Dear all -
As you know, my main interest is religion & Biblical scholarship, nor politics, and I seldom, if ever, would allow myself to re-post here anything what wasn't originally written by myself. But this article is an exception, because it does deal with what is one of my primary concerns - my country, my Rodina, as we call it, and its image in the eyes of another nations of the world. This is something I hold very close to my heart - especially considering the fact that the love and pride with which I bear the name "Russian" would never make me blind to the real problems my country has to face. Nor it would prompt me to apply double standards where its interests are concerned. I can only add from myself that with most of the author's insights and conclusions I tend to agree, and his opinion about the present state of Russian public opinion is, unfortunately, very close to truth. So, please, my dear friends worldwide, feel free to read, comment and judge for yourselves....
Blesisngs & best wishes - S.
__________________________________
Why Moscow Doesn't Have a Lot of Friends
By Georgy Bovt
Some members of Moscow's political establishment considered the recent NATO summit in Bucharest a partial victory since Georgia and Ukraine were not invited to join the alliance. But far from saying "no," NATO promised that these countries would eventually become members.
But the main questions for Moscow are: Why are two members of the Commonwealth of Independent States so eager to join NATO? Why do our allies want to establish closer ties with the West? Why does the prospect of better relations with Russia hold so little appeal?
Russia currently has only two staunch allies among CIS countries. The first is Armenia -- a country that is going through difficult economic times, is dependent upon Russia for its energy supplies and has chilly relations with most of its other neighbors. Russia's other ally is Belarus, a rogue state ruled by a dictator with whom even Moscow sometimes has difficulty maintaining a dialogue.
The Kremlin has a few theories as to why the former Soviet republics find NATO membership so appealing. The most popular explanation is the conspiracy theory. This scenario has the United States continuing its Cold War struggle for global influence by displacing Russia as the dominant player in the CIS region. According to this theory, Washington wins the favor of the political elite in the republics and then foments color revolutions against Moscow to prevent it from regaining power. Conspiracy theorists believe that the United States' main objective is to seize Russia's limitless natural resources and take direct control of the country, or else to exercise indirect control by reducing Russia to an "appendage of the West" that submissively supplies it with raw materials.
According to this theory, the foreign policy of the United States and its allies reflects a single aim: to encroach upon Russia using every weapon in its arsenal -- propaganda, economic pressure and even direct military intervention.
A competing theory holds that the political elite in the former Soviet republics are the ones pushing for NATO's expansion. These leaders supposedly view their countries as being too small to have any voice among European nations unless they gain membership in powerful international organizations such as NATO or the European Union. Some among the Russian elite believe that Ukraine and Georgia fear losing their status as independent countries unless they join NATO or the European Union.
These different views reflect the worldviews of the various factions within Russia's political elite. Any attempt to dissuade them from these convictions is futile. Anti-Western, and especially anti-U.S., sentiment has reached such heights that the Kremlin summarily dismisses worthy arguments without even listening.
While these theorists heap scorn on the West, they don't bother to ask whether Russia could be a more appealing partner for its neighbors. Using the energy card as a negotiating tool against other countries clearly won't do the trick. Neither will preaching about the virtues of a multipolar world and the vices of a U.S.-led unipolar world, and taking every possible opportunity to criticize the West while rejecting any constructive proposals it puts forward.
Russia must first offer its own society -- and only later the world -- an attractive model for development that other countries would want to follow. The government should formulate a set of political principles that it would be able to manifest in actual deeds, not just words. Only then can these values and principles gradually take root in Russian society.
Then, Moscow's foreign policy would serve as a logical continuation of those principles practiced at home. Unfortunately, this strategy is not part of the Kremlin's agenda.
Georgy Bovt is a political analyst and hosts a radio program on City-FM.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
Blessings & best wishes - S.
With Love,
John
If Russia can develop an attractive, peace and freedom loving and economically strong alternative to western democracy, more power to her! Variety, after all, is the spice of ive.
Putin's foreign policy has been pragmatic and and nationalistic and reversed much of the damage done by Yeltsin. The writer of the article apparently has no understanding of the competition for control of the gas and oil supplies of the region which Europe and China require, in which the United States is actively involved, including in the internal affairs of Georgia and the Ukraine.
It has almost ruined the USA both at home and abroad
Thank you all so very much for your deep, interesting insights!
