If we are to believe the Chinese and Japanese papers published in the second half of April, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was the brightest – if not the sole – star to have risen during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
One of the Japanese military magazines wrote at the beginning of April:
"The plan for the Iraqi war compiled by U.S. Central Military Command approximately by mid-2002 prescribed the use of 250,000 ground forces servicemen, 1,000 aircraft and five aircraft carriers in the entire operation. However, in accordance with Rumsfeld's formula of "Show Creativity!" in November 2002, this plan was changed to the "Baghdad First" plan, prescribing utilization of a much lower number of servicemen: 250,000 troops of all kinds, including 80,000 ground troops. The war in Iraq started exactly in accordance with this plan."
There was a difficult moment at the end of March when advancing American troops came to almost a standstill. Army generals required additional forces. And again Secretary Rumsfeld urged them to show creativity. That's how the operation was successfully accomplished – with the number of troops about three times less than in the Gulf War.
The Chinese papers are writing about the "Rumsfeld-style war"; they condemn the Iraqi war but cannot hide their respect for American troops and the defense secretary himself.
The Moscow media prefer not to touch the defense secretary at all; it is very hard to find his name in a flood of Iraq-related articles in the Moscow papers. Probably the "Moscow elite" hate this person, who managed to destroy all of the Kremlin's plans.
What a pity that Secretary Rumsfeld is not in charge of U.S.-Russian relations! After all, the Pentagon had to deal with Russian weapons and Russian military advisers in Iraq. That's why the Defense Department and its chief have no illusions regarding Moscow and the Kremlin. If Rumsfeld were in charge, then I think that
As a result, Putin and his close associates would have stomach problems and spend most of the day in the bathroom; and the Kremlin would be very reluctant to hold new talks with Beijing, Paris and Berlin about "establishing a new world pole, alternative to the American one."
Alas, Rumsfeld is still not in charge of relations with Moscow. To the contrary, the State Department is reportedly working on the "repair" of U.S.-Russian relations, which have been greatly undermined as a result of the traitorous role of Moscow in the Iraqi war. State Department officials are, evidently, inclined to ignore all these "insignificant negative facts." It looks as if they are eager to give Moscow "one more chance."
One more chance for what? For cheating and for stabbing one more knife in America's back, just as in September 2001 and March 2003? The third strike could be the fatal one.
In any case, according to available information, the "Moscow elite" were far from panicking at the end of April/beginning of May. They were bold, confident and not afraid of American retaliation.
On April 28-29, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, still considering Putin a friend (what touching naivete!), visited Moscow and met "His Super-Excellence." Blair prepared a lot of warm words, but got a very cold reception. "Where is Saddam? Where is his stockpile of WMD if it really existed?" mocked Putin.
During the talks, Putin confirmed his intention to construct the new world order, not beneficial for America and the U.K.
If President Bush really hopes to get from Putin anything better during the Petersburg 300-year anniversary summit at the end of May, he will be greatly disappointed.
By the end of April, the Moscow media, frightened a little by the fall of Saddam, returned to its usual impunity: "America will lose too much if decides to break with Russia. America depends on our oil. In addition, America alone, without our assistance, would be incapable of solving Iraq's problems (i.e., Moscow will organize huge new problems for America in Iraq)" – it is possible to read such claims in the pro-Kremlin papers Izvestiya, Kommersant, etc. They are merely voicing the Kremlin's opinion.
Once again, as if nothing had happened in March and April, Moscow demands, from Washington and London, (a) the return of Iraq's $8 billion debt, (b) the acknowledgement of multibillion-dollar contracts for developing Iraqi oil fields signed earlier by Saddam and major Russian oil companies, and (c) participation of Russian companies in the postwar rebuilding of Iraq.
What should be the response of the allies? Definitely, not a single Moscow demand should be met. Moreover, if Russia, in the U.N. Security Council, continues to postpone, under various fake pretexts, the termination of anti-Iraqi sanctions, then some really tough measures should be taken – namely, those listed in the first part of this article. (See: "
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.