American Football*
*TranslatorÂ’s note: the title of this article title refers to the metaphor in the third paragraph, and has nothing else to do with the articleÂ’s content.
When speaking about Russia at the debate in Nashville, U.S. presidential candidates did not say anything new, and did not add anything original to the familiar picture. It seems that in America, berating Russia is in fashion. And the style of the speech is the same – to show us, lost souls, the right (i.e. the American) way. Generally, reasonableness and quiet disposition are not the type of qualities that attract American voters.
During the debate, Obama used an ambiguous expression, saying that Russia “engaged in evil behavior.” This statement is associated with that of President Reagan about the Soviet Union – “Evil Empire.” But Regan’s statement was substantiated; it was based on the Soviet atheism. In this case, however, Obama just said it, without backing it up.
After Obama “passed the ball” to McCain, the latter tried to use it to his advantage: he said that calling Russia an evil empire would reignite the Cold War. But to say otherwise would be to ignore Russia’s (unacceptable by U.S. standards) behavior.
It is understandable that McCain is determined to "punish" Russia – this being the favorite terminology of American politicians. They love to play the role of world’s teachers, believing that the UN is full of pre-school students. The U.S. tries to teach Europe as well. Europe is already accustomed to this treatment by the U.S., and doesn’t even snap back retorts, but instead, where possible, does things its way. And in many respects, it is precisely due to this “foreign policy style” of Washington that the experts assert: today, there is no united world community, and the world is being plunged into chaos. And unfortunately, anti-American sentiment keeps growing.
There is nothing surprising about this. Politicians, at least at times, have to say the same thing. People, of course, are gullible everywhere. However, if a candidateÂ’s pre-election statement is too complex, it may not be believed.
Meanwhile, anti-Russian statements penetrate all present campaigns in the U.S. Although the candidatesÂ’ speeches are crafted by assiduous hands, there is a danger that exaggerated and excited statements against Russia may seem like an attempt by the candidates to hide something.
Indeed, the real relations between Russia and the U.S. are sufficiently complex, and they cannot be undone by the debates. Moreover, the campaign is, so to speak, the foreground picture of these relations. And this foreground plan is not even important, because real politics, as always, happen in the background. If it becomes necessary, our countries have a mutual interest in cooperating.
This cooperation is now known as “selective”. Nonetheless, it concerns areas that have global ramifications. And as a result, Russian-American relations either directly or indirectly affect other countries. So no matter what any presidential candidate said during the debates, under these circumstances he will be forced to deal rationally with Russia. Because doing so is in the best national and global interests of the U.S.
On the other hand, all kinds of “energetic” remarks by American politicians about Russia do not meet these interests. That’s because these remarks are capable of whipping up anti-American sentiments in Russian society, which has an older generation brought up on such sentiments.
Our people are exhausted by these lectures. WeÂ’ve grown tired over the 70 years that weÂ’ve had communist teachers. WeÂ’ve endured so much in our history, that we can teach anyone ourselves.
When speaking about Russia at the debate in Nashville, U.S. presidential candidates did not say anything new, and did not add anything original to the familiar picture. It seems that in America, berating Russia is in fashion. And the style of the speech is the same – to show us, lost souls, the right (i.e. the American) way. Generally, reasonableness and quiet disposition are not the type of qualities that attract American voters.
During the debate, Obama used an ambiguous expression, saying that Russia “engaged in evil behavior.” This statement is associated with that of President Reagan about the Soviet Union – “Evil Empire.” But Regan’s statement was substantiated; it was based on the Soviet atheism. In this case, however, Obama just said it, without backing it up.
After Obama “passed the ball” to McCain, the latter tried to use it to his advantage: he said that calling Russia an evil empire would reignite the Cold War. But to say otherwise would be to ignore Russia’s (unacceptable by U.S. standards) behavior.
It is understandable that McCain is determined to "punish" Russia – this being the favorite terminology of American politicians. They love to play the role of world’s teachers, believing that the UN is full of pre-school students. The U.S. tries to teach Europe as well. Europe is already accustomed to this treatment by the U.S., and doesn’t even snap back retorts, but instead, where possible, does things its way. And in many respects, it is precisely due to this “foreign policy style” of Washington that the experts assert: today, there is no united world community, and the world is being plunged into chaos. And unfortunately, anti-American sentiment keeps growing.
There is nothing surprising about this. Politicians, at least at times, have to say the same thing. People, of course, are gullible everywhere. However, if a candidateÂ’s pre-election statement is too complex, it may not be believed.
Meanwhile, anti-Russian statements penetrate all present campaigns in the U.S. Although the candidatesÂ’ speeches are crafted by assiduous hands, there is a danger that exaggerated and excited statements against Russia may seem like an attempt by the candidates to hide something.
Indeed, the real relations between Russia and the U.S. are sufficiently complex, and they cannot be undone by the debates. Moreover, the campaign is, so to speak, the foreground picture of these relations. And this foreground plan is not even important, because real politics, as always, happen in the background. If it becomes necessary, our countries have a mutual interest in cooperating.
This cooperation is now known as “selective”. Nonetheless, it concerns areas that have global ramifications. And as a result, Russian-American relations either directly or indirectly affect other countries. So no matter what any presidential candidate said during the debates, under these circumstances he will be forced to deal rationally with Russia. Because doing so is in the best national and global interests of the U.S.
On the other hand, all kinds of “energetic” remarks by American politicians about Russia do not meet these interests. That’s because these remarks are capable of whipping up anti-American sentiments in Russian society, which has an older generation brought up on such sentiments.
Our people are exhausted by these lectures. WeÂ’ve grown tired over the 70 years that weÂ’ve had communist teachers. WeÂ’ve endured so much in our history, that we can teach anyone ourselves.