Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 7 – Boris Nemtsov,
who was murdered last week in the shadow of the Kremlin, was an exception to
the rule that Russian liberalism ends with Ukraine, according to two of his
friends, Igor Eidman and Vladimir Milov, in interviews they gave to Novy
Region-2’s Kseniya Kirillova.
Eidman, Nemtsov’s cousin and a close
friend of Nemtsov, said that “unfortunately,” he “never asked Boris about his
person relations to Ukraine but that [he] knows that beginning with the first
Orange Revolution, he was very much agitated by everything which took place in
that country” (nr2.com.ua/blogs/Ksenija_Kirillova/Igor-Eydman-Borba-protiv-putinskoy-agressii-v-Ukraine-eto-luchshee-chto-sdelal-Boris-91581.html).
With the Anschluss of Crimea and Putin’s
moves in the Donbas, he continued, Nemtsov “immediately adopted a tough
position directed at a struggle against this aggression. He did everything that
was in his power to stop it,” living according to the principle, “’Do what you should
and what will be will be.’”
“I consider,” Eidman said, “that
[Nemtsov’s] struggle against Russian aggression was the best and most correct
thing he did in politics and perhaps in his life.”
One can only welcome the outpouring
of sympathy and support for Nemtsov following his death, the Moscow commentator
said, “but one must understand that [those taking part] are no danger for the
regime – there are too few of them” and most are not prepared to do more than
march.
At the same time, he continued, such actions
are important because they “demonstrate .. that “Putin’s Russia is not all of
Russia” and “show the entire world that Putin’s quasi-fascist criminal elite
which has set up a terrorist regime at home, attacked its neighbors and its own
citizens, and zombified the population” has not been able to eliminate all such
people.
At present,
Eidman said, “the forces of the democratic opposition in Russia are very weak.
They can express their attitude toward Putin but they are still incapable of
effectively struggling with the regime.” Consequently, he added, he very much
fears that “the regime’s moves toward fascism will continue.”
The commentator
said that he does not expect any more such murders in the immediate future
because Putin is someone who carefully “doses out” what he does, following the
principle of “’two steps forward, one step back’” in order to undermine the
vigilance of his opponents and thus allow him to prepare for new acts of
aggression without much interference.
Thus, it is
very unlikely that Putin will unleash “mass terror against politicians.” But “undoubtedly, having begun the war with
Ukraine and a new Cold War with the West, Putin is interested in converting the
country into a kind of military camp so that it will be able to oppose the
entire world.”
In some
respects, Putin’s decision to assassinate Nemtsov – and Eidman reiterated his
view that the Kremlin leader gave the order for the killing – reflected two
things. On the one hand, Putin responded like any criminal chieftain who can’t
stand to be called names. And on the other, Nemtsov’s actions concerning
Ukraine were a direct challenge to Putin’s power.
According to
the Moscow commentator, Nemtsov’s execution designed to send a message to all
those who are against Putin’s system that “no one can struggle” against it
without serious risks and that “everyone who does oppose [the Kremlin leader]
will be swept aside and destroyed.”
Vladimir Milov, a
Russian opposition politician and close friend of Nemtsov, told Kirillova that
he had talked about Ukraine with him many times. Nemtsov, he said, “considered Ukraine a very
close and native country and the Ukrainian people a fraternal one (nr2.com.ua/blogs/Ksenija_Kirillova/Nam-prislali-metku-chto-nas-budut-ubivat-Vladimir-Milov-91662.html).
Nemtsov viewed Ukrainians as facing “exactly
the same problems” Russia is: “an authoritarian restoration, corruption and all
the other difficulties of the transition from communism to a normal society.”
As a result, he “always sympathized with the Ukrainians” and their plight.
Unlike many others, Milov continued,
Nemtsov “did not have any sense of imperial superiority and viewed all the post-Soviet
countries as equals.” From the very beginning, he suffered what he Ukrainians
have suffered and supported their struggle with Kuchma, in the Orange
Revolution and in the Maidan against Yanukovich.
“For Nemtsov, it was obvious,” Milov
said, “that Yanukovich was not only the head of a corrupt clan which had seized
power in a country but the latest attempt of authoritarian restoration of the
Putin or Lukashenka type, something that sooner or later would convert Ukraine
into Belarus-lite.”
As “a principled supporter of
freedom,” Nemtsov thus could not view with equanimity Yanukovich’s suppression of
media freedom, his promotion of corruption, and his jailing of political
opponents. “All this reminded [Nemtsov]
of what is taking place with [Russians],” Milov said.
It is far from clear what will
happen now that Nemtsov has been killed, the opposition politician says. Clearly the murder of Nemtsov touched a nerve
and the reaction of Russian society surprised the regime, forcing it to back
down a little. But whether that is only temporary or whether something more
fundamental happens depends on how the opposition itself behaves.
One thing is very clear, however,
Milov argued. By going into the streets, Putin’s opponents showed that the
Kremlin-organized Anti-Maidan is not nearly as strong and effective as the
Russian leader hoped. Indeed, Yanukovich
organized pro-regime forces better than Putin has so far – and the Ukrainian
leader lost.
“But there are worrying signals as
well,” Milov said. Some taking part in the memorial march showed fear and said
they wanted to go home before something bad happened. That is how the regime
wanted them to react, and it does not bode well for the future. Opposition
leaders must fight to overcome that fear.
Like Eidman, Milov said he does not
expect a new wave of political murders to follow immediately not only because
that is not Putin’s way but also because the Kremlin understands, having seen
the reaction to Nemtsov’s murder, that any additional killings of this type
could lead to a situation in which it could lose control.
No comments:
Post a Comment