Business as usual....indeed. There is a children's story we all know; the boy who cried wolf. Eventually what happens is that the child is ignored because people have heard the same garbage and seen the same tantrums to the point that the utterings bear no acknowledgement. Perhaps Soper-power politics have reached this point, the world is experiencing a power shift and the question is do we need to take notice of what the US says in quite the way we did in the past. my feeling is Washington still thinks it has the respect and the moral high ground to "lead" the world; of course it no longer has after the corruptions of G.W.Bush. Two terms of that administration killed fifty years of respect and diplomacy and it is very hard to see how president Obama can forward any perception change unless the World sees radical change. Hilary Clinton understands modern Russia with the intellectual resources of a cold war reaganite painted in a soft font for a PR reset with the ever present proddings from military lobbyists and the god-fearing neo consevatives (even though she is a democrat). She would prefer to see Russia in pieces, broken up into manageable bite size democratic chunks. This is what every US administration really wants to see.The evidence has been there for years. This is why the cold war news misinformation machine is still in full gear. To convince Americans ( and Brits too, UK press is appallingly Russophobic) that Russia is run by evil people and that Russia is not a part of the civilized world. There will be no substantive change from the US. There cannot be. It remains a desperate oil hungry nation and it will do whatever it wants to secure energy supplies. The UN clearly can be ignored. Georgia, Caspian Sea, khazakstan etc.... The struggle for resources are our future wars. Water and Oil. Canada, Russia and other resource rich countries need smart defensive strategies to protect what they have. How long can one ignore the siren

