Putin Versus the Kremlin on the Potomac
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party scored an overwhelming victory in the country’s parliamentary elections last Sunday, winning almost two-thirds of the vote and 315 of the 450 seats in the Duma. The election was widely seen as a referendum on the past seven years of Putin’s leadership, and he scored a resounding victory. He will step down as Russia’s president next spring confident that he will continue to be the key player in the country—in whatever formal guise—for many years to come. Barring an act of God, four years from now he’ll be back for two more terms as president.
Putin is the most popular leader in Russian history, with a personal approval rating in excess of 80 percent. He can afford to mock the orchestrated Russophobic hate-fest that is raging in the Western media and the political class. He ridiculed George W. Bush for trying to cast doubt on the regularity of Russia’s elections while failing to take note of far worse abuses by the “pro-Western, reformist” Mikhail Saakashvili in Georgia.
The State Department bureaucracy’s impotent sneers notwithstanding, Putin was justified in limiting the number of foreign observers of the election. How many Russian monitors are on hand to check pregnant chards in Florida and dead souls on electoral rolls in Chicago? Russia is neither a banana republic nor a Western colony—to the everlasting chagrin of Messrs Soros, Brzezinski and their ilk—and the very notion of “monitors” was presumptuous. In any event, the presence of Western observers guarantees nothing: they were curiously loath to take note of rampant irregularities under Boris Yeltsin. Washington did not mind the pliant drunkard’s illegal dissolution of the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1993 and his use of tanks and artillery against legally elected representatives.
Putin is hated by the Western, and especially American, elite class. He is not loathed because he is not a Western-style “democrat”: far more obvious failures of such American “friends and allies” as General Musharraf, President Mubarak, or Prime Minister Erdogan (let alone King Abdullah), are tolerated and politely glossed over. Putin is hated, in general, because he does not subscribe to the Weltanschauung of the Western elite class, and in particular because, under his guidance, Russia has ceased to be up for grabs . . . like it was in the dreadful decade of the 1990s. As Mike Whitney notes, Freud might call it petroleum envy, but it’s deeper than that:
Putin has charted a course for social change that conflicts with basic tenets of neo-liberalism, which are the principles which govern US foreign policy. He is not a member of the corporate-banking brotherhood which believes the wealth of the world should be divided among themselves regardless of the suffering or destruction it may cause. Putin’s primary focus is Russia; Russia’s welfare, Russia’s sovereignty and Russia’s place in the world. He is not a globalist. That is why the Bush administration has encircled Russia with military bases, toppled neighboring regimes with its color-coded revolutions . . . organized by US NGOs and intelligence services, intervened in Russian elections, and threatened to deploy an (allegedly defensive) nuclear weapons system in Eastern Europe.
Since Russia is seen as a potential rival to American imperial ambitions, she must be contained or subverted. And the mainstream media, unsurprisingly, performed on cue: Putin is easily the most popular leader of a major country in today’s world, but the MSM treat him like a tyrannical dictator. At the same time the media lovingly devote endless column-inches and air time to a former chess player, Gary Kasparov, who is as representative of the Russian people today as Angela Davis had been of the American people during the late Cold War.
Viewed in light of U.S.-Russian relations over the past decade and a half, the U.S. posture on such issues as Kosovo, antiballistic missiles, oil pipelines and drilling rights, further NATO expansion, the breakaway enclaves, Central Asia, the Ukraine, Georgia, “human-rights violations” and “backtracking on democracy,” etc. reveals a stunning reversal of the two countries’ geopolitical and ideological roles.
The Soviet Union came into being as a revolutionary state that challenged any given status quo in principle, starting with the Comintern and ending three generations later with Afghanistan. Some of its aggressive actions and hostile impulses could be explained in light of “traditional” Russian motives, such as the need for security; at root, however, there was always an ideology unlimited in ambition and global in scope.
At first, the United States tried to appease and accommodate the Soviets (1943-1946), then moved to containment in 1947, and spent the next four decades building and maintaining essentially defensive mechanisms—such as NATO—designed to prevent any major change in the global balance. By the late 70’s, the system appeared to be faltering, especially in the Third World. And, as we know from his Diaries, only three years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Ronald Reagan was far from certain that Moscow’s expansionist days were over.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been trying to articulate her goals and define her policies in terms of national interests: peace and prosperity at home, stable domestic institutions, secure borders, friendly neighbors. The old Soviet dual-track policy of having “normal” relations with America, on the one hand, while seeking to subvert her, on the other, gave way to naive attempts by Boris Yeltsin’s foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev to forge a “partnership” with the United States.
By contrast, the early 1990’s witnessed the beginning of America’s strident attempt to assert her status as the only global “hyperpower.” This ambition was inherently inimical to post-Soviet stabilization and kept Washington from entertaining the suggestion that Russia might, in fact, have legitimate interests in her own post-Soviet backyard. The justification for the project was as ideological, and the implications were as revolutionary, as anything concocted by Zinoviev or Trotsky in their heyday.
