Why does the US need assistance of Russia in Afghanistan? That is a rhetorical question, is it not? But it maybe not. If it is just an attempt to tickle our vanity, it would be clear. But if the USA wants to draw us into the second Afghan conflict, I cannot understand our Foreign Ministry’s position on this subject. President Bush started to settle accounts with president Putin, Times writes while meaning countermand of some missile tests in framework of NMD, which could, according to Times’ correspondent, to put a stop to recently tied warm relations between Washington and Moscow. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield supposes these tests would not violate the 1972 ABM treaty. Though Bush says for all that they could be understood as the treaty’s violation, while now Americans do not want to conflict with Russia. Times supposes after countermanding the recent tests there are conditions for meeting a historical agreement about creation of joint strategic security system of the two countries, which was discussed in the November meeting of Putin and Bush. Though before this agreement could be met, Times writes, Russia should be repaid for its support of the US in connection with 11 September events. In particular, Russia expects stopping NATO expansion to the East. How nice these guys from the White House could be! Yesterday, they did not give a damn about the ABM treaty, and today they do not want to upset the ally. The situation probably followed the wrong scenario, so the US has to change its methods in motion. It could not be excluded, unity of Russia and China about Afghan events has put Washington on its guard. The US cannot neglect such serious players on the world stage. Modern counterbalance system works successfully. Let us see what the USA expects for its “generous” gesture from Russia.
Dmitry Litvinovich PRAVDA.Ru
Read the original in Russian: http://www.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/26/33128.html
Putin's Annual Address to the Federal Assembly is scheduled for September 30. Kremlin sources say it will become even more historic and globally important than his 2014 speech