relations. That being just words, you can't tell if the Americans are sincere about wanting to have normal, stable and equal relations with Moscow."

"Russia, U.S. To Go Separate Ways"

Aleksei Pushkov judged in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/28): "Secretary Albright's visit made it utterly clear that Russia and the United States will go their separate ways in the 21st century. Hopefully, they can do so without hostility. Their interests diverge more than they coincide. There are increasingly fewer points of contact between Russia and America.... Ironically, the Clinton administration, criticized by the Russians for using pressure tactics and being hegemonistic, is perhaps the best Moscow can hope for in Washington now.... The secretary of state is right when she says that another cold war is practically impossible. But in terms of Russia and the United States distancing themselves from each other, we are at the most critical point in ten years."

"Cold War Possible"

Aleksei Bausin of reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (# 4, 1/28) quoted Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director of the United States and Canada Institute in Moscow: "Differences between Moscow and Washington may escalate into a new Cold War--too much disappointment and irritation has accumulated on both sides. Unless urgent measures are taken, a cold war may become reality."

"American Promises To Be Of Use To Russia"

Boris Volkhonsky and Gennady Sysoyev opined in reformist business Kommersant Daily (1/27): "'A hell of a timely visit'--this was how Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov described Madeleine Albright's arrival in Moscow. It means that the secretary of state has after all found a common language with her old friend Yevgeny Primakov. President Clinton during his visit to Russia last September spelled out to the Kremlin the conditions of U.S. support: continued market reform and Duma support of such reform. At that time it seemed an impossible task. But as Kommersant's sources believe Primakov has managed to combine incompatibles. And he has been telling Albright about it. She listened to him with understanding.... As for tough noises, which both sides did not fail to make when they spoke to the media, they were intended mainly 'for internal consumption.'"

"Ivanov Asks Albright Not To Spring Surprises"

Dmitry Gornostayev observed in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/27): "The negotiations with Madeleine Albright occurred at one of the most difficult junctures in Russian-American relations. During the past month the United States has made far too many direct attacks on Russia. The introduction of sanctions against three Russian institutes; a patently unacceptable initiative to change the ABM treaty; virtual dismissal of our positions on the problems of Kosovo and Iraq. It was in light of this nervous situation that the parties had to determine where they stood.

"At the final press conference yesterday the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that divergence of views need not be an obstacle to the development of relations, but stressed that it is 'important not to spring surprises on each other.' It doesn't take much guessing to understand that Ivanov was referring to the sudden U.S. initiative on amending the ABM treaty."

"Visit A Foretaste Of Future U.S. Relations"

Yevgeny Antonov judged in reformist Vremya-MN (1/27): "Madeleine Albright's Moscow visit...did not produce any sensations.... Many experts said that a compromise on the most acute questions was impossible. They were proven right.... The visit has given a foretaste of how Americans will pursue their relations with Russia henceforth: They will listen, nod and do everything in their own way."

"Albright's Impossible Mission?"

Vladimir Vesensky stressed in reformist writers' weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (1/27): "The foreign press has already dubbed her mission as 'impossible.' What are the chances of preventing a slide into confrontation?... Our mutual interests on all these 'conflict' items ought to coincide: Like the Americans, we have a vital stake in preventing the proliferation of...weapons of mass destruction. After all, Iraq and Iran are our neighbors. As for Yugoslavia, we are ready to cooperate in settling the Kosovo conflict. After all, we have worked together in Bosnia.... Wisdom should prevail over the temptation of the economically stronger partner to take advantage of the situation for its selfish ends. This is the time to exhibit vision and strategic common sense, and to prove that there are things stronger than sheer brashness."

"Hard Times"

Vladimir Abarinov maintained on page one of reformist Izvestiya (1/26): "Russian-American relations are having far from the best of times, antagonistic almost on every issue under the sun. Anti-Americanism has been an accepted form of conduct in Moscow's political circles lately. Neither side is willing to cooperate."

"Rhetoric Of 20 Years Ago"

Reformist Kommersant Daily (1/26) had this by Yuri Chubchenko and Boris Volkhonsky: "The days when U.S. visitors found a 'common tongue' with their Russian hosts are over. The Americans' worst expectations have been justified with a vengeance. In Moscow, the secretary of state was greeted with an avalanche of rebukes, some of the rhetoric dating back to 20 years ago. But the American 'iron lady' was ready for that. Since August 17 the Americans, now unsure about Russian reforms being irreversible, have been losing interest in this country. It seems as if their new policy is to neutralize Russia.... For Albright not meeting with Yeltsin might be a fiasco, and for Russo-American relations the beginning of cold peace, if not a cold war."

