Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 28 – “If Russians really
want change,” Vitaly Portnikov says, they need to focus not on the secondary
issue of corruption but on the authoritarianism and aggressiveness of Vladimir
Putin. But Aleksey Navalny won’t lead that charge because he supported Putin in
2008 on Georgia and the Kremlin leader’s Anschluss of Crimea in 2014.
Of even greater concern, the Ukrainian
commentator says, is the fact that Navalny in his demonstrations against corruption
has focused on the actions of Dmitry Medvedev rather than on “the leader of
Russian corruption, President Vladimir Putin” (ru.espreso.tv/article/2017/03/27/polytycheskaya_shyzofrenyya_pochemu_rossyyane_protestuyut_protyv_korrupcyy_a_ne_protyv_voyny).
“The paradox in this is htat a large
section of its participants – representatives of the so-called ‘creative class’
of Moscow – only a few years ago saw in Medvdev hopes for the liberalization of
the regime” and viewed Putin’s return to the office of president “as the most
real political catastrophe.”
“Had Medvedev remained chief of state,”
Portnikov continues, “many Muscovites despite the complete lack of signs of
liberalization and the recent war in Georgia would have been delighted. And the
corrupt nature of Medvedev” wouldn’t have bothered them at all given his
supposed policy preferences.
Given that, the current demonstrations
which “convert Medvedev into the main target of ‘the anti-corruption struggle’ prepare
the ground for the seizure by Putin’s siloviki of complete control over the
government and financial flows.”
“I will not assert,” Portnikov says, “that
now Putin doesn’t control the government. He does. But he doesn’t completely
control all financial flows, and this means that the Russian president simply
cannot take all means for the realization of his own plans, among which it is
completely possible a major war.”
Now, focusing on corruption and especially
corruption at the level of Medvedev rather than Putin as if these were the most
important thing is a distraction. But the problem here is an even deeper one,
the Ukrainian analyst says.
Portnikov argues that he wouldn’t “accuse
Russians of political schizophrenia” on that basis alone given that Ukrainians
too have suffered from some of the same attitudes and sought to avoid mass
actions even when they faced the illegal formation of a government and other violations
before the Maidan.
“The
first real mass action in Kyiv and other cities of the country began only after
the government’s refusal to follow the course of European integration which the
powers themselves had so enthusiastically promoted,” Portnikov says. “But even
the participants of this action explained that they did not want confrontation
with the powers that be.”
But then “the Yanukovich regime committed a
fatal mistake – fatal for itself but a salvation for the country – by deciding
not to sign the agreement [with Europe] and to disperse by force the students.
Political schizophrenia [in Ukraine] ended with that, and the Maidan began, a
genuine Maidan.”
What is taking place in Russia and “by the
way, in Belarus” is exactly what occurred in Ukraine “before the real Maidan.” What will happen next, Portnikov says, “xdepends
on how the Russian authorities conduct themselves and how Russian society does
as well.”
For a real protest to take off, he
suggests, the authorities will have to ask with “unmotivated cruelty” and “ignore
any demands of the citizens;” and “these citizens will then have the support of
millions of their compatriots who are ready to go into the street and defend
those arrested and beaten.”
The Russian powers that be have “always
acted with unjustified cruelty.” Dispersing a student demonstration is nothing,
but what is striking so far is that no one sees “the millions of compatriots”
ready to come out in their support. “But for a real protest, for the collapse
of the regime, these millions are required, just as they were required in Kyiv.”
No comments:
Post a Comment