RT

GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Russia and the U.S. are divided over several issues. What steps can be taken to bring the two countries closer together?

Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.

oleg October 16, 2007, 08:18: The U.S. and Russia,will always be divided on certin issues.Both nations have different interests and each nation must protect its nations interest.One thing that could help is for both to stop spreading negative comments and steriotypes about each other.This may be a step forward.
John October 15, 2007, 19:51: Nothing can be done at the moment.Russia must keep taking about issues like the planned missile system in Eastern Europe long enough for the American voters to elect a less aggressive Government. Then maybe commonsense will prevail.
oleg October 15, 2007, 09:17: Who cares?
Al October 14, 2007, 18:58: What steps can be taken? Rigime change in Washington would be a start.
Jerry October 14, 2007, 14:53: Give Americans tit for tat and show them that their way of conducting foreign policy is counterproductive and extremely insulting. Vladimir Putin should for example have a meeting in the Russian Embassy in Washington with American citizens who live below the poverty line, people who can't afford medical expenses and people who have to sell their homes because of mortgage rates getting out of control because of rogue banks.
DaniYah October 13, 2007, 20:48: The solutions mentioned by the Director all sound very good, and I am sure that such possibilities are already being discussed by the concerned officials in the IAEA and member countries of the UN. But treaties are only good when there is a sufficient amount of force prepared to deal with potential violators.
The government of the USA is a infamous violator of treaties. This illness cannot be "treated" by more "treaties."
Thus, bridges have to be built with the constituents of the US government representatives and senators. These constituents (US citizens) as a majority, have the sole power in the entire world to halt any action in violation of any treaty.
Recently, the US government blocked cooperation with Russia on civilian nuclear technology. However, other technological cooperation has not yet been blocked.

When the mayors of certain cities tried to block the shipment of discounted Venezuelan oil to the poor sectors of the city, the citizens protested and got their way to accept Venezuela's goodwill trade.

Russia can use the same mechanisms to open cooperation and trade with USA and even encourage and finally enforce USA treaty compliance.

The ability to enforce treaty compliance among ALL signatories in equal fashion is the single most important issue of the missile shield and nuclear (non)proliferation debates.
Tom October 13, 2007, 20:16: Please pass on my thanks to Wladimir Putin for recognising that the current US administration are the real terrorists of the world and standing up to mr. Bush and company.

In 1945 the United States signed the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and in 1947 they passed a law that created the CIA. 2 of the 3 functions of the CIA are direct violations of the UN Charter.
They have admitted training and recruiting terrorists to antagonize Cuba in the 1950s after promising to "learn tolerance and live as good neighbors". The URL below will bring you to the Preamble to the Charter at the UN website.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Please continue your references to hold them up to the UN International Laws.

My opinion of the Bush administration is that they think that they are above obeying any Laws and have stolen the Constitutional rights from the American citizens and apparently want to rule the world. The Bush Administration holds secret back door meetings making deals and Treaties that they do not intend on honoring.
The Director October 13, 2007, 17:43: I would say that the United Nations as a whole and in particular the IAEA needs an autonomous Independent Director of Proliferation. Serving the interests of all nation states and placing incontrovertible factual satellite data to assist the United Nations to tackling proliferation.
Thus in relation to the respective treaties that are being placed , you would need a factual Geo regional assessment to the proliferation issue and equally to the conventional deterrent proliferation issue. Thus a multi lateral approach is required committing all respective states to a reduction in the aggregate proliferation programs.
A Director of Satellite Data and Intelligence serving the United Nations would enhance tackling proliferation on a multi lateral approach serving the interests of all nation states.
Jerry October 13, 2007, 16:33: Don't take any steps, just stand where you are and wait for G.W.Bush to go! People like Nancy Pelosi will restore common sense and honesty to America.
Mihal October 13, 2007, 09:21: Well if Russia would become a dump market for US overstocked market, they would be really pleased. For many reasons Russian market is really attractive you should know that. Please recall reasons why US blocked Russia from WTC. Also if Russia would stop exporting arms so US mil lobby would get more out of it. If US banks & business happy - US gov happy.

That is the reason some politics go calling Russia none democratic blah-blah. Do you really think they even a bit care how democratic Russia is? Really.

