Paul Goble
New York, September 1 – Efforts by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials and commentators to justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin’s ill-fated alliance with Hitler because of what British and French leaders had done in Munich highlight a dangerous trend in Russian thinking, according to a Moscow commentator.
Not only was the mendacity of the two actions fundamentally different – the British and French acted shamefully as part of an effort to maintain peace while Stalin acted shamefully to cover his seizure of the territory of neighboring countries, but the lessons the two have learned, Leonid Radzikhovsky says underscore the difference (www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=9405).
In an article in yesterday’s “Yezhednevny zhurnal,” the Moscow commentator says that there is now question that both Western Europe and the Soviet Union “conducted themselves in a mendacious fashion in the 1930s” in their dealings with Hitler. But “there is mendacity and mendacity,” both at the time of action and in the lessons those who engage in it ultimately learn.
It is certainly true, he writes, that “Europe handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler.” But “European politicians did not conclude secret deals and did not seize pieces of foreign territory.” And however cynical their actions, their goal was “an idiotic hope” of keeping the peace, something those who had experienced the first world war felt was essential.
If the British and French did engage in a shameful action, Radzikhovsky notes, “Europe long ago learned its lesson.” Namely, the continent learned that “a law-based policy is MORE PROFITABLE than one based on force alone --more profitable in a humanitarian, social, economic, and that means in a political sense.”
Indeed, he continues, “politics in contemporary Europe is concentrated humanitarian sociology because the chief priority is not the size of GDP, not the size of production and not the level of consumption but the QUALITY OF LIFE.” In short, the Europeans, horrified by the kind of politics on offer at Munich have changed.
Some have suggested, he continues, that Europe, having rejected the drives of the past for Lebensraum and the like has entered into “the twilight” of its history. But what a twilight, Radzikhovsky says: Europe is at present “the most successful PROJECT in the History of Humanity,” except perhaps that of the United States.
Having rejected the politics that informed the Munich accords, Europe has entered not into “the end of history” but rather into “the end of CRUDE history” and has begun “ANOTHER history that Russians do not understand and thus view as ‘boring,’” although in fact it is anything but that.
But in contrast, “the USSR [at the time of Molotov-Ribbentrop and later] conducted itself much more mendaciously than Europe,” the “Yezhednevny zhurnal” commentator continues, and Russians now are being encouraged by their leaders to behave much more mendaciously than the Europeans are being encouraged by their leaders.
The explanations Russian officials offered and continue to offer about why Stalin reached an agreement with Hitler are “simply a LIE,” Radzikhovsky points out. Russia did not have to reach an agreement with the Nazi leader in order to prevent an alliance between Hitler and the West because the latter, having given guarantees to Poland showed that would not happen.
Thus, if Russians were honest with themselves, they would recognize that the USSR had “ANOTHER way out,” Radzikhovsky continues. It could “simply not have concluded agreements with anyone.” Had Stalin done that, Hitler would have had to reckon with the possibility of a two-front war, something the Nazi leader very much wanted to avoid.
And the fallback argument that Soviet and now Russian officials often employ when they suggest that Molotov-Ribbentrop bought the Soviet Union time does not withstand examination, the Moscow commentator says. Hitler would have moved West and then East at almost exactly the same time had there not been an accord with Stalin.
In any case, Radzikhovsky suggests, “the real motives of the USSR [in concluding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocols] were different.” They were “the simple, classical, ‘healthy imperialist’ motives – a secret protocol and the seizure of the territories of others.”
Moscow paid a price for all this, Radzikhovsky argues, first because of the resistance to Soviet occupation of these lands and then because it was precisely from them – the Baltic republics and Western Ukraine that “in 1989-1990 began the collapse of the USSR.” But the real tragedy, he suggests, is elsewhere and continuing.
Encouraged by their leaders, Russians still are unwilling to acknowledge that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact opened the way to war and that it was an imperialist act not only by Berlin but by Moscow. And still worse, they have been encouraged by their leaders to view the cynical politics of force that the Europeans have rejected as still the proper order of the day.
Indeed, the Moscow commentator concludes, Russians are being taught exactp7 the opposite lesson about Molotov-Ribbentrop that Europeans have clearly learned from Munich. As their leaders have insisted, Russians are told to believe that “Comrade Wolf eats everything and listens to no one” and that “such it always was and such it will always be.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Window on Eurasia: Muslim Brotherhood Said Considering Cooperation with Russia against Israel, US
Paul Goble
New York, September 1 – The Muslim Brotherhood, which dispatched fighters to defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan and more recently has been accused of supporting Chechen militants against Moscow, is now considering developing ties with Russia in order to oppose Israel and the United States, according to a report on a Russian-language Israeli website.