Dear Donald - to answer your question, "Russians smile in photos where they did not in the Soviet era. Why?" You see... one of the qualities we value above everything else is sincerity. Like I told once, we don't smile simply for the sake of politeness when we're in no mood to smile. But when we are... ! ;-)))
Dear Dorine, Linda & John - I can only wholeheartedly agree with you here.
Dear Clarke - the key word here is "nationalistic". The picture, of course, is far more complicated than our own or Western media would want for us to believe, but the growing nationalism in response to the real or imaginable threats from abroad is something I'm deeply worried about - and ready to oppose in any way I can. Unfortunately, Putin uses these sentiments to strenghten his own personal power, and Bush does his best (or worst, if you want me to) to endorse them.
Blessings and best wishes - S.
Putin has achieved a great deal in restoring Russia's power and he is skilled in foreign policy, strategic planning and negotiation. He did not create the anger and enmity against the West that many Russians feel. The current threats to Russia from other nations, including the US, are real. They include the building of military bases in former Soviet states and clandestine interference in the politics of others.
"Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the 88 year old patriarch of Russian literature, defends the regime of former KGB colonel Vladimir Putin, and actively supports Putins assertive - some would say aggressive - foreign policy"
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/flemmingrose/2007/07/29/post_4.php
But do not dismiss what this writer calls "the conspiracy theory. This scenario has the United States continuing its Cold War struggle for global influence by displacing Russia as the dominant player in the CIS region."
You have only to read Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" to know that control of Eurasia is a central goal of the British and now American geostrategy. Zbig was Pres. Carter's national security advisor, and is still an active advisor at the presidential level.
Of course there is also the struggle at the level of the highest visionaries for the future of human evolution. The English speaker has the intuitive skills for this era of mercantile individualism, the anti-social age. But from the "mir" of the peasants to the old democracy of Novgorod to the ideals of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, another kind of human quality seems inborn in the Russian people.
Someday the world will tilt in that direction, but Russia must be ready, as little England was in the 1500-1600s. But if Russia can be blocked, kept off balance, poisoned (Bolshevism was a poisoning) repeatedly, then perhaps "we" can achieve Mr. Fukuyama's "The End of History" -- meaning that the Anglo-American anti-socialism would go on indefinitely.
Big stakes.
Maxim Kalashnikov has a sober viewof Zig, Russia and Putin:
BRZEZINSKI DISCOVERED AMERICA
Old Russophobe avows that hedonistic overconsumption is dragging the US into the quagmire of decay and alienation
THE FALLACIES OF THREE PRESIDENTS
An American in the first generation, Zbigniew Brzezinski performs as a spiritual teacher for the whole of the United States. If National Sobors could exist in the US, he would be their keynote speaker, "grilling hearts with his verb", like Alexander Pushkin's paradigmatic prophet.
In his most recent book, entitled "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower", Mr. Brzezinski is trying to inspire his nation for a strategic mobilization, using arguments that curiously recall old Soviet experience.
Brzezinski acknowledges that with the disintegration of the USSR, the United States has found itself a sole superpower, and was thus obliged to vigorously implement a new world order. This task suggested (and suggests), in particular, to guarantee that Russia give up any nostalgic ambitions, walk up to the trough and never try to claim on Ukraine and Belarus. In addition, Russia should be deprived of the "monopoly" for gas deliveries to Europe.
To the author's view, all the three US presidents of the post-Cold War period were sincerely trying to fulfill their mission but committed a number of fatal fallacies. George H. W. Bush, being in fact embarrassed with the fall of the Red Empire, was more focused on the issue of security, viewing the mission of the United States as the role of a global policeman. His successor Bill Clinton, performing as an adherent and social advocate of globalization, viewed the role of the nation rather as that of a moral vanguard, concentrating on informational means of political influence, and pursuing liberalization, political correctness, minority rights, environmentalism, etc. However, this attempt, according to Brzezinski, was in fact a failure, particularly due to an erroneous policy approach towards Russia.
The fault of both George H. W. Bush and Clinton is seen by the author in their careless reliance upon Boris Yeltsin and his cronies disguised as democrats. In fact, most of the massive financial assistance, provided to Russia by the United States (over $3 billion in food contracts and health grants, over $8 billion of subsidies for stabilization of the foreign balance and almost $49 billion of loans), was banally embezzled. Meanwhile, the Russian society was plunged into unprecedented poverty, social standards collapsing to the amount of the American Great Depression. Meanwhile, the bold reports about democratization in Russia, regularly issued by both political sides, were discredited with massive and arrogant self-enrichment in privatization of especially energy resources that involved US consultants as well.