In essence, the United States adopted her own dual-track approach. When Mikhail Gorbachev’s agreement was needed for German reunification, President George H.W. Bush gave a firm and public promise that NATO wound not move eastward. Within years, however, Bill Clinton expanded NATO to include all the former Warsaw Pact countries of Central Europe. In The Russia Hand, Strobe Talbott chillingly summarized how Washington took advantage of Russia’s weakness. On a visit to Moscow in 1996, Clinton even wondered if he had gone too far, confiding to Talbot, “We keep telling Ol’ Boris, ‘Okay, now here’s what you’ve got to do next—here’s some more [sh-t] for your face.’” Another round of NATO expansion came under Bush II, when three former Soviet Baltic republics were admitted. The process is far from over: last April Mr. Bush signed the Orwellian-sounding NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007, which extends U.S. military assistance to such aspiring NATO members as Georgia and the Ukraine.
The rationale for NATO’s continued existence after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union was found in the revolutionary concept of “humanitarian intervention” used against the Serbs in 1999 and in the self-awarded mandate to conduct “out-of-area operations.” In practice this means that NATO is the means of tightening a hostile noose around Russia. Further expansion, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski—an atavistic Russophobe par excellence—is “mandatory, historically mandatory, geopolitically desirable.”
In the wake of September 11, President Bush talked Russia into sanctioning the U.S. military’s presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but then, in the name of the “War on Terror,” tried to make that presence permanent. The following year, President Bush unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty. His goal was to push forward elements of the U.S. antiballistic missile system closer to Russia’s borders. His claim that radar stations in Poland or Bohemia will help save the West from ICBMs coming from Iran is ludicrous.
The collapse of Russia’s state institutions and social infrastructure under Yeltsin, accompanied by a hyperinflation that reduced the middle class and pensioners to penury, was a trauma of incomparably greater magnitude than the Great Depression. Yet its architects—Anatoly Chubais, Yegor Gaidar, Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Ryzhkov—were hailed in Washington as “pro-Western reformers,” and their political factions and media outlets were duly supported by the U.S. taxpayers, by way of a network of quasi-NGOs, just as the terminally unpopular Kasparov is supported by the same cabal today.
The wholesale robbery of Russian resources by the Moscow oligarchs and the fire sale of drilling concessions to the oligarchs’ Western cohorts became a contentious issue in U.S.-Russian relations only a decade later, with the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Those spewing furious allegations of “Putin’s revenge” and “heavy-handedness” against the Yukos boss disregarded the fact that, quite apart from his political ambitions, Khodorkovsky was guilty of fraud and tax evasion on a massive scale.
Although there was not an iota of evidence that Anna Politkovskaya, a little-known and largely irrelevant “pro-Western” journalist, was killed on Putin’s orders, the U.S. media immediately jumped to that conclusion when she was shot in November 2006. By contrast, when a nationalist opposition leader was gunned down last May in “pro-Western” NATO candidate Georgia—the fiefdom of Mr. Bush’s good friend Mikhail Saakashvili—the event was ignored here and barely mentioned in Europe. When Mr. Saakashvili subsequently deployed baton-wielding riot police against his detractors, the ugly spectacle was glossed over or ignored.
While never missing an opportunity to hector Russia on democracy and criticize her human-rights record, the United States has been notably silent on the discriminatory treatment of large Russian minorities in the former Soviet republics. In Latvia and Estonia, the Russians are subjected to arguably the worst treatment of any minority group by a member of the European Union or (with the exception of Turkey) of NATO. The demonstrations in Estonia against the government’s provocative removal of a Russian World War II memorial from Tallinn were but a symptom of a deeper malaise. Latvia and Estonia have been allowed by the West flagrantly to break promises made to their Russian citizens before independence.
Absurdly yet persistently Washington continues to view Russia as a temporary state with limited sovereignty even within her post-Soviet borders. Chechnya is the obvious example: The White House routinely condemned Russian “violations” while demanding “dialogue” and studiously refrained from designating the Chechen child-slayers as “terrorists”; but no other aspect of Russia’s domestic policies, from education (“ethnocentric”) and immigration (“restrictive”) to homosexual rights (“appalling”) and jurisprudence (“corrupt”), has escaped scathing criticism. On the eve of his G-8 meeting with Putin last May, Mr. Bush declared that “reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development.” The theme was subsequently developed into a veritable Agitprop ritual that starts on NPR in the morning and ends on Fox News in the evening.
Both sides of the American duopoly agree that a “democratic” Russia is by definition the one completely subservient, domestically as well as externally, to U.S. demands. George Soros warns that “a strong central government in Russia cannot be democratic” by definition and further says that “Russia’s general public must accept the ideology of an open society.” The neocons agree. Of course, “democracy” thus defined has more to do with one’s status in the ideological pecking order than with the expressed will of one’s electorate—which meshes nicely with the Leninist dictum that the moral value of any action is determined by its contribution to the march of history. To wit, Putin’s approval rating of 80 percent is the “proof” of his populist demagoguery.