On August 23, Mikhail Fal’kov reports, a confidential document that had been prepared by the Muslim Brotherhood concerning the possibility that that group would develop ties with Russia in order to combat Israel and the US appeared on the Ammon News portal site in Arabic (www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=43953).
In his article on the Russian-language Israel portal Izrus.co.il, Fal’kov not only describes the contents of the document but provides context for what would be a remarkable – he calls it a “180-degree” – change in the direction of one of the most radically anti-Russian groups in the Muslim world (izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2009-08-30/6085.html).
Such a change would give Russia not only an additional lever in the Middle East and the Islamic world more generally, a lever Moscow may assume is its to command given American support for Israel, but also help Moscow deal with anti-Russian Islamic militants in the North Caucasus by depriving them of the support of a group that has long been on their side.
According to Fal’kov, a week ago, the Jordanian section of the Association of Muslim Brotherhoods was “practically paralyzed” as its leaders searched for “the traitor” who had leaked what he describes as “a secret document of extraordinary importance” that could cost the government its permitted status in Jordan because of its “anti-government character.”
The concerns of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership were all the greater because, as Fal’kov said a source in Israeli government had told him, the Jordanian intelligence service had been involved in the seizure of the document and had given it to the media for public dissemination and discussion.
The most interesting aspect of the document, Fal’kov continues, is its discussion of the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood might decide to cooperate with rather than oppose Moscow, a shift that if it took place could have major consequences not only in the Middle East but in Russia’s North Caucasus.
“Russia is trying to establish its former international status,” the document says, “and to return to a situation in which it was a balancing force in the international arena, as a counterweight to the United States. This is being done,” it continues, “with the use of forces” as in Georgia intended to weaken Washington’s probes against it.
The Muslim Brotherhood document also notes that “Russia has achieved serious success by means of its agreement with Iran about the transfer to it of resources, information and technology, and all of this is taking place in parallel with efforts undertaken jointly with China not to allow the application of force against the Iranian nuclear program.”
But despite these successes, the document suggests, “Russia all the same has not yet achieved the necessary level in order to stand up to American force.” And consequently, the confidential Muslim Brotherhood document suggests, those who support the Brotherhood’s goals need to reflect on what to do.
Specifically, it says that “one must think through a project of interaction with Russia. From this arises the necessity of increasing the political ties between Russia and the Muslim Brotherhoods in order to stand up to the American-Zionist plan, which considers the Islamic world as a target” rather than as something with which it can cooperate.
As Fal’kov points out, there are two intriguing aspects to this document: On the one hand, it calls for a “180-degree change in the traditional policy of the Muslim Brotherhoods toward Moscow,” a change that Fal’kov highlights by considering the anti-Russian actions of the Brotherhoods over the last 40 years.
But on the other, the document’s reference to expanding rather than creating such ties suggests, Fal’kov continues, that in fact Russian and perhaps earlier Soviet intelligence operatives had been involved with the Muslim Brotherhoods, even when the two sides were ideologically at daggers drawn.
It is of course far from clear whether this document is genuine. All those involved in its revelation and discussion have their own reasons for putting it out now. But its content is not implausible, and consequently, the changes it points to in Moscow’s relations with a group the Russian government says its opposes should ought to attract the closest scrutiny.
New York, September 1 – The Muslim Brotherhood, which dispatched fighters to defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan and more recently has been accused of supporting Chechen militants against Moscow, is now considering developing ties with Russia in order to oppose Israel and the United States, according to a report on a Russian-language Israeli website.
On August 23, Mikhail Fal’kov reports, a confidential document that had been prepared by the Muslim Brotherhood concerning the possibility that that group would develop ties with Russia in order to combat Israel and the US appeared on the Ammon News portal site in Arabic (www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=43953).
In his article on the Russian-language Israel portal Izrus.co.il, Fal’kov not only describes the contents of the document but provides context for what would be a remarkable – he calls it a “180-degree” – change in the direction of one of the most radically anti-Russian groups in the Muslim world (izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2009-08-30/6085.html).
Such a change would give Russia not only an additional lever in the Middle East and the Islamic world more generally, a lever Moscow may assume is its to command given American support for Israel, but also help Moscow deal with anti-Russian Islamic militants in the North Caucasus by depriving them of the support of a group that has long been on their side.
According to Fal’kov, a week ago, the Jordanian section of the Association of Muslim Brotherhoods was “practically paralyzed” as its leaders searched for “the traitor” who had leaked what he describes as “a secret document of extraordinary importance” that could cost the government its permitted status in Jordan because of its “anti-government character.”