"Bush II", arriving with a message of outright imperialism, based upon simple force, cynicism and primitive manipulation, made up mind to launch wars of conquest that predetermined America's most devastating failure, writes Brzezinski.
THE DISCREDITED HEGEMONY
Brzezinski claims that Bush's intervention in Iraq buried the American global leadership. Until 2003, the world used to believe the American leadership, and "whatever the President declared was supposed to be true". Bush's lies over Saddam's WMD, as soon as they were exposed, have stolen this belief from the humanity. In earlier times, US hegemonism was viewed as legitimate and serving to vital global interests. Today's US pursuit of global democratic standards is broadly viewed as exercise of a brutal illegitimate coercion. Torture, practiced in the penitentiaries of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, has deprived Washington of moral superiority, laments Brzezinski.
Declaring war against terrorism, America failed both to mobilize the world for the common endeavor and to succeed in a resolute military offensive, Brzezinski says. Its behavior separated its allies, teamed up its enemies, and created additional possibilities for its rivals and ill-wishers. The Islamic world was irritated and brought into a state of blazing rage. With the collapse of respect towards the US leadership, America's leading potential was drastically impeded.
Developing into a geopolitical disaster, the war in Iraq has distracted resources and attention from anti-terrorist war and thus facilitated the revival of the Talibs in Afghanistan, who promptly created a new refuge for Al Qaeda, writes Brzezinski. While Iraq and Somali, where the development is similar, absorb billions of dollars, "undermining America's military and economic health", the terrorist threat has only expanded. Hate towards the United States expanded, reaching the state level of Ibero-American states. The ensuing dissemination of nuclear weapons is a natural phenomenon, as many states believe purchase of nuclear technologies as the only guarantee from arbitrary violence from the United States. At the same time, the United States has failed to unify the Western community, impelling Europe into alienation.
THE DOOM OF THE AMERICAN DREAM
The quoted arguments are not new at all. It is more remarkable that speaking of disappointment of the international audience in the American way of life, Mr. Brzezinski concentrated on the moral aspect of the US development. To his view, the Americans have sunk into overconsumption, luxury, and hedonism. As soon as the Americans encountered domestic economic problems, their example became increasingly unattractive. The author correctly reminds that the crisis of the Soviet Union started with the loss of attractiveness of its model.
Brzezinski emphasizes that the continuing efforts to transplant democracy on a different soil degenerate into connivance to weakness of partners, and multiply to lack of knowledge of relevant societies. Meanwhile, the universal image of an American is associated with arrogant overconsumption, luxurious entertainment, along with indifference towards environment and exploitation of natural resources. To make a plausible example, Brzezinski proposes the audience to imagine a world in which every Chinese or Indian consumes as much as an ordinary American, even in the conditions of economic recession.
"Our standards of consumption are going to get into a conflict with more and more intolerant egalitarian aspirations", warns Brzezinski. Therefore, to his view, the United States has to be "socially attractive" – which requires broad national accord vis-à-vis one of the major flaws of the American social model.
The author reminds that in his book "Out of Control", issued a decade earlier, he had pointed out twenty drawbacks that prevent the United States from serving a positive example for the mankind. Since that publication, nine of the fourteen measurable parameters have even more deeply deteriorated. In particular, the US foreign debt has zoomed both in absolute and relative figures; foreign trade deficit is growing exponentially. At the same time, net savings have significantly melted, along with the possibilities for a social success for the poor.
Other parameters, quoted by the renowned US strategist, reflect an impressive extent of social stratification in his country. The share of the rich in aggregate income is rising reversely proportional to the share of elderly people who can't afford life insurance. Meanwhile, the share of Afro-Americans among the pauperized population is increasing directly proportional to drug addiction. In general, the nominal average salary has only slightly increased while the amounts of top personal incomes have reached "impudent proportions".
What Brzezinski is actually describing is the general crisis of the ultraliberal capitalist model. This policy design, chosen by America under Ronald Reagan, suggested elimination of any socialist hue in distribution of national income, suggesting austerity of social expenses, along with spending for science and culture, and deregulation of every possible sphere of economy and municipal management. The collapse of the USSR could only increase these phenomena, as there was no more necessity to rival with the socialist model, and therefore, to flirt with the lower classes. Eventually, the vices of the economic system, once exposed by Karl Marx, became so blatantly ugly that even an arch-anti-Soviet theorist like Brzezinski is using Marxist arguments.