On current form things will remain the same, or become worse, whoever comes to the White House in January 2009. All leading candidates advocate “firmness” of some kind or another with Moscow. There’s nothing to choose between Rudy Giuliani and the insane John McCain, who’d try to force Putin to surrender to Chechen jihadists by threatening U.S. sanctions. Richard Holbrooke, the Democrats’ perennial Secretary of State-designate, wants a firm response to “a series of Russian challenges to the stability of Europe,” such as the refusal to accept Kosovo’s independence. He decries Putin’s “increasingly authoritarian, often brutal, policies” and cautions that, “until President Bush weighs in strongly with Putin (as President Bill Clinton did a decade ago with Boris Yeltsin), there is a serious risk Moscow will not get the message.”
Moscow does get the message all right. It has countered American scheming in the Caspian region with the summit in Tehran last October that drastically reduced Bush’s ability to wage a new war. Russia is developing a new gas alliance with Central Asian producers. It has successfully tested a new nuclear missile. It will veto Kosovo’s illegal and illegitimate independence, today and always—and the responsibility for any violent fallout will be with those who had promised the Albanians that which is not theirs to give.
On current form Russia will be developing gigantic new oil fields in the Arctic when Americans start paying ten dollars—the equivalent of three or four Euros—per gallon at the pump. And, in the end, Russia will survive, says Anthony T. Salvia, a former senior official in the Reagan administration. This former proud Cold Warrior now sees that Russia has no choice but to stand up to America:
Sooner or later, U.S. foreign policy will collide with reality—it may already have done so in Iraq—and Washington, shorn of its ideological blinkers, will finally embrace the foreign policy imperative of the 21st century: Solidarity and strategic cooperation between the United States, Europe and Russia on the basis of their shared Christian moral, intellectual and cultural traditions. This is the way forward in the face of profound challenges from a rising China and resurgent Islam.
Or, as I’ve been saying ever since September 11, it’s time for a true Northern Alliance that can defeat the menace of global jihad once and for all. But before that becomes possible we’ll need a revolution to sweep away the Comrades from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by roho on 8 December 2007:
Awesome description of the future of “Mother Russia’s New Nationalism” and “America’s Corporate Global Sell Out”!………….If American Presidents were as intrested in the welfare and future of their citizens as Putin is for his, we might have a chance……….But, Putin refuses to be the “Whore Of Globalism”, and continues to make decisions in the best intrest of his people…………….Our politicians just want their corporate donations!
2 Comment by Chance Gardner on 8 December 2007:
ditto roho – this dittoing is nice – i prefer it … it could become habit forming. then i can go on autopilot and sleep zzzzzzzzz…
putin for president (of the u.s. too) – Believe it or not – That’s MORE patriotic! zzzzzzzzz… (wake me up when it’s not.) – no, don’t wake me for false-flags … deal with it.
_____________________________
3 Comment by Daniel on 8 December 2007:
I will have to disagree in part with your article Mr. Trifkovic. While Washington is of course attempting to treat Russia as a defeated nation to be dictated to, Russia still tries to exert influence over the former Soviet states like that of a colonial master. In some ways, it is worse than how we behave with our own ‘pro-western’ puppet states.
4 Comment by Chance Gardner on 8 December 2007:
not really… it’s like canada & mexico… daniel think in terms of how we treat cuba. but your observation has its own merit, too. it’s in this case a question of degrees… that’s the/this world a world of degrees. – don’t lose belief by what you think – or you’ll become endorphin depleted in the head/body… so go with it for whatever it is… and then do the next on the road to wisdom… (& heaven) …it has seven levels – probably one of them you can even arrive at herein – then the ’second’ death has no meaning…
see – i’m out —– there
too. why not?
keep those endorphins going kid… why not?
_____
5 Comment by lee on 8 December 2007:
Daniel — “In some ways, it is worse than how we behave with our own ‘pro-western’ puppet states.”– have you looked at our relations with Central America over the last century? Do you know how many people and how much property and how many public officials we have corrupted or tried to in Columbia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, etc? Wake up!
6 Comment by Stevan Todorcevic on 8 December 2007:
I would like someone to explain why US gas prices are 3 times less than that of Europe. I mean, oil is purchased usually from OPEC countries so how does US keep it’s oil prices so low.
Thank you in advance
7 Comment by Trifkovic on 8 December 2007:
GAS in the U.S. used to be up to 3 times cheaper than in Europe. The gap is far narrower now: it’s cca 1 Euro a liter in most of Europe or 4 Euros, i.e. $6 a gallon. It is, therefore, less than twice as expensive as in the U.S. The gap is entirely due to government policy. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost in Norway (which is awash in its own North Sea oil!) and the Netherlands.
