Paul
Goble
Staunton, December 31 – Given loose
talk among some in the West about recognizing a Russian sphere of influence over
the former Soviet space, a Moscow blogger has brought back yet another term
from the past to describe what he says should be the basis for the future:
These countries, Aleksandr Khaldey argues, can and will again become Russian
protectorates.
On his blog yesterday, Khaldey
argues that “the specific characteristic of Russia as a civilizational-state
formation consists in the following: it in principle cannot be a peripheral
nothing. [Instead, it] can live survive only as a center” of something much
larger and more powerful that dominates weaker states around it (cont.ws/post/476689).
“Russia always was a sovereign
surrounded by vassals,” and the latter never could or can exist independently,
he says. If they try to escape from Russia’s orbit, they can only become
protectorates or colonies of other powers hostile to Russia. Thus, Russia must ensure for its own survival
that they become again its protectorates.
“A protectorate,” Khaldey writes, is
when a weak state is in formal dependence on a stronger one. “In its soft form,
a PROTECTORATE the subordinate and dependent state formally retains its state
system” but even then “supreme rule in the country really belongs to the
stronger power.”
He continues: “In a more harsh form,
the subordinate exists in COLONIAL DEPENDENCY,’ where the patron state decides
completely all aspects of the state system and the existence of the client
state. That is, one is speaking about the
presence of external administration.”
At present, Khaldey says, “Russia is
struggling” to escape from being “an American protectorate” which he says the
US imposed after the collapse of the USSR and thus its leaders understand full
well what is at stake and why when they can, vassals – because that is what
those in protectorates are -- throw off rule by a former sovereign.
Russia’s temporary weakness is “coming
to an end,” he continues; and Western efforts to “transform the country into
the periphery of the Western global system are at the edge of collapse.”
Consequently, Russia must work to restore itself as “one of the global
civilizational centers” and restore its protectorates over its neighbors.
The examples of protectorates
Khaldey gives are suggestive and disturbing: the League of Nations mandate
territories in the Middle East after World War I, Hitler’s protectorate over Bohemia
and Moravia in 1939-1945, and Russia’s protectorate over the Karachay a century
earlier.
“At present,” he suggests, “Abkhazia,
South Osetia, the DNR and the LNR are Russian protectorates,” which all have a
strong desire to become “a component part of Russia.” In some ways, Armenia is
also “a protectorate of Russia.” And now Russia is seeking to make Ukraine,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and later Georgia its protectorates as well.
It isn’t yet “politically correct”
to speak the word “protectorate” aloud, he says; “but all experts understand
that in fact that is what is being discussed: all these former republics are
clients of Russia” and they will become even more so as Russia’s economy grows
and their trade with Moscow increases.
There is “one obstacle” to this: many
of the leaders of these weak states don’t want to become so obviously
subordinate to Moscow; but Russia’s success in promoting that status is
highlighted by their complaints. Such
whining to the West, however, will not “stop the machine of history.”
And Khaldey concludes: “Russia will
again be the protector for the former union republics” and they will soon
recognize “the historical inevitability of this restoration and the
hopelessness of resisting it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment