You are here:   Eastern Europe > Putin's New Evil Empire
 
Now they have a much easier job. Communism was a hard sell. Not only did it demand huge sacrifices of freedom, but it didn’t work. The painful truth for the Kremlin’s lie-mongers was that workers in the Soviet Union lived worse — a lot worse — than their counterparts in America. The crony capitalism of modern Russia is much less distinctive. And — lethally for us — it is highly tempting for the rich, powerful and unscrupulous elsewhere. That is particularly true now that the regime has taken some of its most sinister ex-KGB types out of the front line, and promoted the quiet, lawyerly Mr Medvedev. On close scrutiny, his well-honed phrases about liberty and the rule of law sit ill with the lawlessness and repression at home. But they are a perfect sugary coating for the bitter pill that the Kremlin wishes us to swallow: the Finlandisation of western Europe, and the recovery of its old eastern Empire.

The clearest example of this has been the Kremlin’s success in suborning Germany, once a pillar of the Atlantic Alliance and now almost Russia’s closest ally in Europe. During the old Cold War it would have been inconceivable that a serving German chancellor, in his last weeks in office, would have signed off a loan guarantee on a controversial Kremlin-backed energy project that directly threatened Europe’s collective security. It would have been even less conceivable that, having left office, the same German politician would then take a lucrative job as chairman of that project.

Yet that is exactly what Gerhard Schröder, the successor to such giant statesmen as Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, did in 2005, with the Nord Stream pipeline. This will take gas along the Baltic seabed directly from Russia to Germany, bypassing the countries in between (and thus making them vulnerable to energy blackmail). Even more shocking is that the German government of Angela Merkel has been unable to derail the project.

Worse, at the Nato summit in Bucharest in early April, it was Germany that blocked the chances of Ukraine and Georgia taking the next step towards Nato membership. Never before had the divisions in Nato been so cruelly — and dangerously — exposed. A compromise was cobbled together to disguise the split; but the damage had been done. When push comes to shove, Germany cares more about pleasing Russia than America. Now Georgia is paying the price, as Russia moves swiftly to annex, in effect, the breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These two statelets have been Russian puppet states for 15 years. The pro-Western government in Georgia is humiliated; those in it who have argued for a peaceful approach to the separatists are undermined. And as the Kremlin flexes its muscles, the absence of any protest from Europe is painfully apparent.

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.