DUMB & DUMBER
The austerity of expenses for science and education inevitably spawns ignorance. In his new book, Brzezinski quotes a recent poll conducted by the National Geographic Society. It revealed that 85% of young Americans have appeared to be unable to find Iraq and Afghanistan on the global map; 60% failed to find England, and 29% – even to locate the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the double election success of George W. Bush just reflects the common level of competence of the US populace. Blatant illiteracy is displayed not only by "Dubya" Bush. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quite seriously stated that on arrival Afghanistan, the US military did not reproduce the mistake of the Soviets, as they occupied Kabul. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for Presidency in 2004, declared that Vladimir Putin has originated from Treblinka, confusing the Nazi concentration camp with Lubyanka, the site of the KGB headquarters in Moscow. Though the level of Russian education has significantly declined in the last fifteen years, our compatriots are still able to discern the Republic of Georgia from the State of Georgia.
Painting this unimpressive picture and blaming George W. Bush's administration for embezzling all of the earlier advantages of the American society, Zbigniew Brzezinski still gives America a chance to maintain the status of the only superpower and the guiding force of the human civilization. He associates this exceptional opportunity with the term frequently used by Russian thinkers: mobilization.
"CEASING TO SERVE TO ITS IDEA, THE GREAT POWER LOSES ITS STRENGTH"
Borrowing this excerpt from Raymond Aron's "Imperial Republic", Brzezinski proposes to start the fight against decay and social disintegration from subtle moves. He insists that the necessary social re-evaluation should be provided with deliberate civic education that justifies work with a higher purpose than just a means for personal success and consumption.
In order to propagate the priority of this higher purpose, every American young man should pass a period of obligatory civil service at home and abroad, in accordance with special legislation. "Today, the only obligation for all Americans is to pay taxes, with certain indulgences for the rich", admits Brzezinski.
In fact, the old Russophobe has arrived to the ideas of the Russian Communists of 1920s, who claimed that every youngster should dedicate himself to the common benefit of global revolution and mobilization of masses for a higher universal purpose, preaching improvement of mundane morality and personal self-restraint as opposed to capitalist luxury. Without a bit of irony, one should add that implementation of the tasks, formulated by Mr. Brzezinski, requires a leading political party – the "intellect, dignity, and conscience" of America.
In fact, the proposed recipe reflects the extent of the crisis, confronted by the US society. With much or no compassion towards ordinary Americans, Russians should consider the whole range of relevant global implications.
ARE WE GOING TO USE OUR OWN CHANCE?
In his speech at the State Council on February 8, Vladimir Putin publicized the strategy of an innovative model of national development, with a special emphasis of making the national model more attractive. Leaving the President's post, Putin did not need to use populist slogans for boosting his popularity. It was rather an inspiring address to his successor, now having the opportunity to use the national opportunity to make Russia a leading nation – in a certain way, possibly, to take the torch from the hands of the declining United States.
The same inspiration, substantiated with particular proposals for comprehensive transformation of the political and economic system of Russia, was reflected in the Russian Doctrine, in Yury Krupnov's writings on Russia's transformation into a global power, and Igor Gundarov with his concept of sociohumanism. This author contributed as well in the "Third Project" book written together with Sergey Kugushev. The fact of decline of the Western community, the inability of the Western establishment to develop an image of future, even more imperiously suggests that Russians are obliged to put forward and pursue their own model of development.
Brzezinski's book is precious as a social mirror. In fact, the Russian society is infected with most of the diseases he describes in his nation – namely, social stratification, bureaucratic corruption, poverty of scientists and blatant luxury of the top corporate class, and finally, absence of "social elevators" for young people. In case we fail to overcome all these tendencies, we'll follow the Americans in their mudslide into the abyss.
© RPMonitor.ru, 2006 - 2008 | © Russky Predprinimatel Foundation, 2006 - 2008
Dear Clarke - I can agree with the second part of the statement quoted, but not with the first. You see, I remember pretty well what the image of the US for an average Russian was in the very beginning of Gorbachyov's reforms, and I can see just as well what this very image looks like at the present moment. I daresay that BOTH sides are to be blamed for this, Bush as well as Putin. But, of course, Bush is not the whole America, and Putin is not the whole Russia. As for the alleged economic progress in Russia, I can swear that being an average Russian woman working for an institution sponsored by the state, I don't see any "progress" at all - just the vice versa, the prices are rising higher and higher, the social gap between a few well-to-do and a LOT of people who live on the verge of poverty is growing with every day, and even my sister, very far from being interested in any politics at all, notices that our constitutional rights are being taken away from us - the latest elections were a parody, and nothing more.
