Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 1 – The passing of
Yevgeny Primakov “unexpectedly unified Russian society no less” and quite
possibly more than the Crimean Anschluss, and the basis of this – an “indisputable
faith in the greatness of the old Soviet nomenklatura” represents “a real
diagnosis of the illness of Russian or more precisely post-Soviet society,” Vitaly
Portnikov says.
In Glavred.info yesterday, the
Ukrainian commentator notes that “Primakov’s biography was quite ordinary for
the times in which he lived,” a young man of somewhat obscure origins who
married into the Chekist elite and never put a foot wrong as he rose through
the ranks of the nomenklatura (glavred.info/avtorskie_kolonki/ucheniki-drakona-pochemu-rossiyane-uvereny-chto-putin-vedet-stranu-v-propast-a-primakov-by-ne-zavel-325094.html).
As an officer and agent of the KGB
specializing on the Middle East first under journalist cover and then academic,
Primakov developed the network of contacts both at home and abroad that were
his greatest resource. And no one was surprised when he turned up in the
entourage of Mikhail Gorbachev.
“And the question wasn’t whether
this was an agreement with the weakening Gorbachev or the strengthening Yeltsin
but rather how strong was the union of Boris Nikolayevich and the chekists,”
Portnikov says. “We found out the answer to that only in December 1999.” And
even before that, Primakov transferred from the SVR to the foreign ministry.
Those who suggest that in that new
capacity, Primakov “revised Russian foreign policy away from attempts to become
a normal European and civilized country” to being a remake of the Soviet past “are
not entirely correct.” In fact, Portnikov says, that shift happened earlier,
and the last months of Andrey Kozyrev’s ministry and all of Primakov’s are “like
two peas in a pod.”
Even when Primakov became prime
minister, the Ukrainian commentator continues, he did not take any independent
actions. His turning of his plane around over the Atlantic was completely in
line with the Kremlin’s policies at that time, although now it is viewed “almost
an act of state wisdom.” That too is a measure of how bad things are in the
Russian elite.
“When people talk about a possible
Primakov presidency, they forget” something important: he and his prime
ministry were inseparable from Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov and his political clan
and that as a result, he could do nothing but push forward the same kind of
people as himself – former officers of the Soviet and then Russian intelligence
services.
Such people now form such a large
component of the very highest levels in Moscow that it is quite appropriate to
say that today “there is a Primakov regime without Primakov.” And that makes it entirely understandable why
someone like Vladimir Putin should mourn his passing. “But why are many Russian
‘liberals’ who have declared [Primakov] ‘a great politician’ and ‘understanding
statesman’ doing the same?”
The answer, Portnikov suggests, is
that “Primakov, a former candidate member of the Politburo produced among them
the same holy thrill as Yeltsin, another former candidate member of the
Politburo,” and the fact that this happened in both cases shows how little the
liberals understand the nature of the Soviet system.
Such people, he continues, “do not
understand that those who rose on the latter of a party career in one of the
most appalling systems in modern history never were politicians or statesmen.
They were imitators, working for the preservation of influence of a narrow
circle of unprincipled careerists.”
“Whom did Yevgeny Maksimovich not
imitate over the course of his long life!
Bureaucrat, journalist, scholar, diplomat, politician, ‘gray cardinal.’”
Certainly by the end, “he himself did not know who he in fact was.” But of
course “he led a tasty, successful and comfortable life on the ruins of his own
country like the other people of his circle.”
Portnikov concludes by noting that a
few days before Primakov’s death, Saddam Huseyn’s former prime minister and
foreign minister Tariq Aziz died,” someone who followed a similar life of
imitation but who “experienced a complete collapse of the hateful system which
he served and in which like Primakov in his he wanted to be the best student of
the dragon.”
“As a result,” the Ukrainian
commentator says, Tariq Aziz “died in prison under a death sentence.” He did
not get a pompous funeral, but “as before, there are not a few politicians and
diplomats in the Middle East who are ready to recognize him as an outstanding
politician and diplomat – even among Arab ‘liberals.’”
Given the possibility that the same
thing could have happened to him, Portnikov says, Primakov was more “lucky”
than even he may have appreciated. But
it is far from clear that his country has been given that so many of its
leaders and their liberal opponents clearly do not appreciate that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment