Who Cares about Russia?

There is a good reason to have a different approach to national security

A remarkable event took place a couple of weeks ago - Latvia honored the veterans of Nazi SS divisions. One may either ignore this event totally or express indignation about it watching a news report at home, having a cup of tea.

Politicians in many countries have been disregarding Russia's interests and the interests of the Russian-speaking population in foreign countries. The congress of Chechen terrorists took place in Denmark despite Russia's protest; Great Britain granted political asylum to Boris Berezovsky in return to Russia's request to extradite the notorious Russian oligarch; Latvia and Ukraine close Russian schools, and so on and so forth.

The common trend typical to the public awareness of the majority of post-Soviet countries, showing the direct influence on home and foreign policies of those states, is the rejection from elements of the Soviet culture. National and even nationalistic values are being opposed to Soviet values. There is a sad example to illustrate the situation: the Latvian authorities honored Nazi veterans at the end of the last week. It was said that SS veterans struggled against Soviet occupation. This trend is most explicit in the countries allied with the USA - the Baltic states, Georgia, several East European countries. American allies often act defiantly toward Russia, even if their actions contradict to their national interests. The higher a country's foreign policy depends on the USA, the greater the confrontation. Vice versa, if a country's policy is oriented on Russia, it will have to deal with a very strong pressure on the part of the USA and international organizations.

Unlike Armenia, Georgia is actively developing its military and technical cooperation with the USA. The USA launches spy planes from Georgia's territory to fly along the Russian border, American military men train Georgian soldiers. In addition, Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze has repeatedly announced his country's wish to join NATO. Georgian officials were turning a blind eye to manifestations of terrorist activities in Chechnya. Shevardnadze even said once that Chechen terrorist Ruslan Gelayev was a "normal politician."

As a result, Russia supports the unrecognized republic of Abkhazia. Abkhazia became de facto independent on Georgia because of that support. South Osetia announced its wish to pull out from Georgia and become a part of the Russian Federation. Russia has introduced the visa regime for Georgian citizens. It would be possible to solve a lot of problems if Georgia stopped supporting Chechen terrorists and established better relations with Russia. However, Shevardnadze prefers to act otherwise.

The situation with the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic states is worst of all. A website of Chechen terrorists is up and running in Lithuania, Latvian authorities honor Nazi veterans. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are becoming NATO members, they were very active in their support of the US-led military campaign in Iraq. In addition, Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga is a former Canadian citizen. In response to the anti-Russian policy run by the Baltic states, Russia has cut the freight transit via the Baltic ports. However, it seems that Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian leaders do not care. 

Viktor Yuschenko, one of the candidates for presidency in Ukraine (he is married to an American woman) was appointed for the position of the Ukrainian prime minister on the direct advice from the US Department of State. No one has ever tried to conceal that fact. Now Viktor Yuschenko protests against the creation of the joint economic space. Yuschenko enjoys a little support in the west of Ukraine, where anti-Russian sentiments are traditionally strong. This dislike has already become the talk of the town and it affects certain political decisions as well. There is a street in the Ukrainian city of Lvov named after former Chechen president Jokhar Dudayev.

There is an explicit connection between the extent of the americanization of a certain political force and the level of its anti-Russian conduct. On the other hand, as soon as a serious politician starts cooperating with Russia, he will be accused of violating human rights and jeopardizing democracy. For example, the American administration does not have a good attitude to Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko. Yet, Belarus is currently maintaining better relations with Russia than Ukraine. American officials (and US government-controlled media) harshly criticized even European countries (France and Germany) when their political stance became closer associated with Russia's. It goes about the fact of criticism here, not the official reason of contradiction with Europe. The Wall Street Journal wrote on September 26th 2003 that France was experiencing economic difficulties, it was acting arrogantly, the French government was becoming authoritarian.

It goes without saying that it would be very good for the USA if the Russian Federation broke up the same way as the USSR did. One shall assume that it is a long-term strategic goal of Washington's foreign policy. If it happens, the States will continue strengthening its influence: at first the US administration will deal with such countries as Ukraine and Romania and then they will work on Germany and France. Probably, three of these four countries decided to develop closer relations with Russia for that reason.

The political terrorism is an efficient method that the US uses to wage political wars. It can be a political technology, when agents of influence destabilize the political situation in a certain country. When a country attempts to put its internal affairs into order, is it accused of violating human rights. This method has been used in Yugoslavia, Belarus and Ukraine. The political terrorism method, as well as armed terrorism, is difficult to apply to totalitarian states. Former New York mayor, Rudolf Giuliani, once said that the USA would never wage war against democracy. Indeed, what is the point of waging war against a democratic country if it is possible to impose the will on them with the help of "democratic" methods? American officials are being very confident, they do not even try to conceal their support to agents of influence. The division of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in Ukraine has spent more than $1.6 billion during ten years for the implementation of various democratic reforms in Ukraine. It is worth mentioning here that Ekaterina Chumachenko, Viktor Yuschenko's wife, used to chair that structure.

I would not affirm that all anti-Russian manifestations in the foreign policy of the third countries are connected with Washington's policy. However, pro-American and anti-Russian political views often coincide in certain countries - it cannot be incidental.

Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, not even all countries of the CIS altogether are capable of withstanding the political power of the USA. If the notion of the political terrorism were acknowledged on the international level, it would be possible to weaken the influence of the States. The efficiency of peaceful political technologies (including the political terrorism) does not raise any doubts. Such methods allowed to capture Baghdad almost without any resistance. High-ranking American officials acknowledge: Baghdad was taken with the help of bribery. One of them even tried to explain it, saying that a cruise missile costs up to $2.5 million. A bribe is a high precision weapon: it reaches the target, but there is no blood and there is no destruction.

One may also recollect the collapse of the Soviet Union 12 years ago. Probably, the country broke up by itself. However, the above-mentioned facts give a good reason to have a different approach to the questions of the national security. The development of peaceful political technologies is as important as the development of military technologies. One must learn to struggle with agents of influence.

Roman Melnikov