"Grim Reality"

Yevgeny Bai filed from Washington for reformist Vremya-MN (1/26): "The times when the Americans, for reasons of their own, played along, helping Russia keep up a status (as in the G-8 group) it did not deserve, are over. It's hardball time now. Let's face it--we are weak. Partnership has not worked. Russia should give up its great-power rhetoric and adapt to reality."

"Thank God The U.S. Still Talks To Us"

Aleksandr Chudodeyev said in reformist Segodnya (1/26): "Thank God [the United States] still talks to us respectfully. With its budget as big as that of a not very large American state, Russia cannot expect to be treated as a partner or an equal."

"Skills Vs. Might"

Dmitry Gornostayev argued on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/26): "How this dialogue will end, in large measure, depends on whether our diplomats' skills match the Americans' might.... Since Albright first came to Moscow (as secretary of state), it is the first time that Yeltsin is not at the negotiating table. But the Americans might think it just as well after they saw many of their clever plans fall through because of the Russian president's unpredictable escapades."

"U.S. Out To Impose Its Will On Russia"

Vadim Markushin said in centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (1/26): "All problems (in Russo-American relations) stem from America trying to dictate to Russia where to go."

"Landmark Visit"

Fyodor Lukyanov said on page one of reformist Vremya-MN (1/25): "The Russian-American talks in Moscow today are probably the hardest since Russia's resurgence. The Albright visit may become a turning point not only in our bilateral relations but in our ties with the West in general. Should the negotiations end in merely confirming the status quo, it would formally be the end of a mostly pro-Western era in Russian foreign policy. After that, Moscow would look in the opposite direction, trying to spot old allies and win new ones in the East."

"Moscow At A Disadvantage"

Reformist Noviye Izvestiya cautioned (1/23): "The Russian negotiators, clearly at a disadvantage, will have to do their best at least not to make our relations with the United States worse than they are now."

"Only Cold War Was Worse"

Afanasiy Sborov stated in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (1/23): "Russian-American relations have never been worse, except during the Cold War. Today Washington doesn't bother to keep up even the pretense of partnership."

"Gains Outweigh Losses"

Melor Sturua filed this for reformist Izvestiya (1/23): "U.S. pressure on Moscow is to a certain degree due to the pressure the Republican Congress and the Pentagon have brought to bear on Clinton. Weakened by Monicagate and the threat of impeachment, he has had to make concessions. Reviewing ABM is one of them. Of course, the Americans know that the deployment of an ABM system, let alone their total withdrawal from the ABM treaty, would upset Moscow. START II ratification would then be out of the question.... But the only surviving superpower's desire to enhance its military might and predominance obviously outweigh the 'overhead costs.'"

"START II Ratification Is Folly"

Vladimir Krylov claimed in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (1/23): "For Russia START II ratification and implementation would be a folly. The world today is different from what it was in the early 1990s. There is a real threat now. The fact that we are being urged to ratify START II as a condition for new IMF credits means that the West sets great store by this treaty. It benefits the United States and NATO far more than it does Russia. The U.S. Senate has ratified this treaty, but this does not mean that the Duma has to do the same. Russia needs...other ways to ensure 'equal security.'"

"U.S. Proposals Ruinous"

Aleksandr Koretsky had this to say in reformist Segodnya (1/22): "If implemented, U.S. proposals on ABM would, as soon as three to five years from now, make Russia's nuclear forces lose in efficiency until finally they cease to be a deterrent. Moscow's only answer to that would be to develop an ABM system of its own."

"ABM Treaty Doomed?"

Sergei Guly mused in reformist Noviye Izvestiya (1/22): "In practical terms, America's withdrawal from the ABM treaty would pose no immediate threat to Russia. Moscow's real concern lies elsewhere. America, as shown by its latest actions with regard to Iraq, Kosovo and the ABM treaty, seems to have abandoned time-honored global stability mechanisms. It is building a new world order, with no prominent spot reserved for Russia."

"Dangerous Game"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta front-paged a comment by Dmitry Gornostayev and Vadim Solovyov (1/22): "Giving the green light to new ABM systems in the United States would make START II ratification in the Russian Duma practically impossible. A chain reaction that might ensue would lead to serious complications in Russian-American relations. Most likely, this is just a game to bring pressure to bear on Moscow, to make the Duma ratify START II soon. If so, the effect, no doubt, will be the opposite. A new problem will arise between the two countries, far worse than their differences on Iraq or Kosovo or delays with START II ratification."

