Paul Goble
Staunton,
January 23 – Many are expecting that the conclusion of the British judicial
investigation into the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko that Vladimir Putin was
behind that crime will lead to a sea change in the reaction of the West to
Putin and his regime. As much as one
would like to believe that, the prospects do not appear to be good.
The
reason is simple: Western leaders and indeed Western publics are like the
proverbial frog who might have jumped out of a kettle of boiling water but quietly
accepts their position if the water is simply warmed up, ultimately to boiling.
Each rise in temperature is accepted as the new normal, and the overall trend
toward the boiling point is ignored or at least discounted.
Putin
began his rise by killing 300 of his own citizens to restart a vicious war in
Chechnya, but most in the West refused to accept the findings of experts and
the evidence from Ryazan on that and continued to look at him as the continuer
of the market oriented policies that the West cared more about than democracy
and freedom.
Putin
arrested and in some cases had his opponents killed, and again Western leaders
said just as they had in the 1930s about Hitler that the stories were overblown
and that the Kremlin leader was someone the West had a compelling interest to
cooperate with rather than contain and work to remove.
Putin
laid out his plans for a revanchist policy in Munich, and these were dismissed
in Washington and other capitals as playing to his domestic audience. Then he
invaded Georgia and more recently he has invaded Ukraine. But instead of supporting those victims of
Russian aggression, the West chose to negotiate with Putin about them without
them.
In
every case, the logic has been the same: First, some constantly try to blame
the victims, suggesting that Putin had to act the way he did. Then, they insist
that he couldn’t be as bad as his critics say. And then, such people argue that
even if he is, he is still someone they have to talk to because of Russia’s
power.
Because
of such attitudes, there has always been a market for those who argue that they
can establish rapport with Putin and his regime and achieve a breakthrough.
Those who suggest they are deceiving themselves on that point and even being
played are dismissed now just as consistently as were “the wild Churchill men”
who opposed Hitler.
What
is perhaps the most appalling and hypocritical aspect of this situation is that
many Western governments do in fact take small steps indicating they understand
the situation but do not refrain from saying how sorry they are to have to do
even that or from dispatching their diplomats to Moscow to negotiate with Putin
about his agenda.
The
time has come to recognize that Putin, like Hitler and Stalin before him, will
keep moving in increasingly horrific directions both at home and abroad unless
the rest of the world clearly recognizes his evil and takes steps to block him
for its sake and for the sake of Russians as well because despite Putin’s
megalomania, Putin is not Russia and Russia is not Putin.
But
as of yet and despite the Litvinenko case findings, there tragically does not
seem to be much of a willingness to recognize the reality we find ourselves in:
the water that the frog finds itself in is getting hotter and hotter and unless
something is done, the water will boil – and the frog as a result will die.
No comments:
Post a Comment