Muscovitism Must Be Rooted Out if Russia is to Cease to Be a Threat to Itself and Others, Eidman Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 7 – Those who believe in “a beautiful Russia of the future” often cite the case of Germany after 1945 when its defeat in war did not lead to its disappearance, Igor Eidman says. But they ignore that the allies liquidated the source of German militarism– Prussia – and that Russia which has its own Prussia – Muscovy – must undergo something similar.

            By eliminating Prussia, the Russian analyst now living in Beelin, the World War II allies also eliminated “the spirit of Prussianism: chauvinism, imperialism, militarism, and authoritarianism” and as a result the new Germany could become a democratic and genuinely federal state (t.me/igoreidman/1722 reposted at  charter97.org/ru/news/2024/9/8/609857/).

            Russia to this day has “its own Prussia and Prussianism: Muscovy and its spirit of Muscovitism,” a fact of life which reflects that Russia was formed around the Muscovite principality just as Germany was formed around Prussia in the 19^th century. As a result, Eidman says, “present-day Russia is a broadened variant of the Muscovite principality.”

            Muscovitism is “not the log of Muscovites alone, but rather of all those who associate themselves with the Moscow empire of the Russian Federation. In short, its entire ruling elite. Putin and most of his circle “aren’t Muscovites – just as Hitler was not a Prussian.” But they are “infected with the spirit of Muscovitism.”

            That set of ideas involves “imperial pride and unrestricted territorial expansion, contemptuous xenophobia, a primitive morality in which my seizure of the territory of others is good but their seizure of mine is evil, legal nihilism, contempt for human rights and freedoms, slavery from top to bottom, police brutality, systemic corruption and theft.”

            Eidmean concludes that “if the contemporary Moscow-centric empire and the spirit of Muscovitism aren’t destroyed along with the Putin regime, then, the global threat of Muscovite expansion will remain in place and Moscow will remain a source of war and aggression toward its neighbors.”

‘Russia for the Russians’ Sounded after Moscow Soccer Match ‘Outrages Dagestanis and Highlights Broader Problem

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 5 – After an August 27 soccer match between Moscow’s Spartak and Makhachkala’s Dynamo teams, someone posted the slogan “Russia for the Russians” online. Dagestanis were outraged and have become more so because Moscow officials have done nothing to rein in those responsible even though this phrase was declared extremist in 2010.

            When Moscow wants us to go to war, some Dagestanis are now saying, “we are equal citizens of Russia, but the rest of the time, then we are second-class,” the result of the Kremlin’s  effort to present itself as a multinational state and at the same time to appeal to the feelings of the ethnic majority (kavkazr.com/a/rossiya-dlya-russkih-pochemu-lozung-natsionalistov-vernulsya-v-futbol-na-matche-s-komandoy-iz-dagestana/33105070.html).

            One Dagestani political activism, Madina Ibragimova, deputy head of the LDPR party in that republic said that those manipulating young Muscovites to say such things are “just as much terrorists as those who inspired the terrorist act at Crocus City Hall, the attacks in Makhachkala and Derbent, and the hostage taking in Rostov” (t.me/MadinaIbragimova77/1554).

            The most senior political figures in Dagestan, almost all of whom have been appointed by Moscow, so far have kept silent, a failure to speak out that other Dagestanis have noticed and that likely is having the effect of calling still more attention to the failure of Moscow officials to take any serious action against those who scandalized the Dagestanis with this slogan.

            Indeed, Gleb Trufanov, a specialist in conflict studies, compares what has happened in the wake of the Moscow match with what happened 14 years ago when fans shouted openly “Russia for the Russians.” That couldn’t happen now unless there was official approval. That some have put out this slogan suggests that there are those in power who now favor testing the waters.

            But the reaction in Dagestan to the inaction of the Russian police suggests that someone in Moscow is now playing with fire and that unless the central authorities come down hard on anyone attempting to mobilize people on the basis of “Russia for the Russians” is playing with fire that could trigger a conflagration.

‘Essence of Soviet Nationality Policy’ was Creation of Small Republics that wouldn’t Unite and Challenge Moscow, Bolshevik Ally of Stalin Said in 1919

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 5 – The essence of Soviet nationality policy, Ruslan Masagutov says, was the creation of small republics without enough resources to challenge Moscow on their own and creating tensions among them so that they couldn’t form alliances that might threaten the territorial integrity of the country.

            The senior scholar at the Kazan Institute of History makes that point at the end of a detailed article about Stalin’s first great act of ethnic engineering, the destruction of a Tatar drive to create a large autonomous formation in the Middle Volga with enough power to serve as a basis for real federalism (milliard.tatar/news/stoletnii-tatarstan-kak-sozdavalas-tassr-6099).

            To drive it home, he quotes Ismail Firdyevs, a Crimean Tatar Bolshevik who worked closely with Stalin in the wake of the revolution but later fell afoul of the Soviet dictator and was executed in the Great Terror, to the Second All-Russian Congress of Muslim Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East in December 1919:

“Of course, we must support the national movements but only by creating small republics. Such movements must not be allowed to unite, extend over a huge territory and acquire economic resources” that will give them the basis for challenging Moscow or exiting from the Soviet state. Having created such small republics, Firdiyevs continued, the Bolsheviks will be able to “link them to ourselves and not give them the chance to unite.”

That this is what Stalin did first in the Middle Volga and then in the Caucasus and Central Asia is common ground. But what makes the Firdyevs’ observation so critical is who said it and when, an ally of Stalin’s at the time and as early as 1919, and also the fact that it is being recalled now by a Tatar historian, perhaps the first target of such Bolshevik ethnic engineering.