I understand the feeling. A month ago I attended a political gathering in Virginia for the Democratic hopeful in the Gubernatorial election. Most people present were die-hard Obama campaigners. While waiting for the candidate, the chit-chat around the room revealed a deep despair with Obama foreign policy. In fact, most blamed this disappointment for the lukewarm support for the Democratic candidate. As he is expecting to loose, most people are readily blaming Obama's young administration and its foreign policy on the near total absence of young enthusiasts supporting Mr. Deeds. The support of the "old" base is not enough without the army of the new voters that have delivered a win for Obama in Virginia. So, what is going on? There is not just the continued erosion of US standing in the world to contend with, but also a real danger to loose many a local election, including the most important Congressional elections next year. I would like people not to forget the manner in which Obama came to power. The empire-based ruling elite in both Democratic and Republican Parties were alarmed at the possibility of Obama winning. It was clear that he could beat any Republican candidate. So the only "man" left standing was a woman, Hillary Clinton. Most will remember very well that, in spite of Obama's win in primaries, Clinton was not conceding. She was ready to take the fight to the Convention on the grounds of botched up primaries in Michigan and Florida. She backed off only after a deal was cut. We were not privied to the deal, but after the elections, things got pretty clear. Hillary Clinton got full reign in State Department, with the assurances that she can alone make staff decisions. While Gates remained the head of Defense. But Obama is good at not hitting his head against concrete walls. He can only succeed by letting Hillary be Hillary, and make all the mistakes. And it is not just Hillary. Her ardent supporters in neocon circles, are just as eager to use this window of opportunity to accomplish as much as possible. They all know that Obama is likely to wait until the end of his first term, before making any moves to change the State Department. Because if he did, Hillary will run against him in primaries, and take the Democratic Party into chaos. To the empire-Democrats, this is not so wrongheaded. Many of them would prefer to see Republicans win, so they can go back to their cozy bi-partisan collaboration on all imperial fronts. And enjoy their predictable, cozy relationship with the military projects for their districts --- before the "Obama experiment". Obama on the other hand, risks to loose his base. He needs a miracle. He heeds to figure out how to tap into the anti-imperial sentiment on the left AND right, link imperial projects with the rapidly worsening situation for the disillusioned middle class. If he does not succeed in linking the cost of adventures to the economy, middle class is likely to go back to voting Republican. Obama just does not have the luxury to be seen as floundering and indecisive. But to do that, he will have to constrain Hillary and her circles. One such opportunity has already arrived. Hillary's and Holbrooke strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan may be in serious trouble. To quote the best analyst on Asian affairs, M. K. Bhadrakumar, " Karzai calculated that Abdullah had already inflicted the maximum damage possible by lending his services to the president's Western detractors. Karzai also knows that he will continue to enjoy strong support from within the major non-Pashtun groups as long as his partnership with erstwhile mujaheddin leaders Mohammad Fahim, Karim Khalili, Ismail Khan, Rashid Dostum and Mohammad Mohaqiq remains intact. The real political game in great Afghan style is now all set to begin. The shadow boxing is over. At the center stage of the political theater stands Karzai. He has turned the table squarely on the Western powers, but he will not easily forget the sustained attempts over the past year and more to ridicule him and pull him down. There has been some attrition. The attacks on him and his family members have at times been on very personal terms and they hurt deeply. Afghans are unused to such Western-style muckraking in the name of democracy." Translate, Hillary and his geopolitical guru, Hollbrooke lost. In Pakistan, Hillary's performance was below expectations. She came to lecture, completely forgetting what Pakistan is going through. She completely lost out of sight that Pakistan was kept relatively safe from Afghanistan's spillover until the new untested leadership, consisting of exiles, accepted uncritically US leadership in conducting the war on its territory. Millions of refugees, thousands of dead, and revenge bombings all over the country --- are direct results. Instead of understanding, and expressions of gratitude --- for this blind adherence to US wishes --- she retorted that Pakistani leadership knows where Al-Qaeda is hiding, but is not having the political will to prosecute the fight! This is a cookie cutter formula from beating up on Serbia for not knowing were a war criminal may be hiding! In both cases, this serves not the goal of finding Ratko Mladic, or Osama Bin Laden --- but a convenient bat to bang the skulls of Serbs or Pakistanis when they stop listening to the orders. But the formula may no longer work, and Hillary does not know the difference between a small land-locked Serbia, and Pakistan, a potentially important key regional power. And after the announcement of Abdullah's withdrawal, neocons have expressed the fear that the expansion into Central Asia now seems in question. Now we are getting at the crux of the problem!!! Furthermore, to cite again the same author, "Washington must take serious note that the response to the New York Times report (on Karzai's brothers involvement with CIA and drugs) has come from none other than the Afghan Minister of Counter-Narcotics, General Khodaidad. The minister has brought into public debate Afghanistan's best-kept secret: the role of foreign troops in drug trafficking. It was one thing to be dismissive when the former director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Hamil Gul, alleged that American military aircraft were being used for drug trafficking in Afghanistan. It might also have been expedient to simply ignore the issue when well-informed Russian sources made media comments that US troops were doing roaring business in drug trafficking in Afghanistan running into hundreds of millions of dollars. But Khodaidad is a highly trained professional who knows what he is talking about. The Indians know him, and so do the Russians. Khodaidad passed out from the prestigious Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun and was a product of the famous Fronze Military Academy in Moscow. He had a proven record in the communist government in Kabul as a highly decorated general; he led crack paratrooper brigades in the war in the early 1980s and he served as the army commander in the crucial Kunduz and Takhar front line facing Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance. Britain, where he lived in exile for a decade, knows him too. Therefore, when Khodaidad said on Sunday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contingents from the US, Britain and Canada are "taxing" the production of opium in the regions under their control, he carried a stern warning on behalf of Karazi. It is a simple, direct message: don't throw stones while sitting in a glass cage. " This is not only the message. This is a war. With UN report on drugs painting a horrific picture of drugs coming from Afghanistan, and the human toll to Central Asia, Russia, China and beyond. Many of these countries have been restrained in their public condemnation, as the politics of drug trade involves the occupying forces. The withdrawal of the candidate Abdullah Abdullah is a watershed event. He has come to the conclusion that he must hedge his bets. He will continue to rally his minuscule base, and lecture Afghans on democracy and transparency. But he will also try to get back to ingratiate himself with the proudly non-transparent ways of the old --- before he becomes an odd man out. In overall terms, Afghanistan's neighboring countries (except Pakistan, perhaps, to an extent) will find Karzai's new team easy to work with. The new set-up will include personalities who have been known for long years to Moscow, Tehran, Tashkent and Dushanbe. The emergence of such a team in Kabul will be reassuring for these regional capitals. The big question is how the Taliban will view the Afghan political developments. A complex picture is indeed emerging. The US is inching closer to discussing a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and Karzai has partners who have dealings with the Taliban. (Ironically, Wali Karzai is one such skilled politician who is deeply immersed in Taliban folklore.) It will not be surprising if a political accommodation is reached with the powerful Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the very near future. If Hekmatyar chooses politics over war, a major hurdle will also have been crossed in isolating the intransigent (irreconcilable) elements within the Taliban - the so-called Quetta shura (council) and the Haqqani network. Pakistan, and by the inference US, may not be pleased to have an Afghan reconciliation happen on Afghan terms. Interestingly --- the ISI chief sought an audience with the Saudi king in Riyadh on Saturday. But, it is Turkey that is taking over ISAF rotating command.

Two questions. 1. Has Russia's foreign policy changed since Medvedev was selected president? 2. How long will Sergei Lavrov's reign at the foreign ministry last?