8 Comment by Jimmy on 8 December 2007:
I never understood the Western stance in the Kosovo-conflict. Thank God, I didn’t.
The West was and is wrong.
9 Comment by Jimmy on 8 December 2007:
Trifkovic is right. Us Dutchies pay way to much for our own gas.
10 Comment by W. Shedd on 8 December 2007:
But, Putin refuses to be the “Whore Of Globalism”, and continues to make decisions in the best intrest of his people
Umm – sorry to be the one to point this out, but Putin is no populist. He still represents the rich and the powerful in Russia. To kid yourself into believing that he is deeply interested in the best interest of the Russia people is simply silly.
The best you can say about his economic policies for Russia’s people is that a “rising tide floats all ships.” However, there are so many needs in Russia that are not being addressed, from basic infrastructure like roads and trains and airports, to import/export laws, to ridiculous travel and property ownership restrictions in Russia, to water and sewage treatment, to industrial pollution, to ridiculous and backwards tax laws, to military reform, to crime and corruption. It’s a long list and you aren’t and won’t see Putin making grand steps to change these things.
Instead, he’s helping enrich his super-rich friends, making plans for new ski resorts, concerned about plans to build an island off the coast of Sochi, making sharp-tongued accusations towards “the West” to make himself appear tough, and posing without his shirt while fishing.
Russia has been resurgent financially during his tenure as the Russian president, but don’t paint him as a populist. There is a reason why the satirical nickname of Yedinaya Rossiya (United Russia) is Yedim Rossiyu (we eat Russia.)
11 Comment by Michael Averko on 8 December 2007:
Mr. Shedd & Co:
The situation of a choice few controlling assets and using them dubiously was more evident during the Yeltsin era. This is why Putin is the people’s choice in Russia. This isn’t to say that the points you make aren’t evident. They clearly are. For clarity sake, they should be seen in relationship to what had been in existence. Russia is still finding its way and other countries like ours have room for improvement as well.
Russia remains at a critical stage. Historically, it seems to often perform well against great odds, only to fall short of expectation after it seemingly gets over the hump. Kind of like the pre-’04 Red Sox.
12 Comment by Michael Averko on 8 December 2007:
post 3 excerpt:
“While Washington is of course attempting to treat Russia as a defeated nation to be dictated to, Russia still tries to exert influence over the former Soviet states like that of a colonial master. In some ways, it is worse than how we behave with our own ‘pro-western’ puppet states.”
****
Actually, the US is ahead of Russia 2-nil, on post-Soviet attacks of other countries.
Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Georgia and some of the Orange Guard in Ukraine are far from being innocent.
The US has a claimed basis for its continued economic embargo on Cuba and Britain uses its “Commonwealth” clout to influence Zimbabwe and Pakistan. Rather than note this, many are quick to hypocritically put Russia under their warped political microscope.
13 Comment by Daniel on 8 December 2007:
Guys, guys I was not arguing that the US has some kind of moral high ground. But Russia is at least nearly as guilty. (I do believe the situation would be the same be it Putin or someone else in charge in Moscow)
On the other hand I do think Putin is right to scorn the US-backed ‘regime changes’ in old Soviet Republics as the ‘color coded revolutions’ reeks of something straight from the play book of Allen Dulles.
14 Comment by Pappy on 8 December 2007:
What I can say, except thank you Dr. Trifkovic, once again a thought provoking and a well written article, and pretty much to the point.
I got a feeling Putin is not done yet with the comrades from the Kremlin on the Potomac. But I think it will take some drastic measures by Russia to get US, EU, but especially Germany in line, all trying to flex their misguided anemic political as well as military muscles, the drastic measure would be to arm Serbia to the teeth, send a clear message now, draw a line in the sand or face the consequences, set up interceptor missiles in Serbia to counter those scheduled to be installed interceptor missiles in Poland and Czech Republic. Do what Gorbachev or Yeltsin could not; force NATO into nonexistence, but perhaps this is my wishful thinking, but the world would be much better off without NATO or EU, just my two cents.
15 Comment by Michael Averko on 8 December 2007:
There might not be a need for those measures Pappy. There’re folks within the US & EU establishments who recognize that Russia and Serbia have some valid points.
It’s not a case of Moscow and Belgrade being anti-Western. Being anti-Soros/anti-neocon isn’t necessarily anti-West. Russia, Serbia and the West need each other.
Daniel, refer to this recent article by M. Zuckerman:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2007/12/06/has-russia-left-the-west_print.htm
When considering the source, this is a very reasoned article, albeit with somewhat misguided biases. MZ says what some others (ahem) have been saying all along. For many, it doesn’t become official before an elitny says so.
