Issue #03/84, February 29 - March 10, 2000 
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
By Boris Kagarlitsky
Why have American leaders fallen in love with Putin? Instead of the planned forty minutes, Madeline Albright chatted with him for three hours and left completely charmed. In fact, Ms. Albright was so charmed that she managed to forget to bring up the issue of the missing journalist Andrei Babitsky with our leaders during the conversation, even though he used to work for an American radio company--and one funded by American taxpayer money, no less. But hey, what’s one man compared to the world of big-time politics?
World Bank director James Wolfensohn also left Moscow completely satisfied. Maybe he, too, was genuinely carried away by the Chekist charm of the acting president. But it’s more likely that this newfound enthrallment of Russia’s Western partners has its roots elsewhere.
Vladimir Putin is a reformer, our foreign guests announced warmly. Conspicuously, however, they were in no hurry to call him a democrat. If there was once a time when they would have explained to us that an open market, an open economy and active participation in the global economy was necessary, because without them there would be no democracy, then that time has passed and the tune has changed. For the West, privatization, economic liberalism and the participation of foreign capital in the Russian economy have become so necessary so that for the sake of them, even democracy can be sacrificed.
Even at the very beginning of Putin’s tenure as Prime Minister, the American weekly Newsweek published a lead article in which the new principles of American politicians in Russia were outlined rather frankly:
"Economic and political reforms should be carried out in an organized period of time," the magazine wrote on July 27. "In Russia, such a possibility existed in the early 90’s when a new system formed, when true liberals were in power, when Boris Yeltsin was sound in mind and body, when it was possible to openly admire the West. The US held a huge influence in Russia, which was looking for it’s new place in the world. But we used up everything ourselves. Now we can only worry about causing the smallest possible damage. The West should make peace, keeping in mind that the attempt to convert Russia into a liberal democracy failed. The US now has only one interest in Russia--the safety of the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal."
Clearly, the Newsweek writer was being somewhat disingenuous here. Obviously, American interests in our country are not restricted to the safety of the atomic bomb. We have Western companies here which import raw materials from Russia, capital is fleeing Russia and landing abroad, and there is always the issue of the debts Russia owes to the West. The point, however, is that as far as Washington politicians in Russia are concerned, the magazine was substantially correct. Americans hang around in Russia not for the cause of democracy per se, but in pursuit of their own obvious interests. And as far as they’re concerned, so long as those interests are safe, Russians can manage without democracy somehow.
This sudden turnaround could only seem surprising to those people who sincerely believed that all the West’s interest and interference in our affairs in the last ten years or so was rooted in a genuine care and concern for our national well-being. On the other hand, those with any knowledge of the way the West deals with Latin American countries or third world Asian nations could hardly be surprised by the way things have turned out here. If you know anything about the way the world works, you can understand how the nationalist rhetoric of our new government is not only acceptable, but actually is actually pleasing to the ears of the West’s leaders.
