Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 20 – Even though
Vladimir Putin did not take part in the public commemorations of the third anniversary
of his annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, there is no question that his
press secretary is right that the day he took that step remains for the Kremlin
leader “a special day,” Aleksey Shiropayev says.
“Imagine for a minute that Putin had
not annexed Crimea,” the Russian commentator says. “In that case the victory of
the Maidan could have ‘infected’ Russia as well for the spirit of freedom is
infectious especially when the countries involved are so close.” Putin had to
find “an antidote”– and seizing Crimea was it (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=58CF89197E0F9).
And the Kremlin leader “perfectly
well understood that the lure of freedom and dignity could be put down in Russian
consciousness only by another lure – an imperial lure of greatness, a lure of
chauvinist patriotism and slavish ecstasy of unity with the powers that be,”
Shiropayev continues.
This “antidote to freedom and
democracy,” one that generated “an abrupt degradation of society and all
political life” in the Russian Federation is what “’Crimea is Ours’”
means. And thus “Crimea became Putin’s
anti-Maidan.”
Such an analysis is intriguing for
at least two reasons. On the one hand, it lends weight to reports that Putin
personally made all the decisions about Crimea (echo.msk.ru/news/1947412-echo.html), and on the other, it suggests that Putin’s
aggression may at least initially have been driven by domestic considerations
rather than the possibility of retaking the empire.
In
either of those cases, backing away from Crimea or at least not seeing it as a
precedent for moves elsewhere might come easier for a post-Putin Russia, although
given his personal involvement in this way with Crimea, it probably precludes
any movement on that issue as long as he is in office or in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment