Paul
Goble
Staunton, Nikolay Leonov, a KGB
lieutenant general who headed that organization’s analysis department from 1973
to 1991, says that he very much fears that Russia is at risk of losing not only
Crimea, Kaliningrad and the Far East but even the Middle Volga as a result of ignorance,
incautious actions and rapid demographic change.
In the course of a long interview in
which he discusses the KGB’s role in the last two decades of Soviet power, the
qualities of various Soviet leaders, and the failure of the country’s political
leadership to take seriously the warnings his agency issued, Leonov also talks
about the situation now (eadaily.com/ru/news/2019/03/29/nikolay-leonov-ya-opasayus-za-sudbu-kryma-kaliningrada-i-primorya).
He suggests that
if anything the gulf between those who provide accurate information and
analysis and those who make decisions may be even greater than it was at the end
of Soviet times. As evidence of that he points to “the history with Crimea.” That action has produced a counter-reaction
that should have been considered before the decision to annex the peninsula was
taken.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen,
and the situation now is very much worrisome. “What price are we paying The
real situation that exists now in the world about Russia and also the domestic
conditions in the country when the temperature is gradually rising are causing
me to become increasingly concerned,” the former KGB analysis chief says.
Leonov says that he is even “concerned
about the fate of certain of our territories.”
“Kaliningrad, for example” where “time
is working against us. “The population there never went to the Soviet Union and
already doesn’t remember it. The oblast is gradually being drawn into relations
with the West.” It already has “special relations” with Poland, Lithuania, and
so on. Western leaders can see this and are getting ideas.
“I am very much afraid as well for the
territory of the Far East, the Primorsky kray. They are ever more being drawn
into the orbit of China, Japan and South Korea. What ties them to Russia? The
single Trans-Siberian railway? Rising prices for airline tickets are such that
I don’t know who flies except on business,” Leonov continues.
Moreover, he says, “when people tell
me that in Vladivostok there is almost not a single car of Russian manufacture,
I am not surprised.” The region produces for Japan and buys from japan. “Russia
for the people there is very far away … what will the situation in that region
be in 10 to 15 years?”
Vladislav Surkov says that Russia
can be held together by administrative means alone. But portions of the country
are heading in different directions, and such “bindings” won’t be enough. A single explosion could trigger the falling
of dominos in many places. “I very much fear such a scenario,” the KGB analyst
says.
He suggests that he is also worried
a bout Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. Not long ago, we experienced plans about
the creation of a ‘Caucasus emirate.’ There have also been ideas about establishing
a “Urals Republic,’ and the separation out of the south of Russia.” These
challenges must be recognized and be countered by becoming the basis of policy.
People are kept together by “social
and economic unity,” Leonov says. “But with us in Russia the structure is
becoming rickety. Therefore, I have more concerns than optimism” about the
future.” Demography is working against us as well, and “when I hear that Moscow
soon will be the largest Muslim city in the world, I can hardly stand it.”
Given that people in power in Russia
today experienced the end of the USSR, they should be aware of how quickly
things can turn against the center, Leonov says. But it is clear that many decisions are being
made without adequate information not only about Russia’s regions but also
about Russia’s neighbors.
Trends there are also working
against Moscow, but there seems to be “an information vacuum” in which
decisions are being made without an adequate appreciation of realities.
Some of Leonov’s comments may be
dismissed as no more than an example of a former senior official who not
unreasonably believes he and his generation did a better job of things than the
current one; but the fact that he made these (and other) comments shows both
just how nervous some in Moscow are and how upset they are about the way the
Putin regime is acting.
The former KGB analyst’s argument
rests on the almost universally recognized principle that good analysis doesn’t
guarantee good policy because that those who make policy can ignore it but that
good policy in the absence of good information is almost always a random act –
and not something that any leader or country can count on for long.
No comments:
Post a Comment