Recently, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree on the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from a cooperation agreement with the United States of America in terms of law enforcement and countering the spread of drugs. Thus, Russia and the United States within the framework of the agreement have worked together for a little over 10 years. It must be recalled that the agreement between Moscow and Washington was signed in the autumn of 2002. This is another termination of previous agreements with the United States, which the Russian authorities have taken over the past few months. It is obvious that such a move of official Moscow can be considered a continuation of a series of recriminations and complaints that have long put an end to the so-called reset, which initially looked very, very promising. However, it should not be forgotten that Moscow has recently been forced into a relationship with Washington, let's say, to shoot back. For example, the ban on working in Russia for certain non-profit organizations is due to the fact that through these organizations money often came from the United States for outright sponsorship of destabilization activities on Russian territory. The resonant “law of Dima Yakovlev” was Moscow’s response to the “Magnitsky Act” that appeared in the United States, and the decision to withdraw the Russian Federation from the law enforcement cooperation and anti-drug activities was born after Washington announced that it’s withdrawing from the working group under bilateral presidential Commission for the Development of Democracy and Civil Society in Russia.
It is safe to say that today relations between Russia and the United States are among the most difficult in the last decade. At the same time, it seems that on the other side of the ocean, politicians play a kind of game, the main question of which today is expressed to what extent today one can, let's say, lead Russia, and to what extent relations between the two countries can still be worsened. The game began, and Russia took this game ... Then comes the ball effect for table tennis: you - me, I - you. It would seem that it is high time to stop and begin to get out of this clearly protracted meaningless undertaking, but today Washington is clearly not in the right place. The fact is that the United States, for several decades now, has simply failed to build partnerships with Russia if it begins to voice and defend its point of view. Washington is ready to call its friends and partners only those countries that sign in their unequivocal dependence on the United States, dependence — which comes to either servility or undisguised adulation.
And according to this, Russia of the 90-x model is an ideal, from the point of view of the United States, a state with which it is possible to build a “partner” policy: give a couple of billions of credits - and the trick is ... And then, you know, Russia has its own the voice begins to cut through - this is no good at all! .. It is necessary to urgently start the machine of acts, restrictions, lists, critical resolutions - in general, everything that is usually called the system of political reprimand from a state that perceives itself as the only and unshakable geopolitical all leader However in stories there was no unshakable human civilization ...
Let us return, nevertheless, to the document that Dmitry Medvedev signed. The agreement under which Russia and the United States were to conduct joint activities dealt with several points at once. The agreement of the model 2002 of the year, from which Russia has now withdrawn, contained clauses on joint counteraction to the spread of drugs, assistance in disclosing cybercrime, building barriers to terrorist activity. In addition, the agreement between Russia and the United States implied that Washington would help Russia in strengthening its borders and countering the legalization of proceeds from crime through corruption.
If you believe the official information, the agreement between the countries had a financial annex, in which the US role was designated as purely financial. In other words, Washington on the rights of a big brother allocated money, and Russia had to start this money to overcome existing problems in a relatively meager (by 2002 year, at least) financing.
It’s somehow strange, you see, it turns out ... The US signs a document implying cooperation with the country in the legal sphere, including in terms of combating corruption, and at the same time assumes a purely financial role. They gave money to fight corruption ... They put out the fire with gasoline ...
At the same time, part of the funds were transferred to certain funds that acted on the territory of Russia on behalf of and on behalf of the United States, and these funds were to use the funds received to resolve the issue of embezzlement in the Russian Federation. In the end, it all boiled down to the fact that the lion's share of funds was used only to ensure that NGOs that received them shouted loudly that corruption in Russia exists ... But, excuse me, we know this even without US-funded organizations. Then what, in fact, was the help with regard to Russia expressed? .. Only our protesting against all the so-called non-systemic opposition knows this answer:
Aha Our friends gave money to the Kremlin to fight corruption, and he, you know, he pocket the money, and even went out of the contract, so that the traces of ...
But only then let the same people who are supporters of the idea of a purely “Kremlin trail” clarify: if the “friends” gave money, then why did the money work in some strange direction — they went exclusively to expanding the structures hiding behind loud anti-corruption names. Were these desktops "Horns and Hooves" solving completely different tasks? ..
The next direction of the bilateral activities of Russia and the United States under the 2002 agreement under review was countering the drug threat. At the same time, the more the USA “opposed” this threat, the greater the flow of the potion from Afghanistan to the Russian Federation and further to Europe. Strange ... It has always seemed that when counteracting a threat, this very threat should eventually disappear. And then it turned out the opposite.
Moreover, the American "help" to curb drug trafficking often went through certain organizations, on whose accounts the money settled, but not always then worked in exactly the direction that was for them, as indicated. In particular, you can hold a very interesting example of the strange cooperation of the US DEA (Anti-Narcotics Agency) and the Russian Federal Drug Control Service. Cooperation consisted in the fact that the representatives of the DEA tried to involve the employees of the Federal Service of the Russian Federation for Drug Control to destroy the goods already ready for transportation from the territory of Afghanistan. If the Federal Drug Control Service specialists stated that destroying finished narcotic products in Afghanistan is certainly great, but not as great as completely eliminating poppy plantations themselves, then the DEA immediately included "not understand yours." Like, if all poppy plantations are destroyed, then what will the Afghan peasants then exist, after all, the poppy can still be useful for baking cakes ... This was all the opposition to the drug business and was limited ...
We will not pass by another clause of the Russian-American treaty of the 2002 model of the year. This point concerns US assistance in combating child pornography. Washington allocated 100 thousands of dollars for these purposes ... At the same time, it remains a mystery how a country that is the leader of child porn industry (the United States accounts for more than half of the world's production of materials in the genre of child pornography) to help a country that was not in 2002 in the year KU for the production of products of such questionable content? It turned out that how else can! As a result, after a decade of "fraternal assistance" from the United States, Russia "safely" entered the top three world leaders in the production of child porn. Such, you understand, help in counteraction ...
It turns out that the agreement with the United States of America dated September 2002, in fact, only outwardly looked spectacular, and upon closer inspection, its fruits are very doubtful. Yes - Washington gave the money, but again to whom? Does anyone seriously think that - free of charge to the Russian budget ... Yes - the money for some accounts came to Russia, but what are the goals pursued by Washington in the end? Maybe corruption helped win? Maybe drug trafficking from Afghanistan stopped by joint actions? Maybe the child porn industry eliminated? What is there ... So far, just the opposite in all directions.
Based on this, they begin to torment vague doubts from such help ...