The concerns of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership were all the greater because, as Fal’kov said a source in Israeli government had told him, the Jordanian intelligence service had been involved in the seizure of the document and had given it to the media for public dissemination and discussion.
The most interesting aspect of the document, Fal’kov continues, is its discussion of the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood might decide to cooperate with rather than oppose Moscow, a shift that if it took place could have major consequences not only in the Middle East but in Russia’s North Caucasus.
“Russia is trying to establish its former international status,” the document says, “and to return to a situation in which it was a balancing force in the international arena, as a counterweight to the United States. This is being done,” it continues, “with the use of forces” as in Georgia intended to weaken Washington’s probes against it.
The Muslim Brotherhood document also notes that “Russia has achieved serious success by means of its agreement with Iran about the transfer to it of resources, information and technology, and all of this is taking place in parallel with efforts undertaken jointly with China not to allow the application of force against the Iranian nuclear program.”
But despite these successes, the document suggests, “Russia all the same has not yet achieved the necessary level in order to stand up to American force.” And consequently, the confidential Muslim Brotherhood document suggests, those who support the Brotherhood’s goals need to reflect on what to do.
Specifically, it says that “one must think through a project of interaction with Russia. From this arises the necessity of increasing the political ties between Russia and the Muslim Brotherhoods in order to stand up to the American-Zionist plan, which considers the Islamic world as a target” rather than as something with which it can cooperate.
As Fal’kov points out, there are two intriguing aspects to this document: On the one hand, it calls for a “180-degree change in the traditional policy of the Muslim Brotherhoods toward Moscow,” a change that Fal’kov highlights by considering the anti-Russian actions of the Brotherhoods over the last 40 years.
But on the other, the document’s reference to expanding rather than creating such ties suggests, Fal’kov continues, that in fact Russian and perhaps earlier Soviet intelligence operatives had been involved with the Muslim Brotherhoods, even when the two sides were ideologically at daggers drawn.
It is of course far from clear whether this document is genuine. All those involved in its revelation and discussion have their own reasons for putting it out now. But its content is not implausible, and consequently, the changes it points to in Moscow’s relations with a group the Russian government says its opposes should ought to attract the closest scrutiny.
Window on Eurasia: Western Reaction Keeps Moscow from Annexing South Ossetia, Kokoity Says
Paul Goble
Vienna, September 1 – Eduard Kokoity, president of the breakaway republic of South Ossetia, says that he is “in principle” ready to have his country absorbed by the Russian Federation but that the near certainty that the West would accuse Moscow of both “annexation” and “imperialism” has put that project on hold at least for now.
In an interview published in “Itogi” yesterday, Kokoity said that his “republic is not ready to reject independence. But we want a union with Russia. Like the one which it has with Belarus,” adding in what would seem to be another contradiction but that shows how committed Kokoity remains to closer ties, that “the forms of union can be different.”
“The main thing,” he went on, “is that our border with Russia be more transparent, but for this, our southern frontiers must be strengthened. The question of the creation of a single Ossetia is not on the agenda,” although Kokoity said, “yes, we are in principle ready for this (www.itogi.ru/polit-tema/2009/36/143610.html).
“But just imagine,” the president of the partially recognized state continued, “what a storm would arise in the world” if any of those things were to happen anytime soon. “They would accuse Russia of annexation. But Russia does not want foreign territory, and we understand this.”
This is not the first time that Kokoity has spoken about this issue. Over the past year, he has said that he would like to see South Ossetia become part of the Russian Federation and even combined with North Ossetia. But in this interview, he was less definitive, reflecting what appears to be nervousness in Moscow over how the West would react.
In a comment to Kavkaz-uzel.ru yesterday, Gennady Kokoyev, a member of the Unity Fraction of the South Ossetian parliament, amplified on that point. He said “Russia is interested in strengthening the independence of South Ossetia” in order to “help it block accusations that [Moscow] suffers from imperial ambitions” (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/158720).
To that end, he said, “the cooperation of the two states based on equal rights is the most optimal variant.” Indeed, the deputy suggested, “the establishment of a democratic and legal state in South Ossetia” is in the interests of both the people of that republic and the government of the Russian Federation.
That is because such a state represents “a worthy answer to the negative attacks of the Western community which accuses [Moscow] of wanting to support a dictatorial regime.” Including South Ossetia within Russia’s borders now would be “counterproductive and impossible” but might be the subject of discussions “after about 100 to 150 years.”
Vissarion Aseyev, a political scientist in the region, agreed. He said that the possibility of including South Ossetia is “not being discussed at a serious political level.” Russia, he said, “does not need South Ossetia within its borders, because the incorporation [of that republic] would not be profitable for Russia and would contradict its interests.”
