Стр. 2 - V

Author : Sergey Ryabkov
Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation
What President Trump said, as he signed the bill into law,
with regard to his rejection of the attempts by both
houses of Congress to encroach on the president's con-
stitutional powers speaks for itself.
However, as far as confrontation between our states is
concerned, I would not go too far and make such sweep-
ing generalizations. I hope that the situation will not get
to the point of confrontation. We will seek to minimize
damage if not overcome the destructive effect of the act.
As for foreign policy - or at least its "Russian component" - so far it can only cause disappoint-
ment. I must say that to a very large degree this is still the continuation of former U.S. president
Barack Obama's worst legacy.
In an unprecedented development, the Democrats used Russia as a bogeyman and used the re-
lations with Russia like a tool, like a sledgehammer that they wielded in an attempt to smash
Trump's presidency, as a result destroying the possibility of building a reasonable relationship
with us for years to come. Unfortunately, that is precisely the case. Whoever may be the president
of the United States, whoever wins the next election, under the legislation passed by both houses
of Congress, he or she would feel bound hand and foot and unable to follow a more reasonable
policy toward Russia. This is a big, hitherto unknown problem. In a sense, this is a new reality.
Russia does not yield to pressure and generally does nothing under coercion, nothing that its
opponents want it to do.
It is important for us to put in place viable and efficient economic models that would be less de-
pendent on the U.S. system of payments and credits. I am not an economist but as a Foreign
Ministry official, I simply feel this. Otherwise we will always remain on their hook, which is pre-
cisely what they want.
My personal opinion is this: We should exercise restraint and patience-strategic patience if you
will - and make no fuss. In my opinion, Russia needs a two-track approach toward relations with
the United States. First, deterrence where we see U.S. aggressive actions, attacks, endless attempts
to weaken us, something that U.S. officials simply like to flaunt, and striving to saturate countries
neighboring us with NATO military facilities, military infrastructure and the massive deployment
of well-equipped contingents of armed forces.
The second part of a two-track approach is engagement. Engaging the United States in dialogue
but only in areas that we need and can benefit from. In the morning, we should start thinking
Электронное приложение к журналу «Международная жизнь»
International Affairs: Summary№5, 2017
"The U.S. Is Less and Less Inclined to Look for Compromise"