"Blackmail"

Andrei Vaganov judged in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/15): "It may well be that Russia already has no chance in 'the Iranian case,' and America, by using all sorts of sanctions, will make it knuckle under, which is small wonder, with Russia's budget one-half of New York City's. The Americans have made it quite clear how they view Russia's attempts to pursue an independent policy. They would have done that anyhow, Iran or no Iran. That's punishment for our geopolitical idealism."

"It Doesn't Hold Water"

Reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (1/15) carried this by Aleksandr Buzin and Andrei Kabannikov: "America's charges (against Russia's research institutions) are as untenable as its reasoning behind anti-Iraq sanctions."

"Air Strikes Major Test Of U.S.-Russian Relations"

Reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta judged (1/14): "Air strikes against Iraq, as well as NATO's actions in the former Yugoslavia, are examples of a unipolar world concept in action. The Washington-London operation was the most serious test of U.S.-Russian relations in years."

"U.S. Acts On Suspicion"

Reformist Izvestiya (1/14) front-paged a comment by Gennady Charodeyev on Washington's decision to apply sanctions to Russia's institutions over "high technology transfers" to Iran: "The United States thinks it can pass sentence, be it a missile strike against a pharmacy in Khartoum or sanctions against research centers in Russia, on the basis of suspicions alone. It looks as if the presumption of innocence is out of favor in Washington, as proven by other cases in the U.S. file named 'the arrogance of power.'"

"It's All In The Economy"

Dmitry Zharnikov concluded in reformist Noviye Izvestiya (1/14): "The punishment issue with regard to Russia working in the promising Asian market by building an atomic power station in Iran is linked largely to America's economic interests in that region. Moscow views [America's reaction] as a major obstacle to mutual understanding between the two nuclear powers."

"U.S. Interests May Suffer Too"

Andrei Vaganov had this to say on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/14): "The U.S. decision [sanctioning certain Russian institutions] impairs Russo-American relations."

FRANCE: "Washington Against Nuclear Proliferation"

Laure Mandeville stressed in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/22): "U.S. and Russian interests are in contradiction in several regions. From Iraq to Kosovo and the Caspian Sea, where the United States has made an alliance with Turkey while Russia has made an alliance with Armenia and Iran.... Nevertheless, during his State of the Union message, President Clinton announced massive financial assistance for Moscow, for 'nuclear security.' After black-listing three Russian plants accused of violating the non-proliferation agreements, this is what is known as 'the stick and the carrot' policy."

GERMANY: "Climate Change Between Washington And Moscow"

Christoph von Marschall opined in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (1/27): "It is obvious that the climate between the former superpowers is changing.... We can no longer speak of a balance of power, and this creates new problems. The Americans and the Russians are looking at the international scene through different lenses. The United States is primarily guided by a sober analysis of possible dangers, while Russia is guided by a painfully maintained claim of global power and by wounded pride--in addition to economic interests. The fact that Moscow is pumping billions into the development of the new 'Topol-M' missiles, while millions of citizens have great difficulty making a living seems politically irresponsible.... The United States is giving up its policy of demonstratively showing consideration for the Kremlin.... However, with this new style in policy, Washington is running the risk of jeopardizing its own interests.... Excessive power is tempting the United States to make unilateral moves. Thus it depends on the corrective influence of countries such as Germany...to determine whether the new [U.S.] policy will cause Russia to show cooperation or to set out on a confrontational course."

"Assistance In Return For The Renunciation Of Power"

Wolf Bell expressed this view in centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (1/27): "When Moscow and Washington speak of joint interests, this at best means Russia's political and economic stability. The United States is willing to make its contribution to creating such stability. But it demands a price from Russia. And Russia will have to pay this price in a field where joint interests do not exist and where there are many bones of contention.... Moscow is too weak to set conditions since this would result in the loss of vital financial assistance. But economic assistance in return for the renunciation of power--this is a lot for Russia to swallow. The EU's new Russian strategy, under the German presidency, will have to fulfill an important balancing act in this respect."

"Moscow's Sensitivities"

Centrist Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung opined (1/27): "There was really no love lost between Secretary of State Albright and her Russian counterpart Ivanov. Moscow considers its global position to be hampered greatly by U.S. military missions in Iraq and by arbitrary U.S. activities in Kosovo. The weaker the biggest CIS republic feels, the more sensitively it reacts to Washington's unilateral moves. But we can by no means speak of a serious crisis or even of a break in mutual relations. Ivanov made this clear.... Moscow did not escalate the controversies between the two countries since that would be of no benefit for Russia."

