Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 3 – Only those who are
in complete denial can fail to see that Vladimir Putin is a fascist, émigré Russian
historian Yuri Felshtinsky says, given that “this analogy is so evident” in the
wake of the Crimean Anschluss and the Kremlin leader’s own words and promotion
of openly fascist figures like Dmitry Rogozin.
In an interview conducted yesterday
and posted online today, Felshtinsky says that “the world has not gone out of
its mind.” Only “one particular country
has” – Russia – and in fact “only a relatively small group of people who run
this country” who have nothing new to offer and so are using evil ideas from
the past (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5364A28A98AFA).
Because Putin and his entourage don’t
believe in democracy and view the population with contempt, they have not felt
the need to come up with a formal ideology or at least a new one, the historian
says. Vladislav Surkov tried to come up with one but couldn’t “although he
tried very hard.”
However, Felshtinsky continues, when
Dmitry Rogozin, now deputy prime minister, was promoted, that was a real and
disturbing indication of where Putin is heading because “Rogoin is an open
Russian fascist.” And tht in turn means
that a new-old ideology now “has been formed: Russian fascism.”
Putin and his team do not use the term
because of its negative denotations and connotations among Russians, “but nazi” as in “nazionalist” is “fine and correct. And even the president himself
is not embarrassed to say in a multi-national country like the Russian
Federation that he is a Russian nazionalist
– note, not a patriot but precisely a nazionalist.”
In other comments during the course
of this wide-ranging interview, Felshtinsky said what what Putin has done in
Ukraine is only the first step toward a third world war, one that Russia will
ultimately lose but that will entail untold suffering for vast numbers of
countries and peoples.
That war is ahead is the message
Moscow television is delivering every day, the Russian historian continues, and
says that it is most unfortunate that the Americans “having believed in the
normality of Russia not only did not create their own television for Russia but
closed down their old radio stations” that could have countered that message.
But what is striking is that the
threat of war from Russia is not the subject of Ukrainian television or of
Western television either, he says. In
Ukraine, “television is like television” with all the shows and entertainment
one would expect in normal times. And in
the US, there is barely time to talk about Ukraine given the time given to the
loss of the Malaysian plane.
Felshtinsky says that “the greatest problem of the
Ukrainians is the Russian network of agents” in that country and especially in
their defense establishment. Neither they nor anyone else can be sure that
anything shared with these institutions will not be immediately passed on to
Russia.
But
despite this, it is absolutely clear to everyone that what has been taking place
is “the overt aggresson of Russia gainst a weak neighboring state,” an attack
is exactly the same – Felshtinsky uses the expression “like to drops of water,”
the operations of Hitler and Stalin in 1938-1940.
“Everyone
understands that the ‘rising’ in Eastern Ukraine has been organied by Russia,”
he continues and insists that Moscow’s seizure of Crimea “will never be
recognized by the world community” and “has not been supported by a single
state.” Moreover, what is true in the
case of Crimea will be even more true with regard to eastern Ukraine.
“Good
sense” dictates, he continues, that “opposing Russian aggression on the territory
of Ukraine, with Ukraine as an ally, and not after the seizure of Ukraine by
Russia when it will take control of the entire military-industrial complex of
Eastern Ukraine” is the best way to proceed.
Moreover,
Felshtinsky says, opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine “is simpler because
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and thus there is no need to formally declare
war on Russia. Of course, from a
military point of view, it would have been most correct to launch a preventive
strike” against Russian forces concentrated on the Russian side of the
Ukrainian border.
But
that, he concedes, would require that the people involved “be Israelis not
Ukrainians.”
An
absolute precondition for NATO assistance to Ukraine is that “the Ukrainians
themselves resist aggression “with arms in their hands.” Had they resisted in Crimea, he continues, they
might have lost some territory as Finland did in 1940 and Georgia in 2008, but
they would not have seen the betrayal of their country.
But
the most compelling reason to resist Putin now is that his appetites will only
grow, and it will be harder and more costly to oppose him if after Ukraine, he
tries to absorb even more countries under his “back to empire” slogan. He may
even attack the Baltic countries believing, wrongly Felshtinsky says, that NATO
of which they are members will not protect them.
Hitler
made the same mistake in Poland which had guarantees from Britain and France
and for the same reason – the German dictator did not believe those countries
would live up to their obligations because they hadn’t done so earlier. Putin
doesn’t understand Western democracies or how they will react. He will learn
just as his predecessor did.
No comments:
Post a Comment