As Russia fumes at U.S. 'meddling,' post-Soviet relations turn sour
MOSCOW — What happened to the “reset”?
U.S.-Russian ties have again plunged into acrimony amid disputes ranging from disagreement on Syria to Russian President Vladimir Putin's clampdown on dissent.
A U.S. bill intended to lift Cold War-era trade restrictions but containing sanctions against Russian officials accused of rights abuses has become the latest flash point, with Moscow venting its outrage and threatening a quid pro quo.
While U.S.-Russian ties have not yet plunged to the lows seen during George W. Bush's presidency, a senior Russian lawmaker warned on Friday that the legislation approved by the Senate could be a prologue to an even deeper crisis.
Alexei Pushkov, the Kremlin-connected head of the Foreign Affairs committee in the lower house of Russia's parliament, said that Moscow was particularly annoyed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's pledge this week to oppose Russia's efforts to create alliances of post-Soviet nations as an attempt to “re-Sovietize the region.”
“If the U.S. administration wants to have a kind of geopolitical contest with the Russian Federation on the post-Soviet space, I think that the (trade) law will be just the first step in a new crisis, and a serious crisis between Moscow and Washington,” Pushkov said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Large-scale batteries are integral in shift to renewable energy
- Energy Spotlight: Steve Anthos
- Open enrollment puts varied impact of health care law back in focus
- Plastics, tech sectors crucial to cracker plants
- Student loan debt presents paradox
- Mortgage in reach despite few dings
- Without pipelines, gas can’t get to demand
- Small businesses plan for profitable winter
- Hackers rip into heart of open-source software
- EDMC loses $664M; executives receive six-figure bonuses
- 113 Federal Reserve staffers earn more than chief Yellen