You are here:   Eastern Europe > Putin's New Evil Empire
 
That is the broad path down, but a narrow and rugged way back to moral ascendancy is there, if we choose to tread it.

It requires first of all a clear understanding of the historical and geographical context in which we articulate our views. Stalinism, for example, should not be regarded as some distant abstraction, as irrelevant to modern-day politics as the Bismarckian militarism of 19th century Prussia. It is a powerful and toxic force that modern Russia has yet to confront. The fact that Vladimir Putin regards the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as lawful is not some curious historical footnote. It is as outrageous as if a German chancellor were to maintain that the Munich agreement on the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia had been “just another treaty”. Our ahistorical, optimistic age finds that difficult to grasp. Politicians with a strong sense of history are rare. “That was then, this is now” is an easy retort to those who raise the whiskery problems of the past.

A degree of historical amnesia is a necessary lubricant in politics. The postwar rapprochements between France and Germany, or more recently between Britain and Ireland, would not have been possible if either side had stuck rigidly to a script featuring past historical wrongs. But that presupposes goodwill. Germany and Poland get on pretty well — but it took Willy Brandt’s genuflection in Warsaw in 1970 to dent the Polish conviction that nothing could be forgotten or forgiven. Nobody should rub modern-day Russians’ noses in the Katyn massacre, or the mass deportations from the Baltic states to Siberia of 1941 and 1949. But the quid pro quo is that Russians do not speak of those years with pride or nostalgia.

Secondly, we have to be a lot blunter about what we are doing and why we are doing it. Why do we accept the language and citizenship policies in Estonia and Latvia, which the Kremlin portrays, now with increasing vehemence, as a discriminatory blot on the West’s record? Why do we think Kosovo deserved to be independent, while Transdniester (a breakaway region of Moldova) doesn’t? Is it solely because the Kosovan leadership is pro-American and the separatists in Transdniester are Lenin-loving Soviet holdovers? If so, it is hardly surprising that Russians and others think we are being hypocritical.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Chipfield
August 19th, 2008
8:08 AM
Dictator Putin is showing his true evil nature with the vicious Russian invasion of tiny Georgia. We can only hope NATO gets their act together and forces Moscow's barbarian horde back into Russia, another 500 miles north!

Richardlith
July 15th, 2008
11:07 AM
The problem with Anonymous is that his comments are out of date, from about 30 years for British Guiana (now called Guyana and an independent state) to about 300 years for the monarch's right to sack the government. Also, if Scotland and Wales are still part of the British Empire, that woulld make Russia's Black Sea Coast (including the beloved Sochi), most of Siberia and the Far East, including Vladivostok and Sakhalin, remnants of the Russian Empire which should be given up to reduce the Russian Man's Burden. Indeed, Russia is still an imperialist state, bringing the total in the world to two after the US. Russia holds territory that it gained during the great age of European imperial expandion (about 1600-1900), and has not given it up, arguing that the Black Sea Coast, Siberia and the Pacific Coast are intergral parts of the country. Mind you, that is what the French used to say about Algeria!

Rob
July 14th, 2008
10:07 AM
It's interesting that someone raised the residual powers of the Queen in the UK. The plain fact is, however, that these powers continue to exist for the simple reason that no monarch would dare to try and use them, at least without direction from government. If they did, they would be removed. Also, it is wrong to say that Britain does not have a constitution. We do not have a written constitution, but our system of government is the sum of our laws. The irony of Russia, of course, it that Putin rigs elections he would easily win anyway.

Michael
June 27th, 2008
2:06 PM
I note that Anonymous' contribution is... well, anonymous. I wonder why?

Anna
June 24th, 2008
7:06 AM
Wholeheartedly agree with PG. As for Russia - Aleksandr Yakolev wrote in his book, "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia" that Russia will never be a normal country until it deals with the crimes of its Communist Soviet past.

Anna Pihta
June 23rd, 2008
8:06 PM
Diatribe by "anonymous" reminds me of the wackos who blame the US for all the problems of the world. What drives these folks, one wonders. Excellent article, Edward Kucas! As Alexander Yakovlev wrote in "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia" that country will never be normal until the Russians face and deal with their past, with the evil and the crimes of the USSR. Just as Germany has had to deal with the crimes of its Nazi past. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave - he actually rolled back Communism, but the West blew it. We won the Cold War, but failed to capitalize on this important victory. Ex-Soviets were let off the hook,no war criminals were punished, no compensation to the victims, no acknowledgement of their suffering, no monuments to the tragedy. And Putin's Russia glorifies Stalin, exploiting the youth and thereby dooming the future of that potentially great country by keeping the monstrous truth of what really happened from them.

Chipfield
June 21st, 2008
10:06 AM
If energy prices were to seriously reverse, Putin's corrupt energy fueled empire would collapse the entire Russian economy.

PG
June 19th, 2008
2:06 PM
Spot on, Ed, as usual! A stirring defense of democracy.

Brett
June 6th, 2008
3:06 PM
No, no need to continue. Despite your valid criticisms of the state of British democracy, the fact still remains that Russia has a uniquely rich history of despotism. It is only prudent, especially as Russia emerges (once again) as a dominant world player, to firmly condemn any behavior (such as the Kremlin's murdering of reporters) that harkens back to a time that Russia should be anything but proud of.

Anonymous
June 3rd, 2008
10:06 AM
Herr Lucas, look in the mirror and tell me if you like what you see. Is the UK, a ridiculously retrogade monarchy without any constitution, indeed more "democratic" than Putin's Russia? At least Russia's head of state is popularly elected, which cannot be said either of the UK's hereditary head of state, a Queen with enormous political powers such as being commander-in-chief, head of the state-imposed Anglican Church, etc. (not to mention her extraordinary hidden powers to reject or even overthrow cabinet governments and parliaments), or even of the UK's head of government, the Prime Minister? Russia at least has a Supreme Court and a Constitutional Court, while the UK has nothing but a still predominantly hereditary House of Lords, which occasionally pretends to perform such an unusual for it function. And the UK is still trying to maintain an antiquanted though hugely shrunk empire, stretching from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all the way to British Guiana and the Argentinian Falkland Islands. And you still have operating concentration camps (which the British pioneered as part of their "White Man's burden")more than a 100 years ago during the Boer War) ready to detain any troublemaker in Northern Ireland. Under UK's electoral system, you can still "win" the election, even if you have lost the popular vote. And if the supposedly "independent" British Broadcasting Corporation dares to criticize the Prime Minister, the latter can fire--and has fired in the past--the BBC's CEO (which is why other Europeans often joke about the "British Buggery Corporation"). Need I continue?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.