Michael McConnell, the U.S. director of national intelligence, listed them in his annual testimony to Congress on worldwide threats. He also mentioned the military component of the potential Russian threat but not without some embarrassment because of the enormous size of the U.S. military as compared to its weakened Russian counterpart. McConnell notes that the Russian army is overcoming "a long, deep deterioration in its capabilities that started before the collapse of the Soviet Union." Instead, it is Moscow's mounting economic might that the intelligence czar, as the director of national intelligence is called, suggests should be viewed as a source of concern.

The detailed analysis in his testimony is neither scary nor sensational. Nor does it contain anything new as regards Moscow. His testimony last year, when he said that Russian espionage efforts had returned to the Cold War, was a lot more outspoken.

The Kremlin's response to the report was absolutely right. When Russian journalists asked officials to comment on it, they were told that the report should not be overdramatized, although it raised some questions. After all, Americans have long accused Russia of "positioning to control an energy supply and transportation network spanning from Europe to East Asia" and have talked previously about "aggressive Russian efforts to control, restrict or block the transit of hydrocarbons from the Caspian to the West -- and to ensure that East-West energy corridors remain subject to Russian control -- (that) underscore the potential power and influence of Russia's energy policy."

Moscow can hardly perceive as a challenge McConnell's "concerns about the financial capabilities of Russia, China and OPEC countries and the potential use of their market access to exert financial leverage to political ends." The same applies to his concern about the growth of Russian investment abroad. He means mostly investment in energy sectors in Europe and China. But this is nothing new, and the United States has been doing the same for years.

Not a single country has so many agencies as the United States -- from the State Department and the Pentagon to the departments of Agriculture and Commerce -- that are responsible for promoting abroad American goods and services, credit, financial instruments, culture, way of life, Coke, cars and washing machines. In any country, be it tiny or very powerful, American ambassadors and other diplomats will not be embarrassed if they have to flex their muscles or throw America's rivals off the bridge. This is almost an axiom in the diplomatic service. But the very fact that Russia is mentioned in the report together with Iran, Iraq, North Korea and China -- and even the notorious al-Qaida -- does not at all mean that they can be equated.

Exaggerations are typical of such documents. It was produced by intelligence, and as one wise Englishman said, secrecy is a prelude to deception. But every trade has its own temptations.

This assessment is special only because it was made in the year of two presidential elections -- one in the United States and the other in Russia. McConnell had to do an uphill job. His post was established in the wake of the shocking Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and is responsible for coordinating the intelligence operations of about 15 departments and agencies -- from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, Air Force, Navy and Army to the Coast Guard and the Department of Energy, to name but a few. He had to exert a titanic effort in order to reduce to a common denominator the opinions of mismatched departments that hate one another.

His predecessor, John Negroponte, the first to hold the new job since its formation in 2005, was not very successful. He occupied this position for less than two years and was sent back to the State Department by President Bush.

It is clear that McConnell's testimony mostly deals with political issues and has nothing to do with secrets. It would be naive to expect any secrets to be revealed during the hearings. American propaganda has never been too elegant, but this report is more exquisite than others.

In general, such reports are just another foreign policy instrument couched in a veil of an almost solved mystery. In real fact, all ideas, concerns, and alarms are not the revelations of intelligence but a direct reminder of what the United States accepts and what it does not want to tolerate. As a guide, they are quite useful.

(Andrei Fedyashin is an analyst for RIA Novosti, which first published a version of this piece, but the opinions in it are his alone.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links