Peter, I'am a little surprised over your dissappointment. Dissappointment is just a result of overexpectation. And I cannot believe you could expect from Mr. Obama anything different in terms of deeds than from Mr. Bush Jr. (words don't count for deeds). And, btw, "Change" does not mean a change to the better - I cannot believe that so many people believed this man is either promissing or going to bring a change to the better. Further, change also means small coins and this is the part of Obama agenda that no one can claim he is underperforming. With the crisis unfolding, many will be left with change only (for a change). Obama is not even playing out a lost cause. He is just a litterate mascot walking around the globe and reading from the reading machine. I'm only wondering what will be on that reading machine one year from now.

After Afghanistans fraudulent elections President Obamas future politics in failing state is still foggy. The same can be said about EUs position. So Obama is waiting more options for McChrystal plan. The options so far have been bribing Taliban, using mostly drones, reconciliation with Taliban, sending aid instead of troops and of course send less troops than requested. The quote above is from letter of Taliban leader Mullah Omar to Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit on 19th September 2009. The letter indicated a shift in Talibans general policy and approach towards neighboring countries, the US and Europe.In the same tone, he assured China, India and Russia that the Taliban is going to play positive role in establishing peace and stability in the region. One does not need to like about Taliban nor accept their ideology, but one should agree that they more or less represent their country. So if they concentrate – as indicated in last letter of Mullah Omar to SCO – Afghanistans inner policy without affection towards terror export to foreign countries why not give them change. From my point of view the future strategy towards Afghanistan – if the aim is to get some sustainability – should be based on two principles: * Bottom-up principle, where the actions, development plans and administration are made starting from local, village level; not from high flown programmes made in Brussels or Washington. * Integrated approach where security, economy, local participation/commitment and administration are not separate sectors. My conclusion is that the core question is not in or out. I would see the word with as best practice for future relations between U.S./EU and Afghanistan. The local stakeholder may or may not accept cooperation with foreigners but it is their choice as it is choice for U.S./EU to participate and invest to Afghanistans development plans or not. More about topic one may find from my article "Afghanistan - to be or not?" - http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/afghanistan-%e2%80%93-to-be-or-not/

To Bianca, Unfortunately, the Republican won the race for governor in Virginia. I do not see this as a referendum on Obama. The way I see it, the Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds ran a stupid campaign. He focused on the wrong topics and did not inspire people. Viva Obama. Gene H., A San Francisco Democrat (some people use that label as a slur)

Peter, Bianca is amazingly smart. Here is a little more chatter to Madam Bianca: ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the Republican Party. Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens. Hoffman has conceded the race. The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party Gene H., San Francisco

Peter, This message is for you. Please do not give up yet on Obama. He is running into incredible opposition here in the U.S. Some Republican neocons even went so far as to call for his arrest and deportation. They said he was born in Kenya and is not a U.S. citizen. They call him "nigger" and even worse things. I am part of his "base" that Bianca speaks of. He has not even been in office a year. He has cancelled the F-22 Raptor jet. He said it is a Cold War weapon that is not useful in today's world. He has pissed a lot people off, not me. Gene H.

By the way Mr. Lavelle, If German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells Obama that she wants U.S. troops and weapons out of Germany, it will happen. It is up to her and the German people. It is a new day in American foreign policy. That is why the Republicans are so angry. Gene H., San Francisco

How come you offer no analysis of Russian foreign policy, just critiques of Western foreign policy? Isn't this blog supposed to be "Russia Today," not "America Today"?

Peter, Let's raise your blog to a NEW LEVEL. I publicly challenge German Chancellor Angela Merkel to publicly tell Obama, "take your troops and weapons, and go home. Thanks for all the help, but you have overstayed your welcome". Let's see what happens. C'mon Angela, the ball is in your court. Gene H., San Francisco

Peter, I would not lie to you. Democracy has truly hatched in Russia. I read a recent article on RT where the communist party was disputing the results of an election. That is proof. a party out of power can protest against the party in power, WITHOUT FEAR. It is a new day. Gene H., San Francisco

Peter, I will be going to the Vancouver Winter Olympics. It will be difficult for me to root against Evgeni Malkin when he plays for Team Russia in hockey. Young Evgeni (same name as me) lives in my hometown of Pittsburgh and he was instrumental in the Penguins winning the NHL Stanley Cup. He is loved in Pittsburgh and people there call him Geno. My niece (a house cleaner) was thrilled to meet him when she was hired as part of a team to clean his house. She is happily married, no worries. Gene H., San Francisco