"Balm For Moscow"

Right-of-center Augsburger Allgemeine (1/27) carried an editorial by Uwe Wilke: "In view of the disastrous domestic situation, the visit of Secretary Albright must be considered a blessing by the government in Moscow. This visit offers the opportunity for the Kremlin to pretend that Russia is still playing the role of a superpower on the international stage. It is flattering for the self-worth of Moscow's politicians that Albright has come to Moscow mainly to get Russia's support for the establishment of a new U.S. missile defense system directed primarily against medium-sized powers such as Iraq and Iran. But it is also understandable that the Russian government also wants to take this opportunity to point to irritations and tensions in Russian-American relations, which are mainly based on a certain arrogance the United States has shown towards Russia. Washington could have spared itself and its NATO partners a lot of difficulties if it had sought an open discussion with Moscow."

"End To The 'Bill-And-Boris-Story'"

Roland Heine said in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (1/26): "Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is warning against pessimism in U.S.-Russian relations.... But this does not sound very convincing. Immediately before her visit, Washington not only imposed sanctions on Russian institutions, but also signaled an end to one of the most important arms control agreements between the two countries, the ABM Treaty. It can no longer be ignored: the 'Bill-and-Boris-era' is over. Russia is no longer a priority for U.S. foreign policy. As far as the economy is concerned, Washington has written off its former rival at least since the economic collapse last summer. As for politics, Russia has practically been paralyzed for months and its international scope of action is very restricted. As for military, it is the opinion of security experts that the country is not even able to occupy a neighboring state the size of Finland or Sweden."

"Enormous Tensions In U.S.-Russian Relations"

Right-of-center Ostsee-Zeitung of Rostock said (1/26): "There are currently enormous tensions in Russian-American relations. There is dissent on many international questions. As supporters of the Serbs, the Russians must watch how NATO with the United States at its helm is preparing for a military strike in the Kosovo conflict.

"And it is not only the Russians who have criticized the U.S. air strikes against Iraq.... The large Russian empire feels insulted. The balance of power has shifted. Russia needs assistance and is dependent on support from abroad. Economic crises and political instability are creating problems for the country. Yesterday, Madeleine Albright arrived for talks in Moscow. With these meetings, the United States is signaling its 'good will,' and this is absolutely necessary. Russia is still a major nuclear power. The Americans, aware of this fact, should therefore try to reach consensus instead of pursuing confrontation."

"Russia's Current Weakness"

Thomas Avenarius penned this editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (1/26): "The Russians feel cornered by the Americans in all fields of global politics. And this at a time when Russia is becoming insolvent and remains dependent on assistance from an IMF dominated by the United States.... The United States is also developing a high-tech shield against nuclear and bio-weapons from North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states.... The Moscow government has no money for a comparable system.... Thus Moscow has a clearly painted ugly picture (of the United States)--namely that the United States is taking advantage of Russia's current weakness to 'neutralize' Moscow as a major power. This may be, but the issue is that, while the Soviet Union was a superpower, its successor state does not even cut it as a 'major power.' The state coffers are empty, the armed forces are falling apart, and the president needs medical treatment. Without its intercontinental missiles, the country could soon have status of an 'Upper Volta with a right to a UNSC veto.'"

"Frosty Atmosphere"

Washington correspondent Yvonne Esterhazy stressed in business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (1/25): "Madeleine Albright is beginning her two-day visit to Moscow against the backdrop of very difficult bilateral relations. Several disagreements have made the U.S.-Russian relationship as frosty as it has been since the end of the Cold War. The most important catch-phrases are Kosovo and Iraq.... Another new conflict will to a considerable degree also overshadow Albright's visit: Moscow is annoyed at U.S. plans to set up a national missile defense system.... This means that Mrs. Albright can give up hopes for a new round of bilateral disarmament talks until further notice.... In addition, there is Boris Yeltsin's embattled health. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington has fully supported Yeltsin, but Prime Minister Primakov...has gained power and is trying to improve Russian links with Western Europe and Asia in order to strengthen Moscow's global influence.... In the end, both sides must be interested in improving mutual relations. The Russians are dependent on Western assistance and on U.S. support. The United States in turn is not interested in a further political and economic destabilization of the Russian nuclear power. It is obvious, that we are not discussing an equal partnership. But, if the Americans continue to create the impression of being a hegemonic power, this will have negative consequences."