By raising this issue, Aseyev continued, Kokoity is playing with Moscow in much the same way Georgian President Mikhiel Saakashvili is playing with Washington. “Both presidents are using this method for the single goal of keeping themselves in power” rather than promoting broader national interests.
But Avdeyev said he very much “agrees with Kokoity that Russia will never regret that it recognized South Ossetia,” adding that as a result, the people of South Ossetia with the help of Russia will continue “to build a self-standing and independent state.” What will happen in the distant future is impossible to say.
Not everyone in South Ossetia agrees that the republic should ultimately seek to become part of the Russian Federation. Timur Tskhovrebov, who heads the independent opposition newspaper “21 Seculare,” said he remains “categorically against” such a move given the South Ossetian struggle for independence.
Whatever the attitudes of the people of South Ossetia on this score may be, Kokoity’s interview yesterday underlines the importance of what Western leaders say about South Ossetia’s situation. Their words, even if they do not and, indeed, cannot prevent all of Moscow’s actions, can restrain the behavior of the increasingly revisionist regime in the Russian capital.
Vienna, September 1 – Eduard Kokoity, president of the breakaway republic of South Ossetia, says that he is “in principle” ready to have his country absorbed by the Russian Federation but that the near certainty that the West would accuse Moscow of both “annexation” and “imperialism” has put that project on hold at least for now.
In an interview published in “Itogi” yesterday, Kokoity said that his “republic is not ready to reject independence. But we want a union with Russia. Like the one which it has with Belarus,” adding in what would seem to be another contradiction but that shows how committed Kokoity remains to closer ties, that “the forms of union can be different.”
“The main thing,” he went on, “is that our border with Russia be more transparent, but for this, our southern frontiers must be strengthened. The question of the creation of a single Ossetia is not on the agenda,” although Kokoity said, “yes, we are in principle ready for this (www.itogi.ru/polit-tema/2009/36/143610.html).
“But just imagine,” the president of the partially recognized state continued, “what a storm would arise in the world” if any of those things were to happen anytime soon. “They would accuse Russia of annexation. But Russia does not want foreign territory, and we understand this.”
This is not the first time that Kokoity has spoken about this issue. Over the past year, he has said that he would like to see South Ossetia become part of the Russian Federation and even combined with North Ossetia. But in this interview, he was less definitive, reflecting what appears to be nervousness in Moscow over how the West would react.
In a comment to Kavkaz-uzel.ru yesterday, Gennady Kokoyev, a member of the Unity Fraction of the South Ossetian parliament, amplified on that point. He said “Russia is interested in strengthening the independence of South Ossetia” in order to “help it block accusations that [Moscow] suffers from imperial ambitions” (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/158720).
To that end, he said, “the cooperation of the two states based on equal rights is the most optimal variant.” Indeed, the deputy suggested, “the establishment of a democratic and legal state in South Ossetia” is in the interests of both the people of that republic and the government of the Russian Federation.
That is because such a state represents “a worthy answer to the negative attacks of the Western community which accuses [Moscow] of wanting to support a dictatorial regime.” Including South Ossetia within Russia’s borders now would be “counterproductive and impossible” but might be the subject of discussions “after about 100 to 150 years.”
Vissarion Aseyev, a political scientist in the region, agreed. He said that the possibility of including South Ossetia is “not being discussed at a serious political level.” Russia, he said, “does not need South Ossetia within its borders, because the incorporation [of that republic] would not be profitable for Russia and would contradict its interests.”
By raising this issue, Aseyev continued, Kokoity is playing with Moscow in much the same way Georgian President Mikhiel Saakashvili is playing with Washington. “Both presidents are using this method for the single goal of keeping themselves in power” rather than promoting broader national interests.
But Avdeyev said he very much “agrees with Kokoity that Russia will never regret that it recognized South Ossetia,” adding that as a result, the people of South Ossetia with the help of Russia will continue “to build a self-standing and independent state.” What will happen in the distant future is impossible to say.
Not everyone in South Ossetia agrees that the republic should ultimately seek to become part of the Russian Federation. Timur Tskhovrebov, who heads the independent opposition newspaper “21 Seculare,” said he remains “categorically against” such a move given the South Ossetian struggle for independence.
Whatever the attitudes of the people of South Ossetia on this score may be, Kokoity’s interview yesterday underlines the importance of what Western leaders say about South Ossetia’s situation. Their words, even if they do not and, indeed, cannot prevent all of Moscow’s actions, can restrain the behavior of the increasingly revisionist regime in the Russian capital.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