 |
The question which stands before us is this: why did Madeline Albright have such a positive reaction to Vladimir Putin? The reason we ask this is because we might have expected a more negative or aggressive stance, as Putin is clearly an energetic adversary to Madeline Albright’s foreign policy. So I think the key to understanding Mrs. Albright’s opinion of Mr. Putin can be found in her statement calling Mr. Putin a "mixed bag". This underscores Mrs. Albright’s perception of Mr. Putin as an anal personality type. If we look at the metaphor of a mixed bag, it bears a very close relation to the understanding of an anal personality type, which retains inside itself all sorts of mixed feelings. Now, if we try to analyze Mrs. Albright, the first thing that comes to mind is that she, too, seems to be an anal-retentive personality type. But this is only a superficial impression. If one looks more closely at her activities, that she is a much more masculine-aggressive type, both in her politics and in her mode of personal expression. One may even suggest that she is, in fact, a man. But given the fact that she obviously is, biologically, a woman, we can speculate that in her sexual encounters she would probably seek to occupy a dominating position, to copulate rather be the subject of copulation. This, in fact, is the key to her whole approach to Putin, a very canny psychological strategy. She wants to court Putin, rather than take an aggressive approach, to which an anal-retentive type like Putin would inevitably respond by further tightening. This is not what Albright’s personality desires; instead of tightening, she wants him to release his anal sphincter and therefore make him receptive to her own attempt at copulation. By laying the foundation for warm and friendly relations, she wants him to turn his rear to the United States, soften up and dilate. This is the essence of the United States policy, and the explanation for the statements made by Mr. Clinton that Putin is a person "we can deal with." |
| See also in this issue Whose Subject Are You? |
We worry a lot over our army, especially over its generals. But while Anatoly Chubais talks about the rebirth of the army, our armed forces are disintegrating. It isn’t just that the army is suffering huge losses in Chechnya, or that our soldiers are demoralized by what they see there, and even more demoralized by what they’re doing there. The problem lay in another direction entirely: the very basis for Russia’s national defense readiness is withering away. We’re continuing to fight using the Soviet strategic reserve. And that reserve, as is the case with the economy, is coming to its end. An enormous amount of technology and armaments are being thrown around in Chechnya. How much of it will be destroyed, how much stolen--that’s not the important thing. The key fact is that there is nothing to replace all the arms and equipment being put into Chechnya with. And for the most part, the weapons and equipment are being taken from the Western front. It would seem that after the eastward expansion of NATO, we would logically do best to fortify exactly that part of our border. But no, the North Caucasus are more important to us.
At the very moment that the American delegation was visiting with Putin, the American military detained a Russian oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. Journalists wondered aloud if our diplomats acted decisively enough in the matter, or whether this was a conscious attempt by the United States to "tweak" Russia. And in fact, our diplomats couldn’t muster the strength to defend our ship. Only ten years ago such an incident could not have occurred, because Russia at the time had a functioning navy. Nowadays our warships aren’t even capable of going out in our own territorial waters on exercises, much less operate effectively on distant foreign seas. Therefore our diplomats can crank up the rhetoric as much as they like--no one will take them seriously anyway.
Even as Putin talks about our national dignity, a conflict is forming around our largest aircraft-building corporation--MIG. It’s bad enough that there is once again no money in the budget for new defense orders for the factory, but even the situation on the export front is now lamentable. In going to war in Chechnya, and spreading so much racist and anti-Muslim rhetoric, the Russian political elite has all but eliminated the last remaining markets for Russian airplanes--in the Arab countries, in Malaysia, etc.
One more other amusing detail: press outlets controlled by Boris Berezovsky, which jubilantly embraced the Chechen offensive and have essentially since September been leading Putin’s campaign for the presidency, have been simultaneously conducting an information war against the Russian military-industrial complex. The most scandalous example was the attack by Mikhail Leontev on ORT against that same MIG company. The ideologue of the "strong state" had the wisdom to say that MIG, as a company, more or less no longer exists. The program was seen by representatives of the Indian military, who subsequently put off a multimillion-dollar order--what if the company was really falling apart? A commission was sent from India to investigate. All the factories seemed to be in place, along with the management... the poor Indians didn’t understand that on our national television networks, even in the best of times, the anchormen can simply "misspeak"...
The situation is dramatic enough: if economic policy is not changed quickly, we will lose not only our markets. Our strategic control over our own air defense will also be lost. As concerns the countries of the third world, their fate will be simply tragic. Having lost the last alternative source of arms to bolster their militaries, they will simply be handed over to NATO. What the result of that will be, we saw already in Yugoslavia.
And so, we insist upon national dignity, but not upon a national defense. Still less do we insist upon our own industry. As long as Russia continues to fight in Chechnya, she will be pushed farther into the third world. Russia is losing its status as a great power and seems to have come to terms with the fact. She has come to terms with her new status as a supplier of raw materials for the world’s markets. At the same time, she has come into possession of a "strong leader". And order will be restored in the country. Order of the type that is most necessary to American and German transnational corporations.
