American sanctions contribute to the growth of the Russian economy!
Many of those who follow US-Russian relations periodically have the impression that the American elite perceives Russia in some very strange and internally contradictory way. On the one hand, US senators, congressmen, and Donald Trump administration officials often come from the idea of Russia as a kind of "regional power" with a "torn economy", an aging population and "rusty missiles that don't fly." Accordingly, these ideas push them to a rather dismissive attitude towards Russia in general and to the risks of aggressive anti-Russian policy in particular. On the other hand, the same American senators, congressmen and Donald Trump administration officials suddenly started talking about the need to negotiate with Russia on preventing an arms race and concluding some kind of new treaty.
According to the specialized publication The Hill, Democratic senators already suspect Trump of not wanting to negotiate with Russia, and they also indicate that next year will be key for negotiations of this kind. Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Policy, Democrat Bob Mendez, even criticized the White House for alleged reluctance to extend the mutual restrictions that expire in 2021. It would seem, why be afraid of Russian missiles, if they are rusty and do not fly, and the economy that produces these rusty missiles is about to bend? Why carry out campaigns to block social media accounts of Russian media and pro-Russian projects on social networks if the Russian political, economic and cultural development model does not attract anyone? Actions do not match statements.
Faced with Russia's obvious successes in foreign policy, its unwillingness to "fall apart" (which was expected from it back in 2014) and the growth of Russian influence in key regions of the planet (and American experts are especially sore and wallet for the situation in the Middle East), The American media and expert community is beginning to seek an explanation for this obscure phenomenon. The search for these explanations leads them to two incompatible conclusions, and, probably, this inconsistency determines the attitude of the Washington establishment towards Russia with a distinct smack of schizophrenia.
A typical example of a popular approach to interpreting what’s happening on the "Russian front" of the struggle to preserve American hegemony is an article in The New York Times entitled "Putin’s Russia, Punching Above Its Weight, Keeps Adversaries Off Balance"
The journalists of the leading American media have stated their version from the very beginning of the text: "The Russian economy is falling apart, and its young people are disappointed, but in the conditions of turmoil in America and Europe, Russia and its leader have been experiencing a long period of success for two decades."
This is a very boilerplate text, in which the author, for example, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the fact that using nominal GDP (rather than GDP at purchasing power parity) is a rather inadequate way to compare economies. The author also indirectly tries to give out the anti-patriotic views of a rather few representatives of the "golden youth" from the elite universities of Moscow and St. Petersburg for the position of Russian youth in general. Although the American journalist was still able to find the strength to notice the fact that the presidential rating is at 70% (he cannot trust the Levada Center poll for obvious ideological reasons), but he did not want to try to understand why the rating is again at such a high level. This is logical: if the theory (or editorial assignment) does not coincide with the facts, so much the worse for the facts. In sum, we get the traditional conclusion in the style of "this is not Russia - strong, this is the West showing weakness." And it is obvious that the only logical decision that a politician who shares this idea can take is to crush Russia with all available methods, for victory is near.
Understanding the economy has never been a strong point of The New York Times, with bundles of articles now issuing that capitalism is to blame for the declining birth rate in the West. Therefore, we turn to an alternative view of Russian reality from analysts at the Bloomberg business information agency.
Journalists specializing in the financial sector (which often forces one to work with numbers, rather than stereotypes), also reflect on the problems of 2014 and the sanctions clash with the West, but come to other conclusions:
The text notes that the situation has changed due to a conservative budget policy, lower inflation and the achievement of the so-called double surplus - that is, a budget surplus and a positive current account value. Translated from “economic into Russian”, it means that Russia earns more than it spends and sells to the outside world more than it imports from it. The double surplus, mentioned in Bloomberg's material, is a rather painful topic for the United States itself, which (despite all the efforts of Donald Trump and the trade war unleashed by him against China, the European Union and almost all of Washington’s allies) cannot get out of the double deficit state. That is, they live by increasing debts, and at the same time they import (in debt) much more than they can export to world markets.
An attempt to look into the future, undertaken by American financial journalists, also led to results that are in no way consistent with stereotypical ideas about Russia in general and the Russian currency in particular: "According to a study by Bloomberg, which interviewed 57 (institutional) international investors, traders and managers (at banks and investment companies. - Approx. Aut.), the ruble offers (investors) a safe haven amid concerns over the US-China trade war. Analysts at HSBC Holdings Plc see growth the ruble by as much as seven percent of the current level, calling the ruble a "beaming beacon" (in the markets) of developing countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. "
However, if a sensible view of the situation does not win, then this also has its advantages for Russia, which Vladimir Putin once spoke about: "I sometimes think that it would be good for us if those who want to impose sanctions would introduce all the sanctions that can be introduced, and as soon as possible. This would free our hands to protect our national interests by such means as we consider the most effective. "
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий