Paul
Goble
Staunton, April 2 – Neither Russian
elites nor the Russian people accepted the demise of the USSR and occasionally signaled
that throughout the Yeltsin period, according to commentator Sergey Shelin, but
in every case, the West preferred not to take notice of that reality and only
now with Vladimir Putin’s actions is being forced to deal with it.
According to the Rosbalt blogger, “the
difference between today’s great power policy and that which was conducted over
the preceding 23 years is only the difference between thoughts openly expressed”
and acted upon “and those that remain thoughts alone” (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2014/03/26/1248872.html).
The recent declaration of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation that it had been responsible for the
adoption of a Duma measure on March 15, 1996, denouncing the Belovezhskaya
accords on December 1, 1991, that led to the demise of the USSR is a clear
indication of that reality, Shelin says.
The 1996 resolution was passed
because “the then-deputies themselves started from the proposition that no one
would take their verdict” on Belovezhskaya “seriously.” And no one did. Boris Yeltsin’s Kremlin said
that this was the action of “irresponsible people” and irrelevant. And diplomats and leaders in the West were
quite prepared to accept that judgment.
But that was a mistake, Shelin
continues, and would have been obvious to all if people had been paying closer
attention to what even Yeltsin was doing.
Even before the March 1996 resolution, he made Yevgeny Primakov, “the
principle supporter of the Soviet policy of opposing the West,” foreign
minister.
“Many then mistakenly concluded that
this was only a game directed at a domestic audience,” the Rosbalt writer
says. They also ignored the 1997 treaty
about the Union of Belarus and Russia and the 1999 decision of Yeltsin and
Alyaksandr Lukashenka to rename that grouping “a Union state.”
Moreover, in November 1999, Yeltsin
himself delivered a speech in Istanbul “extremely similar in content to the
Munich speech of Vladimir Putin. And in December 1999, Yeltsin in Beijing “threatened
America from there with Russian nuclear rockets.”
To be sure, Shelin says, “at that
time, the Americans and the Europeans preferred to interpret all these threats
as something ritualistic.” And they even welcomed Vladimir Putin’s coming to
power with a certain relief, confident that he would be an even more committed “Westernizer
and extraordinarily constructive partner.”
As a result, “the seriousness of
[Putin’s] great power intentions was recognized only gradually and always with
a delay,” the Rosbalt blogger continues.
“Already in the mid-1990s,” Shelin
says, “it had become obvious” that a significant portion of Russia’s “ruling
class” and “the majority of ordinary Russians” had “refused to recognize the
fact of the liquidation of the Soviet Union.” More than that, he says, “in the
minds of people, the Soviet Union as it were continued to exist.”
Some Westerners did understand,
Shelin says. One Western diplomat said
of his opposite numbers in the Russian foreign ministry: “They are not patriots
of Russia! They are patriots of the USSR!”
And that reality meant that they interpreted what the West did the way
the Soviet leadership would have rather than the way a truly new Russian one
might have.
Thus, for such people in Russia, the
expansion of NATO eastward was “incomparably more terrible than any challenges
from the south or the east,” precisely because the latter challenges had been
viewed in Soviet times “as second-order ones,” while the threat from NATO was
always primary.
Why did the attachment to the Soviet
Union continue? One reason, Shelin
suggests, is that no other empire in the 20th century collapsed so
quickly and easily and on the supposed basis of the agreement of its
constituent parts. But “to say that in
1991, the public opinion of Russia was ready for the collapse of the USSR is
simply laughable.”
Two years before that, no one
thought that such a thing was possible, he points out, and consequently what
has been presented by some as “an historical inevitability” was a complete “political
surprise” to many Russians and thus interpreted by them as the act of evil
forces behind the scenes.
After an initial shock of two or
three years, Shelin continues, Russian society began to think and even to say
that “the divorce” of 1991 was not “real” and that steps must be taken to
reverse the collapse of the empire. This
“parallel world” existed even under Yeltsin, he says. Now, it has reemerged, and its strength
reflects the fact that such views never really went away.
No comments:
Post a Comment