The Rise and Fall of the Western Empires ! Why don't you have a series of programmes on the fall of the Western so called Empires ! It is happening now and they cannot stop it. They do not know how . Re- starting the debit system call credit in the west once more ...Pathetic ! Triste in Trieste

Peter, I don't know where you stand on gay rights. I was saddened by the vote in the U.S. state of Maine yesterday. I am a proud gay man (not a sissy). 53% voted down gay rights and 47% voted yes. VIVA the 47%. Our time will come. Gene H., San Francisco

I saw your interview regarding the trial of the Bosnian Serb leader and was appalled at the lack of objectivity both from you and the majority of speakers. I consider your interviewing techniques thoroughly unprofessional, biased and totally lacking in objectivity. The panel selected espouse extreme opinions, the content of your questions show a lack of knowledge or are blatant misrepresentations of the facts. You should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.

Sorry Peter I can not agree that Russia-US relations are better. Russia is making to many concessions and getting nothing in return. There is much publicity, and praise given to Obama concerning the withdrawal of the planned missile shield, However Russia is ignoring at its peril the fact that Poland is hosting a Patriot surface-to-air missiles, which the United States claimed would be a dummy varietiey, Poland has stated the missiles will be combat-ready. Poland is now having US troops stationed in Poland to "re-train" its army. Also lets not forget the SM-3 mobile missile system, which is to be placed in Poland, Czech Republic "may be" in Ukraine, no doubt will also be in Afghanistan as US will remain there for decades, and despite denials at present also Georgia, and lets not forget Balric States. Russia will find itself surrounded. One can not dismiss the feeling that the CIA with its Polish allies will invent an excuse to strike

Kierkegaard, I have not yet seen a US TV Channel that featurs an honest to goodness critique of US foreign policy. Any "critique" that I see (and I have to put it in quotes), is really a wishy-washy analysis that tends to obscure the facts, rather then enlighten the viewer with information. Typically, data that "does not fit" is not ever mentioned. Available data is so twisted, that it is hard to separate fact from the wishfull thinking. I am not suggesting that I have no criticism on RTVs journalism and the quality of analytical work. On occassions, I have sent scolding remarks when the inadequacy of an interviewer botches up a potentially good interview. I have criticized some analysist for jumping to conclusions, behaving as if they are talking from the first hand knowledge, and generally lacking the data. In today's world, when information is available from reputable sources worldwide --- especially reputable analysts and commentators with longstanding careers in their fields of endeavor --- there is no excuse being unprepared. But these are mistakes I can forgive. This is just a question of time, and better adjustment to RTV core mission. At times, the enertainment value is given more weight then is warranted. There is perhaps too much emphasis on youth, making some of the interviewers look not just inadequate, but a certifyable airheads! One can have many a criticism. But, it is still the most open media when it comes to getting the news. There is no "filtering" of news, such as I see in Western TV and print media. World news that goes contrary to the US mantra, is many times not reported at all, or if it is, briefly, erroneously and in a ridiculous context. How many times have I seen that? Straight forward commenting, as here on this web site --- is rare. I have to defend Peter's style. He is a professional with a well honed skills that provoke discussion. You will probably like his style --- or dislike --- but you will not remain indifferent. But what I detect in RTV is something that entirely lacks in US and other Western media. It is optimism. No matter how complicated the relationships are, no matter how ridiculous the cold war mentality still permeates the thinking in the West, Russian media as a whole exudes optimism. Evan when there is so little to be positive about --- one feels that the doors are always open. Even amidst the hostility towards Russian anything, and even when downcast and despondent --- Russian thinking seem to always search for the rainbow. What bothers me in mainstream Western media? Smuggness. There is always an air of condescending tone, phrase or the choice of word. It is almost as if their word is the last, the supreme knowledge and judgement upon any form of life on this planet. That is called Hubris. And it is not Russia nor any other country, religion or creed that will bring the inevitable Nemesis to stalk the land. Because Hubris generates its own Nemesis, out of the thousands and thousands of big and small self-deceptions. However, outside of mainstream media, there is an ever increasing pool of high-quality analysis, research and reporting. Their influence is unfortunatelly marginal in the US. It is more then ironic to find out about these authors in mostly foreign, non-Western media.

@Robert Walters. I have not seen the interview, but on the strenght of your comments, I would really like to know what is it that you find so appaling. For example, what were in your oppinion the most appalling misrepresentations of facts, or absence of facts? Why did it sound so lacking in objectivity to you? I am aware of the lack of information on the subject in the West, but your comments lead me to believe that you are well informed, and that in your oppinion, facts were misrepresented. I would really appreciate any information you can offer. (In the meantime, I will try to find the program)