16 Comment by Leo on 9 December 2007:
Excellent article and great follow up from all correspondents.The recovery and rise of the Orthodox churches and peoples may be the only good news Europe has gotten recently.Can the writer comment on this in a future article? On another matter,it is openly ridiculous that our United States with its closed “two” party system, and rife with corrupt,fraudulent and often just incompetent elections is lecturing Russia on voting irregularities and access.
17 Comment by Donald on 9 December 2007:
Bravo Srdja!
It is a joke for the press in the US to ridicule the Russian election. The system in this country is corrupt. But the politicians are well practiced at hiding it.
18 Comment by Chris on 10 December 2007:
>At first, the United States tried to appease and
>accommodate the Soviets (1943-1946), then moved
>to containment in 1947, and spent the next four
>decades building and maintaining essentially defensive
>mechanisms—such as NATO—designed to prevent
>any major change in the global balance.
It appears that it was Russia that contained the US. While Russia’s need to expand would have been more ideological, the US’ need to expand was of necessity.
In a recent example, the reason the US didn’t go all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War was because of uncertainty as to what the Soviets would do. Even GHW Bush and Wolfowitz admitted this. Of course, the Russians had bigger problems at the time as the USSR was falling apart.
Wesley Clarke mentions in his memoir that Wolfowitz admitted to him explicitly after the first Gulf War and after the USSR fell apart that the US had a unique opportunity to accomplish its geo-strategic goals without being contained by Russia as it had been since WWII. Yes, Russia contained the US, not the other way around.
19 Comment by 1389 on 10 December 2007:
Story submitted to StumbleUpon – please give it a thumbs-up!
20 Comment by DJGB Popadich on 10 December 2007:
Archangels March – 1915
At the end of Nineteen-fourteenth the intruder sank. Caesar’ Army melts on the boggy road. Cast of the boots set far away: the spiked grenadier took over the slot. They maimed more than a hundred thousand.
Guardians, many got ill. A million lost to the peril of the Great War. Many fell to the Moloch’s step. Misery had just set – a queer hat.
Heaven, … Cry, … Help, … and they raced from the known world. Many a lady, husband and wife, daughter, sister and a kin – gracious as they were: seven hundred of them. They shared the risk with the needy. They lay across their hand.
Under the threes, near to the lilac, stand a stone, … a candle, and a wreath. “To those that rest in quiet”, at the godly shore – the church bell tolls, Amen.
Tread by tread, who live must depart. To the river-spring, to the hills-peak, … and again, … and again, … through the blizzard they charted a pat to the merciful sea. For every yard they payed a fee to the vulture – an ignorant creature hiding in the dusk – behind the bush, to slam at the back.
Mother, oh mother, … who to hear the farewell pray? Yet, they ought to carry on – mark of ages, tag on the Sorb’ head. In spite of odds, with heaven’s help to the briny and yonder, they orderly march: flock of the Sixty Thousand, Amen.
21 Comment by robert m. peters on 10 December 2007:
There are those who post on this thread with far greater knowledge in these matters than I; thus, I would invite your corrections, amendments and admonitions to my speculations, born of the faint light which pentrates the darkness of my ignorance on this issue.
It seems to me that the Europeans are caught, if but somewhat, between an ever waning allegiance to the Westphalian Order, i.e. the sovereinty of states – in this case Serbia, and the more Wilsonian notion of the self-determination of peoples, i.e. the Alabanian majority in a region of the state of Serbia. In the latter, the Europeans are full behind the notion of the numerial majority and give no thought to concurrent majority, that quaint but important insight of Calhouns’, within the region of Kosovo; for if they did, they would have to acknowledge the voice of the Serbs in Kosovo.
The Americans – that is the nomenclatura, the clique of elites which run the general government and direct our foreign policy – give, of course, no thought to the Westphalian Order whatsoever – as Wilson did not – and are actually interested in the voice of people only in so far as it can be an instrument of deconstructing the existing order which impeds the American agenda.
It would therefore seem that the Europeans want to salvage at least the facade of the Westphalian Order by appealing to the “authority” of the U.N. There, however, it would also seem awaits their asipirations a resounding Russian “Nyet!” One would anticipate that the Americas will attempt, without the Russians in the U.N. context, to bring about “Kosovo’s independence” by fiat, i.e. through some bayonet constitution creating a government recognized by a “coalition of the willing,” dragging the Europeans along with carrots and sticks. Of couse, perhaps I am totatlly wrong and the Europeans are as willing as the Americans to do it by fiat.
I suppose that the Europeans hope that elements within the Serbian government will blink and let the camel get his nose under the tent so that the Europeans can claim that Kosovo was willingly ceded by Serbia, thereby maintaining the facade of the Westphalian Order.
What if, however, the Serbs do not blink; there is no U.N. “solution,” and the Americans press forward for independence by fiat? What are Russia’s options, assuming that Putin does not want to blink? Is there still a realistic option to maintain the integrity of the Serbian state with Kosovo short of war or bringing us to the brink of war? What would those options be if they exist?