"There Is No 'From Russia With Love'"

Josef Joffe opined in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (1/15): "On Tuesday, the United States imposed sanctions on a university and two institutes in Moscow for allegedly having helped Iran improve its know-how on nuclear bombs and missiles. And yesterday, Washington warned that it might stop space cooperation if Moscow continues to sell missile technology to Iran.... Moscow has not denied the facts but has protested against the linkage, since these 'two issues are two different things.'... The tough U.S. stance is new. This has to do with...Moscow committing itself, despite all U.S. protests, to building a (nuclear power) reactor in Bushehr.... U.S. suspicion [about Bushehr] is obviously great enough to warrant sending Moscow a strong warning. Russia earlier had annoyed the United States with its pro-Iraqi policy in the UNSC and its pro-Serbian policy in the Balkans.

"This must be all the more irritating for the United States since it opened NATO's doors to Russia and pumped a lot of money into the embattled Russian economy. Moscow must really consider the value of its profits from dangerous arms deals."

ITALY: "Albright's Visit Ends In Ice"

Fabrizio Dragosei filed this from Moscow for centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (1/27): "Secretary of State Albright's attempt was only half successful. Her idea was to re-establish relations between Washington and Moscow, which have not been so cold since the beginning of the '80s. Two days of talks, a telephone conversation with Yeltsin...and then a press conference with her Foreign Affairs colleague.... Differences remain and misunderstandings increase. Therefore, while Secretary Albright was still in Russia, the Foreign Ministry issued a tough and blunt statement condemning the recent bombing in Basra.... Relations between the two former adversaries, who then became 'partners', has been under serious strain for some time. Russia, in its desperate search for credibility and international status, often makes wrong moves.... For its part, Washington devotes scarce attention to the former superpower's needs.... Russia is only seen as a source of concern because of its various weapons, which might get into the wrong hands. And also economic aid is very timid."

"A Bad Scene-Setter For Albright"

Franco Pantarelli observed from New York in centrist, influential La Stampa (1/22): "One cannot say that the 'take it or leave it' tone adopted by U.S. Defense Secretary Cohen has created an ideal atmosphere for the meetings Secretary Albright is going to have in Moscow. Apart from problems of legality, in fact, it is clear that America's possible decision to withdraw from the 1972 treaty would have serious repercussions on the diplomatic and political level. In essence, the United States would present itself as a nation that does not fully believe in the treaties it signs and this, in turn, may give Russian opposition--which has blocked the ratification of START II--an excuse to sink it definitively."

"Moscow's Interpretation Of Pentagon's ABM Decision"

Arturo Zampaglione wrote from New York in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (1/22): "Moscow interpreted the Pentagon's decision as another indication of the growing 'unilateralism' in U.S. foreign policy, the most evident example being the operation 'Desert Fox' against Iraq last December. Therefore, Secretary Albright's mission to Moscow...will not be an easy one."

BELGIUM: "Cool Welcome"

VRT TV correspondent Johan Depoortere emphasized in independent Catholic De Standaard (1/26): "The climate in Moscow is less friendly to the high-level American envoy than it was a few months ago.... The damper on relations between Washington and Moscow is not a transient phenomenon but, in the view of certain analysts, the beginning of a new era in international relations. Russia is taking a more assertive attitude and terminating the U.S.-led coalition that was born after the Cold War. That may have far-reaching consequences for the conflicts in Iraq and Yugoslavia. If there is no international consensus, it will become gradually more difficult for the United States to send troops and missiles--especially when the two major conflicts, in the Balkans and the Middle East, claim attention simultaneously."

"Yeltsin Era Over In U.S. View"

Diplomatic correspondent Pierre Lefevre noted in independent Le Soir (1/26): "The Russian-American dispute has gained momentum in the last few weeks. Disagreement seems to have become the norm....

"The Duma being what it is, and with President Yeltsin gradually disappearing from the scene, and the Russian government having no room for maneuver, Washington appears no longer to expect much from cooperation with a Russia which it does not even try to treat tactfully.... The program of Mrs. Albright's visit indicates that the Yeltsin era is over in the eyes of Washington.... Mrs. Albright is scheduled to meet all potential successors of Boris Yeltsin: Prime Minister Primakov, General Lebed, governor of Krasnoyarsk, Grigory Yavlinsky, leader of the liberal opposition party and Moscow's mayor Yuri Luzhkov. This clearly indicates that she is not expecting immediate results from her visit."

"Relations Severely Tested"

Moscow correspondent Boris Toumanov observed in conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique (1/25): "These last weeks, witnessing several initiatives from Washington, Moscow believes that the latter is unilaterally undoing the Russian-American partnership. Washington ignored Moscow's objections and bombed Iraq. Washington sanctioned Russia's scientific companies which were suspected of illegal cooperation with Iran. And now, Washington announces its intention to force Russia to accept a revision of ABM Treaty, which was considered a key element of the strategic balance between both countries.... Many Russian specialists see a direct link between these initiatives and Washington's 'neo-internationalist' doctrine, which, according to Moscow, aims at destroying the essential criteria of the 'Yalta peace' and reducing the UN to the level of a purely consultative body, replaced by a more limited 'club' of democratic countries, under U.S. leadership, [thus creating] a 'pax americana.'... Washington's current attitude plays to the advantage of those Russian forces whose political agenda has always been hostility toward the United States and toward the West in general."

