That Russian liberals resent the current authorities is only natural. The opposition would not merit the title if it did not criticize the government and seek to replace it. This kind of criticism is perfectly reasonable and even necessary, for no authorities can be infallible, and the Russian variety has faults enough and to spare. In fact, in America, too, Republicans and Democrats alike do not mince words lambasting one another. And believe me, occasionally their phraseology is even more scathing than what the Russian liberals come up with. Thus those most displeased with the incumbent President Obama say in so many words that he is a traitor to US national interests. In his domestic policies he is said to be all but guiding the country toward communism, and thus to the same kind of collapse that destroyed the USSR, while in his foreign policy he is ceding one position after another, including to Russia. President Bush, in his turn, had earned charges of war crimes because he had used false pretexts to invade Iraq, invited the financial crisis, allowed the national debt to soar calamitously, and so on. Criticizing is easy, no question about that. It is the proposed alternatives that prove to be the big problem. A full analysis of the program and actions of the Russian democratic opposition apart, let me say a few words about its leaders’ view of foreign policy, particularly of US-Russia relations, as seen from Washington. Obviously, the word leaders here is merely tentative, for Russian society, and the opposition too, for that matter, can hardly boast a settled opinion as to who should be honored with the title. Notoriously, many of the household names in the opposition flatly refuse to have anything to do with one another. Still, the US press persists in quoting mostly those who believe that the current Russian regime is illegitimate and so cannot be regarded as a US partner, let alone a trusted one. Moreover, according to them, any meetings, talks or summits involving the Kremlin are at best a sign of naivety or opportunism, and at worst, a betrayal on the part of the West of the ideas of freedom and democracy.

Instead of which, the «liberals» call for Russia’s isolation; they would like to see it expelled from the G8 and publicly branded The Evil Empire. These are the ideas continually mouthed by, say, Mr. Kasparov. Putin’s one-time adviser Illarionov comes a close second, telling all and sundry at every opportunity to remember that it was Russia that «attacked the tiny democratic Georgia» and for good measure accusing the Poles of being too hasty in accepting the fact that Russia was completely blameless in the matter of the Polish presidential jet crash. As for those who dare to disagree with the ideas of Kasparov or Illarionov, they must be either gullible simpletons or agents of influence infiltrated into America, as journalist Yulia Latynina never tires of reminding us in certain Russian media.

So what have these people done to displease Kasparov, Illarionov, Latynina and their ilk? It must be the fact that they keep speaking out in US media, in Congress and in various think tanks to the effect that US-Russia cooperation has never been more necessary. It must be acknowledged that we are currently facing a much more serious danger than during the past world wars or the Cold War. The threat of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, environmental problems, infectious diseases, and unstable global finances are all problems Russia shares with the West. Efforts must be pooled to tackle them, and we cannot afford to discourage countries with underdeveloped democratic institutions from taking part in the process. Isolating Russia will harm the interests of the United States. So US policies ought to aim at the creation of a strategic alliance between our two countries to address the issues of security, and eventually also other vital problems.

The United States has two distinct schools of thought on the choice of policy toward Russia. The first one advocates consistent rapprochement with Russia and an evolution of democratic institutions in the latter through mutually advantageous cooperation and exchange of ideas. The other, promoted mostly by so-called Neo-conservatives, but not just those, proposes a fairly tough approach to Russia, rejecting any cooperation with it, and seeking to weaken and isolate it, their motto being the furthering of democracy through color revolutions throughout the post-Soviet space.

Thus it appears that the position of the Russian democratic opposition on foreign policy comes close to the second school of thought, the one that was the more influential in the times of George Bush. However, with the advent of Obama, ideas of rapprochement with Russia by resetting relations are increasingly popular. Not surprisingly, some people are unhappy about this, hence newspaper pieces like the ones penned by Ms. Latynina.

By way of summing up I can only say that if the money the United States forked out to further democracy and color revolutions had been invested in business cooperation between Russia and the US, e.g., in high technology, everyone would have stood to gain, Russian democracy included. Naturally, it would not come amiss either if someone thought of saving the two countries’ taxpayers’ money by cuts in their intelligence budgets. I fear, though, that this is mere wishful thinking on my part, more’s the pity.