22 Comment by Bill Wilder on 10 December 2007:
While generally a good article as a leaven to the popular media, it lacks balance. It veers between Putin’s wonderful accomplishments and the evil West. Unfortunately, Chronicles Slavo-philia compromises its ability to provide an “American” vision of relations with Russia.
Certainly, the popular view of Putin harms our ability to form a relationship with Russia that would be in our national interests. I’m afraid, though, that Dr. Trifkovic does not aid in that matter either by presenting articles that ignore the cult of personality Mr. Putin cultivates in Russia or his myopic pursuit of “national greatness” through oil wealth (a la Chavez), rather than developing his country. (Are there no matters on which US and Russian interests conflict? None?)
If the US has wrong-headedly pursued a policy of conflict with Russia, Mr. Putin has done little to defuse that conflict by showing it is one-sided.
23 Comment by Michael Kenny on 10 December 2007:
The practical problem with a Christian “EURUSA” Northern Alliance is what to do with the literally millions of non-Christians who live in the three entities. If society is defined as narrowly “Christian”, then such people have no place in our societies, but where are they to go? And does anybody imagine that they would go quietly? To take but the most obvious example, does anybody really imagine that the Jews in their millions would meekly pull up sticks and leave for some unspecified destination just so that we could have a Christian society? To say nothing of the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights, which binds both Russia and the EU, would prohibit their expulsion.
Idem for the ethnic European Muslims. Driving them from their ancestral homelands would amount to genocide and, of course, would fly in the face of the fundamental logic of the integration of all Europeans which underlies the EU.
The “Northern Alliance” is a pipedream which badly needs to collide with reality!
24 Comment by Trifkovic on 10 December 2007:
Re. #22 (“If the US has wrong-headedly pursued a policy of conflict with Russia, Mr. Putin has done little to defuse that conflict by showing it is one-sided”) — that is simply not true. Please check out:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=366
Lavrov was censored for trying to do that very thing!
Re. “Northern Alliance”: most Jews and other non-Muslims would welcome it; and in any event those Muslim immigrants who subscribe to the Sharia, to Sura 9 verse 5, and to the everlasting example of their “prophet” should leave those infidel lands they have infiltrated over the past three decades.
25 Comment by Bill Wilder on 10 December 2007:
Dr. Trifkovic,
I missed that article. You are right that it is a cogent statement by the Russian gov’t in favor of cooperative relations and avoiding conflict. I have to retract my statement.
I wonder what it was that Foreign Affairs did not like?
P.S. My use of “slavo-philia” may have appeared pejorative. It was not intended as such, but merely descriptive. Given the mass hostility to Russia, Serbia and other slavic nations in the US press, one journal’s sympathy hardly starts to balance the scales.
26 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 10 December 2007:
It seems the Arnauts are getting their way:
From today’s http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/071B4074-8DED-478F-989A-D2625CBA3199.htm :
“… Foreign ministers from the 27-nation bloc said on Monday that they were close to reaching a common position on the province’s future.
“We will move to unity today,” Luis Amado, Portugal’s foreign minister, said as he arrived to chair the talks.
At least four states – Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia and Spain – are hesitant to recognise a unilateral declaration of independence, in part because of the precedent it might set for other separatist movements.
But only Cyprus has refused outright …
… The United States also pledged to work closely with its partners …”
(P.S. A good measure of the hare-brained “serbsforbush.com” and similar “ideas”.)
27 Comment by Trifkovic on 10 December 2007:
Re. E.U. “UNITY” — don’t fall for this piece of the pro-KLA Agitprop dezinformatsiya, but check out this morning’s http://www.tasr.sk/30.axd?k=20071210TBB00489
Fico: Slovakia Won’t Recognise Kosovo’s Unilaterally-Declared Independence
Ostrava, December 10 (TASR-SLOVAKIA) – The Slovak Government will do its utmost to see that the EU standpoint on Kosovo is unambiguous and helps stabilise the region, according to Prime Minister Robert Fico.
Speaking after an informal meeting of the prime ministers of the Visegrad Four (V4) countries and Slovenia in Ostrava in the Czech Republic on Monday, Fico said that for the Slovak Government it will be extremely difficult to recognise Kosovo as an independent state if it unilaterally declares independence. Instead, Slovakia would like to see decisions discussed with the relevant international organisations and that agreements involve key foreign players.
“The worst case scenario is that two groups of EU countries will oppose each other on the status of Kosovo,” said Fico. He stressed that for Slovakia it’s important to ensure that solving the Kosovo issue doesn’t serve to influence co-existence with ethnic minorities elsewhere.
**************************************************
Slovakia adamant on Kosovo stance
7 December 2007 | 21:45 -> 22:17
BRATISLAVA — Even a coordinated declaration of Kosovo’s independence, recognized by most EU countries, is unacceptable to Slovakia.