BULGARIA: "Russia: An Unpredictable Factor For U.S. In Future"

Center-left Kontinent commented (1/29): "Allbright's visit didn't overcome the disagreements and didn't bring Moscow and Washington's positions any closer. Her visit came at a moment when U.S. and Russian politicians have no illusions whatsoever and clearly understand that relations between the two countries have entered one of their most difficult periods in the post WWII era. This is why Madeleine Allbright not only had to convince the Russian government that Washington's relations with Moscow remain a priority, but also had to look for possible solutions to the mounting problems. So far, most political observers predict that, despite the large amount of future uncertainty in Russian-U.S. relations, Moscow and Washington will not go back to a new cold war because they fear nuclear confrontation. However, it is obvious that the dialogue between them will not be in the spirit of the previous warm-hearted conversations between Bill and Boris."

"Albright, Primakov And Ailing Russian-American Relations"

Ruling Party Demokratzia commented (1/25): "The diagnosis is clear, but it is very unlikely that a consensus about the treatment [to improve U.S.-Russian relations] will be reached.... The situation is complicated by the fact that Boris Yeltsin is seriously ill, obviously not only physically. Because despite the fact that he's better educated and more experienced in diplomatic dealings, Primakov possesses neither Yeltsin's intuition, nor his spontaneity and ingenuity, which in the past were able to defrost even the frostiest relations."

"ABM Change Will Torpedo U.S.-Russian Relations"

Opposition Socialist Party Duma remarked (1/23): "As expected, Russia considers U.S. plans to build a national defense system a threat to its national security.... [Altering the] treaty will torpedo, above all, bilateral Russian-American relations. But it will also take the world back to the Cold War era."

"American Conduct Infuriates The Bear"

Opposition Socialist Party Duma observed (1/14): "Moscow called the American sanctions against the three Russian institutes that allegedly cooperated with Iran absolutely unacceptable, ungrounded and unfair. Minister of Defense Igor Sergeyev underlined that the American allegations were politically motivated. This seems to be the most precise explanation of the American step undertaken on the eve of the first Russian deputy prime minister's visit to Washington and several days before Madeleine Albright's visit to Moscow.... It seems that again America shows in an offhand manner the way that it intends to treat Russia. Apparently, it prefers to infuriate the bear rather than to develop bilateral ties. It may be true that Russia is no longer among the U.S. priorities."

CROATIA: "Iraq Is Upsetting U.S.-Russian 'Partnership'"

Government-controlled Vjesnik ran this commentary by Fran Visnar (1/27): "Iraq is increasingly becoming the stumbling block in the alleged U.S.-Russian partnership. Once it wakes up from the nightmare and disgraceful show of impeaching its president, America will realize (too late) that, while it keeps striking Iraq, Russia...is returning to the Soviet-style approach towards the rest of the world."

DENMARK: "Consider Russia Over The Long Term"

Center-right Berlingske Tidende said (1/26): "It was not long ago that President Clinton and President Yeltsin were talking enthusiastically about a strategic partnership. But their dreams have not become reality. On the contrary, relations between the two countries have gone steadily downhill. So much so that one of Madeleine Albright's main objectives will be just to keep a dialogue going. On the international scene, Russia represents problems rather than opportunities. This [view of Russia], however, is neither particularly wise nor very fair. The changes in Russia have happened very quickly, and we often forget the progress that has been made. In addition, it would be wrong to conclude that Russia will remain weak forever. Therefore, it is important that we continue to support the development of democracy, so that, in the long term, Russia can become a constructive force in the international arena."

