Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 30 – Mikhail
Aleksandrov, a Baltic specialist at the Moscow Institute for the CIS who
attracted attention earlier this week by suggesting that Moscow should occupy
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania if the United States attacks Syria, has not
backed away from that position but instead argued his case again.
He told a Latvian outlet yesterday
he was surprised by the reaction his first comment attracted, pointing out that
he published it in his blog rather than on his institute’s web page to “stress”
that it was his own opinion rather than “the consolidated position of [his]
organization” imhoclub.lv/material/rossii_nado_vvesti_vojska_v_pribaltiku?userlast=3592; also
at argumenti.ru/world/2013/08/279820).
(For a discussion of Aleksandrov’s
original article, see Window on Eurasia: “If US Attacks Syria, Russia Should
Send Troops into Baltic Countries, Moscow Researcher Says,” August 27, 2013 at http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2013/08/window-on-eurasia-if-us-attacks-syria.html.)
Aleksandrov said that the attention his
initial article received could not have occurred “without the interference of
some influential circles which promoted the broad dissemination of this
material,” but he said he would not speculate about just who may have been
involved lest he “lose himself in guesswork.”
Obviously, he said, his arguments
touched a nerve among many “both in Russia and abroad” and thus helped “sharpen
the discussion on the situation around Syria, to show the consequences which
could follow from the ignoring of international law by NATO countries, and to
focus attention on the fact that they themselves can be the victims” if the
world descends into chaos.
Aleksandrov then said that the reaction
to his article showed the “complete ideological impairment” of “official
circles in the Baltic countries.” Angry at talk about the possible “occupation
of their own country,” the Latvian government declared its support for “aggression
against Syria” bypassing the UN Security Council.
These officials, Aleksandrov continued,
seem blind to the possibility that “on one fine day, the same fate could
overtake their own countries,” a particular shortcoming given that “the
violation of human rights in Latvia and Estonia and even in Lithuania is more
than sufficient” for such an outcome.
Clearly, the Moscow analyst said, “the ruling circles of the Baltic countries …
are counting only on the military power of the NATO bloc,” something “very
indicative” of the unfortunate reality that they aren’t concerned about
international law but only “about the possibility of solving their own
problems.”
In taking this stance, the Baltic
governments show that they “have forgotten the simple reality that the balance
of power in the world is continuously changing.” That which looks firm and
certain today may, Aleksandrov insisted, may turn out to be fragile and
uncertain a day later, because “in the absence of international law,” those who
have power can do what they like.
“As is well-known,” he argued, “according
to the UN Charter, it is the obligation of UN members and especially permanent
members of the Security Council to provide assistance to the victims of
aggression, in this case, Syria.” Such help “can take various forms,” one of
which can be “military actions against the aggressors,” in this case, “the
members of the NATO bloc,” including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, “especially
if they support the aggressive actions of these allies.”
“Therefore,” Aleksandrov concluded, “it
is completely incorrect to consider the Baltic countries as innocent lambs not
involved in NATO’s crimes. As allies of the United States, they are legitimate
targets for military action against NATO aggression in Syria.”
Thus, instead of pulling back from his
original article, Aleksandrov used this occasion to advance an even more sweeping
argument, insisting that if Moscow were to invade and occupy the Baltic
countries if the US attacks Syria, the Russian government would have every
right to do so under international law.
The outrageousness of this position is
self-evident, but Aleksandrov’s behavior may reflect an even more serious
problem. Like Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russian domestic affairs, Aleksandrov may
be acting in a way that will cause the West to view somewhat less appalling
behavior by the Kremlin in the event either as a lesser evil or even an
indication of good sense.
That possibility is something that means
the appearance of Soviet-style language and threats needs to be carefully
tracked, not only because it reflects what some near the Kremlin actually
believe but also a carefully designed operation to provoke Russia’s neighbors,
on the one hand, and win the top Russian leadership plaudits, on the other.
