"Bronze" War as a Deceptive Maneuver

A lot of swords have been already crosses in connection with destruction of monuments in Poland, Estonia and already in Russia. There are printed announcements: "We do not sell the goods from Estonia" on the doors of a lot of petty grocery shops in the Moscow court yard. There are quite proved doubts whether there were once Estonian products there (I can recollect only sour cream as sprats are - traditionally Latvian). "Our" and other "rumolas" with "guardsmen" carried out "closed" actions near Estonian Embassy where common people were not admitted.  Such actions were financed by the presidential administration (that is at the end by the common Russian people). Deputies of the Duma are already tired of threatening to new vandals with any nonexistent sanctions. Even the Ukraine caught up modern theme and demanded from Russia quite understandable explanations of the reasons of destroy of a monument to the pilot of the Ukrainian origin in Aprelevka.

On a background of "the war of monuments" other foreign policy problems seem to be fine and insignificant. If suddenly someone would decide to distract attention of the Russian and European public from more serious problem (for example, from accommodation in the East Europe of elements of antimissile system), he would fail to find more successful trick.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the fact that memory of victims in the last war is absolute and certainly important, reduction of probability of the potential future conflict (and decrease of opportunity of Russia to put adequate retaliation increases probability of usage of force against it) is more worthy way to pay tribute to those who protected the Native land in World War II. As expert of FORUM.msk V.Filin fairly noted after deducing of rockets SS-18 and SS-19 from RVSN structure infantry brigade will reduced up to 100 - 150 complexes, the majority of which can be put out of action by preventive (not necessarily nuclear) attack. In such conditions even limited number of air-defence interceptors placed in the Eastern Europe could play decisive role in the conflict.

"War of monuments" perfectly distracts public opinion from a problem of antimissile system. Everything is clear with the NATO which played out this card. Questions remain to the Kremlin. In passing it's worth reminding that it's absolutely "not clear" how such "patriotically disposed" Kremlin permit the destruction of the monuments on "its" territory.

The propaganda campaign carried out with the same scope as struggle against transfer of burial places could, at least, specify the problem in minds of the Europeans. Meanwhile at press conference upon termination of the summit Russia-EC there were only the questions about "Marches of not consent" and claims of the Russian Federation to Estonia. But the theme of accommodation in the Europe of American antimissile systems is not a problem for public opinion both of Russia and EU. Really, if the Russian Federation against which the American initiatives are directed in the frameworks of antimissile system is keeping silent, why should Europe worry about it?

From editorial board: It is possible to argue on the technical side of a question, say, to what degree European Antimissile System is capable to represent a problem for the Russian ballistic missiles. However the author is certainly right in the main thing - the hurrah-patriotic hysteria with monuments is organized by the Kremlin and organized with quite transparent purpose - to convince public opinion that the authority is ready to protect Russia and the Russians abroad in all possible ways.

Trouble is that there are not so many ways and all of them look quite pity. Most of all they remind an action "for the reporting". After failures in the Ukraine, in Georgia and further under the list the department which is responsible for the policy in the near abroad decided to show "showmanship". And, it is necessary to tell, this part of a task appeared to be executed successfully. They are still working.

But what relation it has to a foreign policy and whether it exists in general, this policy?

Recently the Kremlin even more often repeats as a mantra a spell about some new, extremely powerful Kremlin foreign policy. But it does not say about its essence. If to judge from the words, than external efforts of Russia are directed exclusively on quarrelling with everybody. If to judge from the deeds, than they call foreign policy of Russia actions directed on satisfaction of commercial interests of some business-groups adhered strongly to the Kremlin bureaucracy.

Is it their foreign policy of Russia? It makes impression. There is something to be proud of...

In this plan, certainly, the reminder that the monuments are treated in Russia even more foully, than in distant and near abroad, looks simply like an impact on interests of the Kremlin. ProKremlin mass-media didn't loose a chance to reproach FORUM.msk. A pier, whose mill you pour water on? Probably, believing, that the "mill" is still in the public property though it has been many years ago privatized "according to Chubays".

The most interesting thing here is that the defensive policy of Russia today as is fastened on the interests of the Kremlin business, as well as a policy of foreign policy department. They have recently understood in the Kremlin that soon the Russian Federation from a category of secondary military powers will pass into third-rate, the West will simply plunder all our so-called "elite" as it has cleaned up the Chinese in the beginning of 20-th century and has robbed "elites" in colonial empires before, not making a stop before their physical destruction.

In this aspect the Russian army and defensive-industrial complex remind the Chinese army of the times of Kuomintang where the maintenance of armies was business of the large companies whose interests should suffer as a result of the Japanese expansion.

Though we have centralized management of the army, but our business is also managed from one center. And the target of the army, aircraft and fleet in Russia, besides purely police functions, is reduced to protection of business-interests of the Kremlin. From some point of view it is more progressive, than statements of the leaders of earlier period that we don't need army at all due to the absence of enemies. Alas, competitor of the concern Joint Stock Company "Kremlin" undertook the role of enemies.  

To build foreign and defensive policy on the interests of the Kremlin is at any rate - shabbily. Though logically. Not for nothing Michael Delyagin named present authority in the country "dictatorship of squalidity". And what type of policy except for shabby could such authority have?

Anatoly Baranov, editor in chief of FORUM,msk

Send by mail

Print