Report: U.S.-Russia Relations Impaired

Russia's emergence as an increasingly authoritarian state could impair U.S.-Russian ability to cooperate on key international security issues, according to an analysis by a major foreign policy organization. Continuation of Russia's drift away from democratic norms under President Vladimir Putin ``will make it harder for the two sides to find common ground and harder to cooperate even when they do,'' said the report, issued by the Council on Foreign Relations.

It warned that some critical problems cannot be dealt with effectively unless Moscow and Washington cooperate.
``If Russia remains on an authoritarian course, U.S.-Russian relations will almost certainly continue to fall short of their potential,'' it said. The report was co-chaired by Jack Kemp, a former Republican presidential candidate; and John Edwards, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2004. Kemp formerly served in the House, Edwards in the Senate.

Release of the report on Sunday was timed to coincide with the Washington visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He arrives Monday and will meet the next day with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The report urged that the United States preserve and expand cooperation on dealing with the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program and on coping with the risk of Russian nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands. On the whole, though, the report said relations are headed in the wrong direction. ``In particular, Russia's relations with other post-Soviet states have become a source of significantly heightened U.S.-Russian friction,'' it said.

It urged that Washington counter Russian pressures that undermine the ``stability and independence'' of its neighbors by helping to secure the success of those states that ``want to make the leap into the European mainstream.'' The report was especially critical of the Kremlin's energy export policy, accusing it of turning ``a prized asset of economic relations into a potential tool of political intimidation.'' Ukraine, it said, ``has been the most shocking and coercive application of this view to date, but others may lie ahead.''

more
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5664031,00.html
this is why Edwards and Kemp are on MTP

Russia has been up to some worrisome stuff lately, but Bush's brand of "diplomacy" is bound to make it all come out a hundred times worse.

She's shoe shopping again as Rome burns?

No offense intended to cal04, but when an AP article begins with "Russia's emergence as an increasingly authoritarian state..." as the pretext for another American foreign policy hissy-fit, it defies credulity when coming from the same Bush regime that has ignored the Constitution and international law at every turn.

As per usual, Indy.

Agreed.

But wait, I thought Bush "looked into Putin's eyes" and saw a "good man".

be following Russia's alleged path.

.
.
.

:wtf:

Israel has around 200 nukes, the USA has thousands!

Even IF Iran managed to get one, two - or even a dozen nukes,

Ya think they are going to ATTACK someone?

Russia has around 1,000 nukes, - China even more than that I think.

If indeed Iran is trying to get nukes, it's to keep the warmongers like the USA off their back

And then there's what ya call the "delivery" system

Does Iran have the capability to launch and deliver something across the globe?

Iran is no more threat to America than Iraq was. Yes, they can defend themselves better than Iraq could - but are in no position to attack any global power, even their neighboring Russia and China, who are not overly concerned about Iran's nuclear program.

The USA is just posturing itself to invade yet another sovereign country that is NOT at war with anyone . . .

That's my Canuk Observations anyhoo . . .

I'm so glad that 'rational' states like Iran and North Korea pose no danger to anyone.

Of course I don't live in Israel, or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon, or any of the other neighboring states that regularly get threatened by Iran. I'm also glad to hear (though I maybe imagined that I heard) that Iran has no interest in faining religious strife and discord in the region. Thank goodness they haven't tried to invade any of their neighbors, other than Iraq. And except for gassing a Kurdish village, and sending hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and their own people to 'martyrdom' they might be considered the most peaceful of Middle Eastern countries. It's reassuring, indeed that Iran is so opposed to international terrorism that they have steadfastly refused to up their death payments to suicide bombers, and have refused Hamas and Islamic Jihads request for armored and non conventional weapons. Tradiional weapons and cash will just have to do (for now). And talk about freedom? I can only say we should all follow Cat Stevens example - and throw our lives away.

Actually, as long as Iran is controlled by religious fanatics, they scare the crap out of me.

.
.
.

I had most of his albums in the 70's, and learned to play many of his songs on my 12-string guitar, as well as piano including "Morning has Broken" "Father and Son" - just a couple of my favorites.

A little more on "Cat"(now Yusuf Islam)

On his official Web site, Islam has posted numerous statements in opposition to terrorist attacks, most recently the school seizure in Beslan, Russia that ended with more than 300 people dead -- about half of them children.

Islam also criticized the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States and donated a portion of the royalties from a four-disc set of his music to the families of the September 11th Fund.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/22/plane.diverted.stevens/

And if you want to checkout a little more on Cat (Yusaf Islam)

Check http://www.yusufislam.org.uk/

Doesn't look like his life is "thrown away" to me

And in response to your statement "Actually, as long as Iran is controlled by religious fanatics, they scare the crap out of me."

I'd be more worried about your own government if I was you . .

Ur Government is ALOT closer than Iran is . . .

The USA, I agree.

And they havn't won yet, though the election of 2004 was a real wake up call. Iran is a different story. People who think the way that Pat Robertson does have been running the country of Iran since 1980. If I have to choose between the USA and Iran, it's a pretty easy decision. At least here, progressives can put up a fight. In Iran, they just get shot.

It isn't about him converting that bothers me. It's giving up a comfortable life in a stable country for one of poverty in an unstable one. (though, if done for humanitarian reasons like Mother Teresa, that would be different) It's going from 'Peace Train' to backing a fatwa regarding killing an author of a fictional book. It's about publicly backing a man as dangerous and backward as Khomeini, whom he called the greatest man of the 20th century. Yeah, I think Cat Stevens went nuts. Religious fanaticism isn't any more attractive just because it's not christian fanaticism. I turn anyone who starts telling everyone else about 'god' all the way down.