Please learn from History!
The Director October 12, 2007, 23:45: The position in relation to the Bi Lateral issues are to broaden the treaty to include emerging states within the proliferation question. Without this then there becomes a paradox within the International community in relation to the Nuclear deterrent question.
It is not just the two superpowers that have a Nuclear deterrent there are other sovereign nation states that possess them. These talks in Moscow have to clarify the regional considerations to either reducing the deterrent as a whole in which case you are not looking at a bi lateral issue but a multi lateral position, where you have states like Israel, United Kingdom, France and Italy as well as Pakistan and India and China that have similar capabilities and are in the process of developing medium to long range capabilities. Iran is equally another state who has a conventional program , though the IAEA have to confirm the undeclared sites there.
Thus these talks should be looking at a Geo regional emphasis because that is where the imbalance lies. You can have joint cooperation but the fact of the matter is to have a reduction on a bi lateral level would mean the same or similar reductions on a Geo regional context.
Thus in short all the countries listed here should not only be signatories to a non proliferation agreement but equally agree to scale down their respective arsenals.
You cannot state on a bi lateral emphasis 'yes, we are going to dismantle and yet see unchecked proliferation in the emerging nuclear countries. The concern placed hear is a realistic one and that we can already see.
If we are serious about tackling arms reduction and proliferation them it is time to incorporate the emerging Nuclear deterrent nation states. It is the very fact that strategically their respective defence expenditure on their programs will out pace in % terms of that of Russia and the US.
The problem lies not with a bi lateral consideration but on the emerging portfolio of Nuclear proliferators and nation states with a nuclear portfolio.
Today the world has an opportunity to tackle proliferation and nuclear weapon development and programs in the third world.
It is an important matter because some of these countries have very weak Governance structure , yet seek to expend their defence budgets on their respective Nuclear Deterrent programs.
It is a bi lateral issue where the superpowers have to work together to make the IAEA work as a coherent regulatory organisation otherwise the deterrent question from the emergent Nuclear powers would steep out of control.
This is where the given focus should be.
pragamatist October 12, 2007, 21:08: As long as there is conflict of interests, ego and non-prgamatism, there is bound to be differences, opinoin variations and maybe conflict. In cold war times, there was clear ideological differences, which somehow overshadowded all other issues. Today's fragmented and fluid situation demands that countries with MASS DESTRUCTIVE capabilities recognize and respect others' capabilities before embarking on any ego-boosting ventures!
Daniyah October 12, 2007, 20:56: This is is an interesting question! Incidentally, most citizens of the US agree with Russia on many of the major foreign policies issues such as the Iraq war, the US missile shield in Europe, and the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among others. Essentially, there is very little division among the actual peoples.

However, in order to dissolve all myths and clarify the need for one another, drastic steps have to be taken to convince both Russian and US citizens of their friendship and brotherhood. Community outreach in US lower income communities(of the kind that the CITGO accomplishes during the cold winter months)is the best way to bring the two countries closer together. The USA, although it is the most powerful and richest country in the world, desperately lacks investment on the civilian and local levels. This outstanding lack of technological development in the States of the USA is evident even in the lack of sufficient oil refineries for processing the petroleum imported by the States (which in turn terribly raises the price of gas and everything else for the US consumer, while at the same time requiring the domestic industries to drastically lower the quality of their products, while offering them at a higher price, to people who can even less afford them.)

Not all local investment has to come in monetary form. Technological investment through educational outreach is the best way to bridge the countries. US citizens will very be happy to take advantage of that interaction! So, on the local levels, not only could technology be shared but especially, ways to use such technology. To build bridges between nations we should remember old sayings: "A friend in need is a friend in deed"; and, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Dave October 12, 2007, 20:42: As an American, living in North America, I find it totally absurd that our government needs to go around the world as "Chief of Police" and tell Europe what they "propose" to do, when it's only in the interest of the host countries involved to get wealthier from America's "War" machine abroad. I totally understand Mr. Putan's stand on this issue, and support and believe the facts laid on the table by the Russian government to be true, and above all, wise.
Here in the U.S.A. our civil liberties are being chiseled away day by day, and our economy grows wearily balanced on a sub-prime loan scheme that could and will collaspe soon enough. I'm very worried as to where we are heading with all this "chest beating" our President and Whitehouse leaders are taking us as a hole.
I only wish this thing to be resolved in a manner that brings peaceful achievements and better understanding to all of us, without the use of a missile system aimed "anywhere".
Thank you.
sam October 12, 2007, 20:42: The first step has to be taken by the US.It has to stop treating Russia as an enermy that has to be cornered.Stop expansing their military to their borders.No country in this world would accept that.As someone once said you can have Russia as an equal friend or equal foe.Its your choice but equal it will be.Since the collapse of the USSR,the US is the only one that seems to be aggressively pushing towards the russian borders and not the other way round.I think Putin is right,Pull out of all treaties that russia feels would weaken her as the US has done several times.This includes medium range missiles so as to easily hit any country in europe that assists the US in undermining her security.What applies to Tom applies to Ivan shall we say.