As for our neighbors... I have only the best feelings possible for an average Ukrainian or Georgian. If only Mr. Yutschenko or Mr. Saakashvili are able to make their respective people's lives better and their countries more prosperous, I'd be the very first to cheer and applaud and shout "Hurray!!!" to them both. But, as it is, they seem to be far more eager to please Bush then their own fellow countrypeople. And this fact is, well, exasperating at the very least...
Dear Walker - chto pravda, to pravda! ;-)))
Dear John - Mr. Brzezinski didn't take into account one thing. Our national psychology. Russians would never agree to play a second fiddle and would never allow anybody, including themselves (!), to play a first fiddle. I've already noticed how little all the Western sociologists and politicians know the Russian soul. Once a person I love deeply offended me by remarking about Russian "imperialistic" tendency to control the people against their will. What he failed to notice was the fact that Russians themselves - average Russians, not the elite - were the last people on the Earth to profit in any way from this kind of "imperialism", and that one could hardly remember any empire where the national minorities were often BETTER off than the majority!... Remember also who were our first politically-minded revolutioners... not the illiterate peasants, but the people from the best, richest, noblest and most powerful families in the whole Russia, who should be the first to benefit greatly from the imperial order. But there's such a little thing called CONSCIENCE, inherent in our soul, which did prevent them from riping the fruits of unjustice, leading them instead to Senatskaya Square and then to the Eastern Siberia. A country of paradoxes, indeed!... I wouldn't idealize our "mir" - which sometimes could be, and would be, pretty much restricting - but we're born with this feeling of JUSTICE, not only for ourselves, or some particular group of people, but for everybody. If we're able to remain themselves, we COULD become a precious gift indeed to the world. But first we need to give them this "attractive model" the author spoke about - and the modern picture is, alas, does little to feed my optimism...
Hugs and blessings and deep gratitude to everybody - S.
Russians were extraordinarily pro-Western after the collapse of the Soviet regime, as a reaction . Now they are very anti-Western, again as a reaction, I think you will agree.
In 1994, when Alexander Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia , he said: "If we look far into the future, one can see a time in the 21st century when both Europe and the USA will be in dire need of Russia as an ally." I don't consider him anti-Western, although I expect you find some of his views too nationalistic and prejudiced ? However, I think he may rightly envision Russia's future and in this sense represent in part the nature of the Russian soul, of which John Beck wrote above " from the 'mir' of the peasants to the old democracy of Novgorod to the ideals of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, another kind of human quality seems inborn in the Russian people."
I've got to read that Brzezinski book!
Exactly, dear Clarke! Once I did respect him as the author of "GULAG", now this respect is all but vanished.
"I've got to read that Brzezinski book!"
Strange as it may sound, dear Diana, it is translated into Russian, available in Moscow libraries & bookstores, and probably on top of 10 books most quoted by the so-called "patriotic" (read - nationalistic) wing. Of course, it did little to add to an average Russian any more sympathy to the US - the one who bothered to read it, that is. ;-)
Hugs and blessings to everyone - S.
Brzezinski's book sounds like a good read with a lot of on target concepts ... I wonder why we hear so little about him and it in this country ... is it because his way is not the neocon way ?
"With This Love" from Moscow - Sveta
Hugs & blessings - S.
citizen's life seem worthless. Have they not examined the depth of a
Russian's soul to find something beyond conspiracies?
Dear C. F. - if you noticed correctly, the main body of the article was written not by me, but simply reposted here. Moreover, the author obviously didn't suffer from the paranoia you noticed, as well as myself. Even though, after what the US have already done lately, I daresay ANY paranioa would be totally justified. Face it, my friend - one can't win much respect or admiration worldwide promoting liberal values inside its own borders, but behaving like a half-crazy drunken cowboy outside. From a Russian point of view, even the vice versa would be preferable!...
Blessings & best wishes - S.
Thank you, dear Liam!
Blessings & best wishes - S.
Хотя Америка всегда была для России что -то вроде красной тряпки для быка. Что не удивительно . Ибо два таких мировых гиганта всегда будут бороться за Мировое господство и лидерство. Оба хороши, чего греха таить? Ни Россия ни Америка никогда не будут скромными овечками на пастбище планеты Земля не взирая ни на что. И уступая в малом будут стараться выиграть в большом. Лидерство прежде всего! Политика....