.
.
.

His U.N.-registered charity, Small Kindness, provides humanitarian relief, through direct aid as well as social and educational programs, to orphans and families in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and other regions of the world.

/snip/

In 2003 Yusuf Islam was awarded the 'World Social Award' for his humanitarian relief work. Previous recipients of this award include Pope John Paul II, Steven Spielberg, and Sir Paul McCartney.

More recently, in November 2004, he was honoured with the 'Man for Peace' award by a committee of Nobel peace laureates.

http://www.yusufislam.org.uk/biodata.htm

MORE people should go "nuts" then methinks

I thought Saddam 'gassed' the Kurdish village. Bush and his ilk said so. "Saddam gassed his own people."

No?

180

...because the Iraqi gas munitions didn't leave the same signature as that found in the Kurdish village.

The NeoCons just substituted "Iraq" for "Iran" as part of the propaganda wind-up to our most recent invasion/occupation of Iraq.

lies.

180

He'll steer you wrong every time.

sovereign country?

I just said that they scare me, and I'm not crazy about them getting nukes. Never said I favored invasion of a country that isn't actively hostile to other states. Not really sure what to do about N. Korea or Iran. Both are technically in a state of war with their neighbors, and both want or have nukes. Neither country has a representative government. If you're not worried, you should be.

after they chased out their US-installed King in 1979. They allow international monitors during their elections, and they don't use Diebold.

Many countries fall short of the democratic ideal - with unelected media barons, religious preachers and the mega-rich dominating the election process. Iran is one such, the US (and Australia) are others.

If you're not worried, you should be.

America has legal WMD. Israel has illegal WMD.

The Iranians are worried, and they should be.

...Speaking of "religious fanatics", who do you think is in charge of the U. S.?

What about the air he breaths or the gound he walks on? Dispite current U.S. policies, I still think the american people are in charge of the U.S. They have simply gotten lazy. Hopefully, they will soon wake up and clean house. That's not possible in athoritarian countries.

I think that is the issue. Its government could fall at any moment, and if they had nukes God knows whose hands they would end up in. I think that is the main difference between a country like Iran and a country like Israel having nukes. Yeah, they're both fuckin' crazy, but at least Israel is predictably crazy.

...IMHO, the U. S. fell off the "stable" plateau about six years ago. We still haven't hit bottom.

.
.
.

USA has thousands of nukes - Iran and Iraq having even a 100 or so each would still be of no threat to the USA or World Peace

Y'all think that these countries are a threat because they WANT nukes??

Don't go to a gunfight with a knife sorta thing . .

The PNACers are winning -

Creating what will probably be known as "The LAST War"

Still, just Israel?

and see his soul . . . It worked like a charm the first time.

What a bunch of fuckwits.

The real reason that relations are strained, is the growing Russian relationship with Iran. Are they setting up the Russians to be another bad guy to the American people? Before you go to war with someone, you have to demonize them.

China, Iran, and Russia. And that a "new" alliance was forming between them, more or less: "To oppose the Brutal Imperialist Takeover Of Asian Resources by Unilateral Dominionist$ of the United States of America and their minions in the 21st Century."

In other words, "America's Mob$ters: Get Out of Asia." (more, or less...)

"Among many setbacks to Russian democracy in recent years, the subordination of the judiciary to executive power received particular importance in the study."

Just exchange American for Russian & I'd say Bush is emulating his good buddy Putin very nicely.

``In particular, America's relations with other post-colonial states have become a source of significantly heightened U.S.-Russian friction,'' it said...Iraq, it said, ``has been the most shocking and coercive application of this view to date, but others may lie ahead.''

The report recommended that the Russia go beyond mere expressions of concern about the rollback of American democracy. It urged that Moscow step up support for organizations committed to free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections in 2007-2008.

``America's course will not - must not - be set by foreigners, but the Russia and its allies cannot be indifferent to the legitimacy of this process and to the leaders it produces,'' the report said.

Among many setbacks to American democracy in recent years, the subordination of the judiciary to executive power received particular importance in the study.

``Under President Bush, power has been centralized and pluralism reduced in every single area of politics. As a result, America is left only with the trappings of democratic rule - their form, but not their content,'' the report said.

:evilgrin:

I'm sure that the Iranians will enjoy the russian mafia and dictatorial government far more than ours. And China leads the world in humanitarianism. Just ask Tibet. And of course, the the secular governments of China and Russia are just gong to love dealing with a fanatical country like Iran. It's a match made in heaven.

Throw in a rock, some brass knuckles and a stick and I'll get the popcorn.

In the world, what does the usa stand for anymore..certainly not democracy or the spread of democracy! From the worlds view, elections stand for nothing in the usa..other than fraud and the powers of the usa controlling them..the rest of the world talks about it..even if we do not in the usa....and the rest of the world sees the interference in every other country and their vote and their elections..interference by the usa. Every country in the world that has the wherewithal and the resources to distance themselves from the USA has done so..and those that are still tied financially to the usa..are working, though more slowly in that direction. The USA no longer has anything at all to do with the belief in democracy, it has only to do with power and that power is with its "defense" capabilities...read that by the rest of the world to be aggressive military and arms capabilities...and the controls it maintains in world trade and finance...both of which it uses continually now to threaten and to mainly..maintain that power. Meanwhile, the world distances itself...and will continue to do so..while the usa bankrupts itself...and its aggressive military capacity.

...Can anyone say "planted story"?