Norway Rejects Russian Proposal to Build Prison for Terrorists on Svalbard

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 5 – Norway has rejected the suggestion of a Russian parliamentarian that a special prison for terrorists be constructed in Svalbard. That would violate the provisions of the Svalbard Treaty that gives Norway sovereignty over that archipelago even though it allows other signatory countries the right to engage in economic activities there.

            Only Norway has the authority to authorize institutions like prisons on its territory, the region’s governor Lars Fause and John-Erik Vika of the Ministry for Justice and Public Security say. No other country has that right (dagbladet.no/nyheter/vi-har-makta/81902327 and thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2024/09/russian-prison-out-question-svalbard-governor).

            That would appear to kill any possibility that Moscow, which has been testing the resolve of Norway and the NATO alliance of which it is a part to defend Svalbard as part of Norway. (On that, see jamestown.org/program/moscows-first-move-against-nato-could-take-place-in-norways-svalbard-archipelago/ and windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/05/norwegian-security-expert-alarmed-by.html).

            Duma deputy Ivan Sukharyov also suggested that Moscow should consider creating a special prison for terrorists on Novaya Zemlya, a Russian possession; and with Norway taking a hard line on such a facility in Svalbard, Moscow could move in that direction (ria.ru/20240903/tyurma-1970113222.html and  thebarentsobserver.com/ru/2024/09/v-rossii-poyavilas-ideya-sozdat-tyurmu-dlya-terroristov-na-svaldbarde).

Kremlin Wants to Compile Complete Lists of Individual Members of Numerically Small Peoples of the North and Far East

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 5 – Because members of numerically small peoples of the North and Far East are eligible for special benefits, many people have tried to claim that they are members and the Russian authorities have sought to limit their ability to make such claims and get those benefits.

            This has led to corruption and also to court cases in which some individuals have won registration and others have not (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2022/06/moscow-now-compiling-not-just-list-of.html and windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/02/russian-courts-rejecting-efforts-by.html).

            Now, Magomedsalam Magomedov, a senior official of the Russian Presidential Administration, says that Moscow wants to compile a full and accurate listing of all the members of such groups to ensure fairness and prevent corruption (forumvostok.ru/programme/business-programme/?day=5.09.2024 and svpressa.ru/society/article/428572/).

            At one level, of course, this is an entirely reasonable measure; but it is likely to involve purging some members from these groups and allowing others, including those with no ethnic ties to them, to gain access to membership and hence benefits. But this step points to an even more serious change in Moscow’s policies regarding nationalities more generally.

            The approach Magomedov is advocating for the peoples of the north and the far east could easily be extended to smaller ethnic communities in the Caucasus and even to larger nations within the current borders of the Russian Federation, a move that would give Moscow even greater powers to control the situation but spark more anger and activism in these groups.

Turning to the East isn’t a Mistake but How Putin is Doing So Is, Pastukhov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 5 – Given the growth importance of Chinese and other Asian economies, the reorientation of other countries in that direction is an appropriate even necessary step, Putin is not wrong to do so, Vladimir Pastukhov says; but the way he is doing it is, a pattern that is true of his actions in many other areas as well.

            Putin is right to devote more attention to the East than his predecessors, the London-based Russian analyst says. Indeed, any conceivable leader of Russia including those who are the Kremlin leader’s most committed opponents would be doing the same given new economic realities (t.me/v_pastukhov/1232 reposted at kasparov.ru/material.php?id=66D9ECB5CA97E).

            But the way Putin is doing this “turn to the east” is deeply flawed, involving as it does the launching of a war in the West and trying to cut Russia off from Europe and the Atlantic world, Pastukhov says. And that is part of a far larger problem: Putin does identify many problems Russia really faces but the methods he has chosen to use can’t solve them.

            “Russia cannot go anywhere at all while it is ruled by a bunch of St. Petersburg boys who have clung to power and who have created a northern branch of Cosa Nostra in place of statehood with thousand-year-old traditions,” Pastukhov continues. They do not understand that entrepreneurship isn’t just about building but about taking risks.

            That in turn requires freedom and the conditions under which people can build plans for the longer term. That isn’t possible under Putin; and until a Russian leader replaces him who can open the way for that, “there will be no development” east of the Urals, however much the Kremlin talks about “a turn to the east.”

            Instead, Pastukhov says, there is all too real a possibility that Russia “will lose what we have.”

Explosive Growth of Tajik Cities Likely to Become Make Them Centers of Political Radicalization

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 5 – The population of Tajikistan is growth more rapidly than that of any other country in Central Asia; and as a result, urbanization is increasing rapidly as well although at present a smaller percent of Tajiks live in cities (27.5 percent) than do the titular nationalities in the other countries of the region.

            The Asian Development Bank predicts that by 2050, the share of Tajiks living in cities will almost double to 46 percent, with many of them concentrated in regional agglomerations around Dushanbe and Khudzhand (adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/961491/tajikistan-national-urban-assessment.pdf).

            This rapid growth is proving to be beyond the capacity of the Tajikistan government to control the situation. There simply aren’t enough high-rise apartments available and so many people are building their own housing, making it difficult if not impossible for the government to extend electricity, water and sewage lines and roads to all.

            Addressing these problems is beyond the capacity of the Tajikistan government unless it receives outside assistance, according to outside experts and even Tajik officials; and so the problems of rapid demographic growth and urbanization are likely to become increasingly critical (ia-centr.ru/experts/ia-centr-ru/tendentsii-i-problemy-urbanizatsii-v-tadzhikistane/).

            Such problems mean that urban centers are likely to become the centers of radicalization in Tajikistan in the years ahead. And it is there rather than in the declining rural areas that Islamist ideas both homegrown and brought in from Afghanistan and elsewhere is likely to become the most significant.