HUNGARY: "Certain Russian Uncertainties"

Right-of-center Napi Magyarorszag carried this piece by foreign policy writer Laszlo Darozi (1/29): "Secretary Albright's talks in Moscow earlier in the week were to serve several purposes. It was time, for example, to overview chances to warm up cooled-down bilateral relations with her Russian colleague, Ivanov. In the Russian capital, forces that want to see Moscow as an equal partner once again have taken over, and in order to achieve this goal, they do not refrain--especially after the failure to prevent NATO's enlargement--from foreign political initiatives that worry Washington. The United States primarily reproaches Russia for its more and more intimate relations with Iran. It seems Albright has failed to achieve any results on this issue, just like it is still a question how successful she was in softening Ivanov and the Russian leadership so that they would accept the recently emerging ideas on ending the Kosovo crisis. In any event, today's six-country foreign ministerial meeting in London will decide whether Russia is willing to cooperate with the West. If yes, it certainly will have a price. Last but not least, Albright's mission also included taking a snapshot of Russian internal power dynamics to assess who might follow the invalid Yeltsin as president. The secretart conducted a very noteworthy meeting with Moscow mayor Luzhkov, who--if elections were held today--would have a good chance of winning."

POLAND: "Price For NATO"

Joanna Strzelczyk warned in right-of-center Zycie (1/25): "U.S. Secretary of State Albright is going to Moscow. She will talk with the Russians about the price America will have to pay so that Moscow can swallow the bitter pill of NATO enlargement to the East. Poland, however, may also have to pay part of the price.... Albright declares that she will not sign agreements over the heads of the countries entering NATO.... But also at stake is Central Europe. Because they are no longer in Russia's zone of influence and have not been made into a buffer between the East and the West, [new central European members] could become second-rank NATO members. And this is what Moscow intends to achieve."

"The Iraqi Lesson"

Slawomir Popowski held in centrist Rzeczpospolita (1/14): "The U.S.-British attack on Iraq was also a blow to Russia.... The emotional and nervous response by Russian politicians is understandable, given the fact that Iraq has been for years one of Russia's main partners in the Middle East.... The Iraqi crisis...offered an opportunity for Russia to use its UNSC permanent member status to prove to the world (and to Russia's opponents) that it continues to have a voice on the fate of the world. All of this has been brought into question [with the U.S.-British attack against Iraq]--not only did the Americans and British not seek Russia's opinion, but they did not even attempt to notify Moscow of the planned strike.... The core of the issue is...that...Russia simply can no longer afford to have a real superpower policy. What impedes Moscow [in its aspirations] is primarily its shattered economy, which could not survive a year without external credit assistance.... Moscow's assumption is wrong that it can simply weather the bad time and be able to regain its superpower status sooner or later, regardless of its economic condition. Moscow is not willing to accept that truth. Accordingly, the world may be faced with the threat of new tensions, and Russia--which urgently needs internal order and a sound economy--may waste more time [trying to regain its lost status]."

SLOVENIA: "Albright Visit Didn't Surmount Gap Between U.S., Russia"

Left-of-center Delo commented (1/28): "With his statement that Russia agrees with (the concept of) a market economy but that there will be no trading in foreign policy, the Russian foreign minister indicated that, despite kisses and sympathy, Madeleine Albright has not surmounted the gap between Washington and Moscow. Relations between the strongest and the largest countries have recently become very tense.... One has the impression that the Americans have gone too far in underestimating the economically broken Russia. The Americans, who are undoubtedly the masters of the world, will carry out their plans regardless of what Moscow thinks of them. For a long time, the Kremlin has been entirely in America's hands; without America's blessing (Russia) cannot get any new loans, or reprogram the past ones--financial transactions which are of pivotal importance for Russia's survival. But Washington will sooner or later have to realize that the freedom (of making decisions) is not endless."

MIDDLE EAST

KUWAIT: "Russian Bear Returning To The World Stage?"

Independent Al-Rai Al-Aam had this by Osama Safar (1/5): "Apparently, the Russian 'bear' is returning to the international arena once again. After years of submission due to economic hardship, the Russians have found the solution in deploying [the Topol-M] intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is a direct message to the United States that the 'bear' is still strong. And here lies the American mistake in not giving any weight to the Russian role in the region, especially with regard to Iraq.

"The United States should realize that it cannot topple the Iraqi regime without Russian and Chinese help, because the American-British alliance won't be sufficient for this purpose."

EAST ASIA

JAPAN: "U.S.-Russia Relations Are Cooling Off"

Business-oriented Nihon Keizai opined (1/29): "As expected, Albright's meetings with Russian officials revealed that U.S.-Russian relations are cooling off further. During their talks with her, the Russians found fault with Washington's get-tough stance toward Iraq. Foreign Minister Ivanov and other Russian officials opposed U.S. plans to revise the ABM treaty in order to develop a new anti-missile defense system. The U.S.-proposed anti-missile defense system is likely to become a long-term point of contention between the two countries. The United States and Russia are also at odds over Kosovo, Iran, nuclear disarmament and (Russia's) economic reform. But it would be hasty to conclude their relations will deteriorate to the Cold War level. After their recent meetings, both sides stressed the need to maintain cooperative relations. Russians know they cannot develop their country without American help, while Americans are aware that it will not be in the U.S. national interest to antagonize Russia."