This transpired from an interview given today by that country’s foreign minister, Jan Kubiš, to the SME agency in Bratislava.
He warned that even a coordinated proclamation of a unilaterally declared Kosovo independence, which would then be recognized by the majority of EU member states, “makes no difference as far as Slovakia is concerned”, and would still be viewed by Bratislava as “unacceptable, risky, and one-sided”.
“It makes absolutely no difference. It would still be a unilateral move, and we are saying that unilateral moves are unacceptable for us,” Kubiš was resolute.
The chief of Slovakian diplomacy stressed that his country would prove to be short-sighted if it viewed the Kosovo status issue only through the interests of Belgrade and Priština, and added that Slovakia is not “Serbia’s advocate”.
“Our priority interest is not to simply defend the interests of Serbia or Kosovo. That is up to them, they must be able to come up with an agreement,” Kubiš said.
28 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 10 December 2007:
“… Re. E.U. “UNITY” — don’t fall for this piece of the pro-KLA Agitprop dezinformatsiya …”
You are right. The proverbial fat lady has not sung yet.
One can hope for the endurance of the Slovak stand. And for the favorable resolution of the all-important Russian equation.
29 Comment by Eagle on 10 December 2007:
Dr. Trifkovic,
Can you comment on two countries and their official stance towards Serbia in general and Kosovo in particular?
The first of the two would be Greece. It strikes me that the vast majority of Greeks tend to sympathize with Serbs and that their position would be staunch opposition to Albanian irredentism. Yet, I don’t sense a strong position from their government. Much like 1999, it seems Greece is preparing to acquiesce to Brussels. There is a story told that the Greek government attempted to be a part of the military action against Serbia back in 1999 by unloading a NATO supply ship in the dead of night in one of its remote ports. Its efforts were thwarted by its own citizens when most of the locals, pitchfork-wielding old women included, showed up to block the docks. Does the Greek government represent popular opinion at home and what is its official stance on Serbia’s membership bid for the EU and the Kosovo situation?
The second is Macedonia. I have read that Skopje is backing Kosovo independence. If that is the case – why? One would think that a neighboring Orthodox Christian nation threatened by the very same Albanian factions would sympathize with the Serbs and show some solidarity. Instead, Macedonia has consistently taken an anti-Belgrade stance since the 1990s. Does it have to do with remnants of Bulgarian nationalism to which some Macedonians aspire. One of their former prime ministers did, afterall, seek and receive Bulgarian citizenship. Even so, how could this serve the Bulgarian faction well? Would not Bulgarians be Orthodox Christians and supportthe Serbs and Serbian autonomy over sacred Church territory? Is it over disputes over church autonomy in Macedonia? The fact that Constantinople and the wider community of bishops is not granting autocephalous status? Is it fear of the domestic Albanian constituency and the violenece that they may once again unleash on Macedonia? It does not add up.
Both these countries continue to surprise me a great deal with regard to their relationship with Serbia. But then again, if Serbian Montenegro can be persuaded to part ways with its brothers across the mountain range, then I guess nothing should surprise me when it comes to dismembering Serbia and creating chaos in the Balkans (two things that historically go hand-in-hand contrary to what the powers and communist (mis)handlers have tended to proclaim).
30 Comment by Boba on 10 December 2007:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Re: EU “Unity”
===
Czech foreign minister warns against one-sided move on Kosovo
Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg has said it would be imprudent for ethnic Albanian leaders to declare Kosovo’s independence ahead of an agreement. Mr. Schwarzenberg issued the warning at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Portugal where they are trying to forge a united front on the future of Kosovo. …
====
Also:
Cyprus will not consent to Kosovo’s secession
NICOSIA, Dec. 10 (Xinhua) — The Cypriot government reaffirmed on Monday its opposition to any possible unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, fearing such a move will have an negative impact on the future of the ethnically divided island.
The semi-official Cyprus News Agency quoted government spokesman Vassilis Palmas as saying that Cyprus, a European Union (EU) member state, will never consent to a secession and recognition of Kosovo.
He stressed that any settlement should be based on international law and U.N. Security Council decisions concerning secessionist acts.
“God forbid that Cyprus should agree, even if the rest of the EU decides to recognize the independence of Kosovo, even if there are reactions to our behavior,” said the spokesman.
If Cyprus agrees on Kosovo’s secession, Palmas explained, the unilateral way that Kosovo pursues would cause problems to the Cyprus case. ….
31 Comment by Ben on 10 December 2007:
Re #29, Eagle,
These are excellent questions.
Sadly, the sharp dichotomy between the will of the people and that of their government is not unique, even among nation-states. (Not to mention those that are not, such as the U.S., where “popular will” is largely a figment of statistics.) Self interests of the ruling classes (capitalist or any “ist”) at work.
32 Comment by Michael Averko on 10 December 2007:
This evening’s one hour long BBC America feature with Matt Frei was horrid.