Putin’s Russia needs armed forces all right, but the function of these armed forces will be different. They will be police. A military-police complex is very cheap to maintain; it doesn’t require either strategic avionics or advanced technology. And what Russia already has can be put to new use. For instance, heavy bombers can be sent to Chechnya. There is even talk that high-speed, high-altitude fighters will be used as ground-attack aircraft. It goes without saying that planes designed to fly high and fly fast will be extremely ineffective when used at low altitudes and low speeds. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have this leftover Soviet technology, and it must be used somehow.
Our liberal intellectuals long ago fell in love with General Pinochet. The aforementioned Leontev has been offering the Chilean dictatorial model as a plan for our national development for almost ten years now. But really, what kind of an example is it? An economic liberal and a true patriot, all wrapped in one tidy political package! A military man, he restored order in the country, shot the leftist ideologues, and shut the mouths of irresponsible journalists. And whoever protested too loudly--he disappeared without a trace!
The dream of making a Pinochet out of Putin clearly did not originate solely in the excited imaginations of certain very decisive intellectuals. It fits too well with the historical pattern set by the West in its dealings with "peripheral" countries. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s authoritarian regimes appeared throughout Asia and Latin America with the full backing of the United States. These regimes were not always as bloody as the one in Chile. They didn’t kill everybody, not by a long shot. There were many people in these places who were actually allowed to make public statements criticizing their governments--up until a certain point, when the "incendiary" figure would simply disappear. And elections were held only with prearranged results. Parliaments formed, but made sure not to seriously vie for power. The important thing was not the repression itself. The important thing was to instill an atmosphere of fear-based support of the leader.
In all these regimes there were two main ideological principles: for "positive" ideology, a program of nationalism, and for consolidation of the population against a common enemy, a continuing fight against terrorists or separatists. The enemy must necessarily be a domestic enemy, but for some reason the forces used against them must always be specifically the military and the intelligence services, which at times can be empowered during states of emergency to take over the function of the police.
As far as terrorism is concerned, we’re all set; as long as there’s even one Chechen left alive, there will always be both terrorism and separatism. Of course, the dictators of the 1970s always had a third ideological trump card: anticommunism. Here we have a problem. The Communists here support the government, and making them into a bogeyman will therefore be problematic. Incidentally, even this is not a unique situation--in Argentina during the very height of repression in the 1970s the communist party supported the "nationally-oriented" dictatorship. Incidentally, anticommunism as an ideological basis for government has not yet been disposed of in this country--Berezovsky’s television stations have been continually exposing the "final myth", proving over and over that fascist Germany didn’t actually invade Russia in 1941, but was in fact defending itself against Stalinist aggression. If someone of sincerely left-leaning orientation decides to seriously oppose the Kremlin, you can bet that the entire machinery of anti-communist propaganda will be mobilized in a heartbeat.
And so, welcome to the Banana republic, ladies and gentlemen! No need to think about what might be: think about what is already. The only thing missing are the bananas--the rest we have in abundance. We have the nationalist leader, the lapdog opposition, the regulated press, the fake elections, the corrupt officials, the filtration camps, and the army committing purges in the mountains. And now we even have our first disappeared person.
The West, of course, will judge us harshly for all of these flaws. Just as it endlessly judged Pinochet. And like Pinochet, we will answer the West that we will not allow it to insult our national dignity. And everyone will be happy.
When Mr. Yastrzhembsky tells us the news about Babitsky, he is not merely putting forth a particular version of Kremlin propaganda. He is repeating, in a slightly different form, exactly the same line that the press office of the state department in Washington has been repeating for decades.
What’s the problem? we’re asked in the Kremlin. And they explain: Babitsky voluntarily went along with the exchange to the bandits! Proof? Here’s his own signature!
What’s going on with the Russians? they’re asking in Washington. And the answer comes down: the Russians themselves didn’t need democracy. They wanted this regime themselves! Proof? An official Election Commission report on the election results.
This article was originally published in Novaya Gazeta.
 |
 |
 |
 Cards |
 Links |
 The Vault |
 Gallery |
 Who? |