CHINA: "Gap Still Remains On Major Issues"

Zhang Jinhai observed in official Communist Party People's Daily Overseas Edition (Renmin Ribao Haiwaiban, 1/28): "Secretary of State Albright's Russian visit failed to make any breakthrough in the bilateral relationship. The gap still remains between the two countries on some major issues."

"Cooperation And Discord Between Russia And U.S."

Wang Xianju wrote in intellectually oriented Guangming Daily (Guangming Ribao,1/28): "The elaborately designed visit to Russia gave full play to the image of the United States and its envoy. Emphasizing practical results as well as focusing on both immediate and long-term interests are features of this pragmatic U.S. diplomacy. Future prospects for the U.S.-Russian relationship largely hinge on the American policy. Crisis-ridden Russia seems unable to take the initiative before its economy is revitalized."

"Russia-U.S. Ties Under Strain Despite Talks"

Official English-language China Daily noted (1/28): "The Russia-U.S. disagreements are on serious matters which are not about to go away. The rhetoric at Monday's and Tuesday's talks was less warm than at many previous meetings. Despite the recent problems in Russian-U.S. relations, Clinton and Yeltsin both have an interest in trying to ensure that the relationship stays on track because a breakdown would badly stain both foreign policy records."

"Albright Tries To Mend U.S.-Russian Relations"

Yuan Bingzhong commented in official Chinese Youth Party China Youth Daily(Zhongguo Qingnianbao, 1/26): "U.S. Secretary of State Albright embarked on an arduous visit to Russia to mend U.S.-Russian relations and prepare for a number of high-ranking meetings this year. Analysts believe that it will be difficult to completely resolve the fundamental differences regarding diplomatic strategy and interests between the two nations."

SOUTH KOREA: "What Russia Has In Mind"

Moscow correspondent Hwang Sung-joon noted in conservative Chosun Ilbo (1/27): "Russia sees the U.S. endeavor to modify the ABM as a conspiracy to maintain U.S. hegemony.

"At the root of this view lies Russia's fear that it might be further stripped of its authority and power once the treaty breaks down.... In the face of needing IMF assistance, Russia is still nostalgic about the old days when it could confront the United States on equal footing."

"U.S. Making Gestures Towards Russia"

Washington correspondent Shin Jae-min of moderate Hankook Ilbo maintained (1/27): "Madeleine Albright is visiting Moscow at a time when U.S.-Russian relations are at their worst since the end of the Cold War. She is there to explain about the U.S. stance on ABM, but, for her, the more dire challenge is to find out how to resolve various issues currently standing between the United States and Russia. In addition, part of her mission is to test the water in Russia's various political circles."

"Russia's Cold Reception Of Secretary Albright"

Reporter Hwang Sang-suk of the conservative Segye Ilbo observed (1/27): "U.S.-Russian relations have turned icy after the United States intervened militarily in Iraq. Secretary Albright is now in Moscow, trying to mend them; so far, however, she has failed. Russia's anger persists despite her efforts to address various issues from Iraq to NATO.... Part of the secretary's mission appears to be to learn the truth about Yeltsin's health condition."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

BRAZIL: "Russia's Suggestion To Counter-Balance U.S. Influence"

Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo's Antonio Carlos Pereira commented (1/14): "U.S. unilateral action [in Iraq] has made Russians wake up from their long strategic lethargy.... With President Clinton having proven that he will unilaterally intervene wherever U.S. interests are threatened, Russian Prime Minister Primakov launched the idea of a strategic alliance between Russia, China and India.... It is clear that Primakov's immediate goal is to counterbalance U.S. influence."

CANADA: "Eastern Approaches"

The new conservative National Post editorialized (1/9): "Two year's ago, NATO expansion was opposed by Russia, which claimed that pushing the Atlantic Alliance eastward into her former satellites was a strategic threat. In fact, the reverse was true.... Nevertheless, Russian nationalists...seek to resurrect the Soviet Union.... It would be dangerous if the proposed union with Belarus were a first step in this direction.... The present contains many possible futures. One unlikely but not impossible one is another long Cold War between a politically expansive, economically prospering NATO and a coalescing, militarily inclined, unstable and nuclear-armed 'Greater Russia.' If this were to come about, it would sow tension and hostility not only in Europe and the Balkans, but--as Russia's policy in the recent Iraqi crisis has shown--in the Middle East as well. It is a future we should be seeking to avert now."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

1/29/99

# # #