The Kosovo segment started off with Frei saying that NATO bombed Slobodan Milosevic. Really? He survived unlike the hundreds of others during that 78 day action.
Alan Little proceeded to carry on as a pundit masquerading as a reporter. He uncritically accepted the lie that the KLA was a response to (in his view) oppressive Serb actions. Stated examples of Albanian victims was mentioned with no mention of non-Albanian ones. The segment ended with Little’s confidently stated claim that Kosovo will become independent.
33 Comment by Trifkovic on 11 December 2007:
The notion that the “Coalition” went to Iraq to battle jihad would be funny were it not so perniciously jihad-friendly.
34 Comment by Chance Gardner on 11 December 2007:
i’m glad bill wilder recanted, Trifkovic… bill’s – from my read of him over time – a sharp not a dull tool, and proved it once again with his humility. you never cease to amaze me Dr. T. – but since you have a singular area of expertise (at least in terms of what you discuss on this site) i would expect nothing less. keep Up the good work!
(sorry – i like to have fun too… forgive me?)
i wear – the Bells. !!!!!
______
35 Comment by Martin on 11 December 2007:
Dr. Trifkovic,
Excellent article; bravo.
The behaviour of the British government, which happens to be my own, towards Russian democracy has, in recent years, been appalling. For a professional diplomat, Anthony Brenton, HMG’s clownish ambassador to Moscow, takes a most partisan and undiplomatic stance towards internal matters of Russian politics which, by any historical standard, are none of either his or our business. He should be sacked forthwith.
Our continued harbouring of the mad dog Boris Berezovsky, a savage whose threats to overthrow Russia’s democracy by force show that he will always be a savage regardless of how much good PR Lord Tim Bell can buy him from Edward Lucas and ‘The Daily Telegraph’, in his Mayfair kennel is a slap in the face towards not only the government but also the people of what should be a friendly foreign power. At least, there’s now no reason for them not to be friendly; but it’s doubtful how much patience the Russians will continue to show for their choice of leaders constantly being undermined by the globalist totalitarian ideology spewed out by so-called ‘Western’ media. One never sees any mention of Berezovsky’s name in the British press in connection with the death of Paul Klebnikov, the American editor of ‘Forbes Russia’. It doesn’t matter what nationality you are – if you cross Berezovsky you seem to end up dead. Perhaps it will take the death in Britain of a British critic of Berezovsky’s to make the British government sit up and take notice. The man is an animal; worse than a beast.
I mean, it’s not even as if our own elections are perfect The elections to the Scottish Parliament of May 3 2007 were an outstanding, Latin American botch.
There are plenty of things about Russia which could be better; the continued influence of ‘The Grandfathers’ in the Russian military; it wasn’t necessary for Putin to sell arms to Venezuela; and so on. But at least they’re trying, and they’ll do it their own way, in their time.
36 Comment by edward lucas on 12 December 2007:
I am amazed that anyone thinks that I am pro Berezovsky.
http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2007/07/berezovsky.html
should dispel any such illusion. Incidentally, the allegation that I take money from Lord Bell is highly defamatory to both of us and would risk an expensive libel action if you made it in a British context. May I suggest that the hosts of this blog withdraw it?
Regards
Edward
37 Comment by Martin on 12 December 2007:
“Incidentally, the allegation that I take money from Lord Bell is highly defamatory to both of us and would risk an expensive libel action if you made it in a British context. ”
Well, it hasn’t been made in a British context, so the libel jackboot doesn’t work- but as I am the author of the original comment, and as you state that you haven’t taken money from either Berezovsky or Bell, then I am prepared to accept your assurance and apologise for any inconvenience/distress/whatever caused to you or anyone else as a result.
Satisfied? Is this enough, or do we have to do this the hard way?
38 Comment by Martin on 12 December 2007:
Dr. Trifkovic,
I would be obliged if you could remove my previous comment.
39 Comment by Michael Averko on 12 December 2007:
Chill out Edward. Reference the crap posted about some others in cyber. A good number of them don’t have the luxury of a high priced esq. to represent their concerns. This point relates to the lack of freedom in English language mass media.
40 Comment by Michael Averko on 12 December 2007:
BTW, for clarity sake, this is a web magazine as opposed to a blog.
41 Comment by Timothy Page on 12 December 2007:
I do not support the Russia/Slavic-first position of this author. He seeks to bring us into conflict with China, for what other reason than Russia views China as it’s natural enemy? But is China America’s natural enemy? No.
42 Comment by Michael Averko on 12 December 2007:
Of late, Zbigniew Brzezinski has been saying that Russia will eventually tilt to the West out of developed future differences with China.
That remains to be seen.
During the Cold War, Brzezinski was willing to use China against the USSR.
In a certain sense, he doesn’t see Russia as a continuation of the USSR.
43 Comment by Idetrorce on 15 December 2007:
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce