Regime Change Can’t Change Planes In Moscow
Russophobic sites are lamenting the fact that Gary Kasparov - ticket funded by Washington - couldn’t attend the Samara EU summit. Not that he was invited anyway.
The same fate befell the eccentric Limonov and a couple of journalists from the Daily Telegraph.
Apparently, the machine at Sheremetyevo airport found all their tickets as unreadable as the Daily Telegraph. No surprise there.
Personally, I have nothing but praise for the Russian style of selective security.
When George W. Bush has a European summit, whole towns are shut down - even to people who live there. Security bubbles are at least three mile islands wide. Consider immobilised Istanbul or restricted Riga - ‘Latvians Flee As NATO Descends’ were the headlines - where only 200 prostitutes were allowed through the inner cordon. London - upon which a three mile wide security bubble was imposed at the time of Dubya’s visit - was asked by US security for ‘shoot to kill’ licence.
But here, in Russia, a mere handful of obvious troublemakers are identified and prevented from travelling. Well. Exactly the same happens at British railway stations on any Saturday with known football hooligans. These are people have no genuine interest in the match and will only spoil it for fans.
In Samara, nothing untoward happened. The EU went about its usual pointless business and, importanly, local girls were neither rationed nor cordoned off.
where only 200 prostitutes were allowed through the inner cordon
haha, that tells alot about the event
I’m not sure I’d classify Siberian Light as a Russophobic site, although I think it’s pretty fair to say I have significant issues with the way that Russia is governed at the moment, and believe that those currently in power are neglecting the long term stability that developing a well structured and honest democracy would bring, in favour of short term gains which are mostly skewed in favour of a select few.
Anyway - on to Kasparov and protests…
I’ve no problem as such with exclusion zones being put in place around cities where major summits are taking place, whether that be in Russia, the US or the UK.
What I do find absurd is the way in which the Russian authorities decided to prevent Kasparov from travelling there.
Instead of pissing about barring him from flying on the basis of what was (let’s face it) an absolutely ludicrous excuse, they should have had the courage to bar protests in the region or notify Kasparov in advance that he was barred from flying to Samara if he intended to protest - if that’s allowable under current Russian law.
Andy wrote:
” . . a well structured and honest democracy . . ”
There isn’t one of those in the West, sorry. And those that speak of freedoms plunged millions of Russians into poverty in the nineties and are now doing worse to millions of Iraqis.
The West is not funding Kasparov, or sheltering Berezovsky & Co, for the well-being of ordinary Russian citizens.
Considering Kasparov is essentially a traitor, he was treated with great humour. Which was exactly the right response. Anything else would have given him undeserved credibility.
Well, I don’t know if Kasparov is a traitor (I doubt it, frankly). But there is absolutely no doubt that Putin is a dictator. How would you explain otherwise the near total absence of non-governmentaly controlled audio-visual media? And the violent repression of any demonstration by the “omons”? I could go further for a while, but you know what I mean…
No, Kasparov is not a traitor - at list he can not do more damage to a Russia as Russian so called ‘elite’ already done. He is seen by majority as a noisy clown. Let him scream and squeak - who cares about Mad Garry?
Pity, that he left sport to join gang of idiots managed by political vampires. Very sad story of self-destruction.
OK. Several comments here. First to Alphast.
If I argue the case against Kasparov, it doesn’t mean I necessarily support Putin. But I do believe a Putin will serve Russian interests better - however marginally - than the puppet of a foreign power.
These are critical issues, since those you mention - like ownership of the media - are self-cancelling. Western media is owned by people like Rupert Murdoch and Berlusconi. That’s no better, or more democratic, than state ownership.
I also believe, nfb, that Kasparov can do enormous damage, if he is so inclined. He has an iron will to win. If you have read any accounts about how he beat Karpov at chess, it was ultimate psychological warfare. He is no ‘mad clown’ when it comes down to the wire.
I use the term ‘traitor’ carefully. Because this is about conflicts of interests, just as it was with Khordokovsky. Given half a chance, K would have sold out Russia, or his own mother, in seconds flat. But his self-interest was easy to identify. Kasparov is coming from somewhere else entirely, which makes him much more dangerous.
“There isn’t one of those in the West, sorry.”
So Russians should just give up trying to build one?
Your argument boils down to “the West stinks, so it’s OK if Russia stinks too.” Or do I misread you?
“I’m not sure I’d classify Siberian Light as a Russophobic site, although I think it’s pretty fair to say I have significant issues with the way that Russia is governed at the moment”
Absolutely. Characterizing Siberian Light as “Russophobic” is absurd. It’s like saying that anyone who doesn’t like Bush is “anti-American.”
You did that nice interview with him, and look how he repays you
I simply think the West should shut up, take its double standards and butt out.
Apropos Russophobic, Siberian Light is now parroting all the current vocabulary: ‘bully’, ‘energy as a weapon’ and ‘little countries won’t have to fight the bear alone’. It is sounding more like the Daily Telegraph every day.
Why is an article on Kasparov filed under ‘human rights’ , for example, rather than ‘regime change’ or ‘destabilising Russia’ ?
Well Dude,
I think that Kasparov is under “Human Rights” because his party’s potential for destabilising Russia is, to say the least, minimal. I don’t believe that people thrown in jail because they are attempting to protest again their government is an acceptable treatment of a minority group.
As for your claim that the Western Press is owned by Murdoch or Berlusconi, you are right only for some Italian channels and some Anglo-Saxon ones. Thanks God, the West isn’t limited to these countries. And secondly, Murdoch and Berlusconi are not the government. They are private groups. Berlusconi is even currently in the opposition in Italy. And in France, just as an example, you have several independant TV channels. So your argument doesn’t really fly here.
For the rest of your arguments, I agree. I don’t believe that Berezovsky would be any better than Putin. I also agree that the Eltsinian clique did a lot of damage to Russia. That doesn’t mean that there is no alternative. And at least a little bit more of freedom couldn’t hurt that much. Unless Putin is afraid that his massive popularity would wane once people are allowed to hear another sound than the Party line…
Well, we can argue all day about how ‘independent’ Western media is. At present, the only alternative media - left and right - is published on the Internet. And with Google deciding what’s a ‘news source’, those sources are also threatened.
If you think the BBC, for example, is independent from state control, you didn’t read the Hutton report.
There is a difference for me between genuine local opposition and regime change and black propaganda funded by foreign nations.
Kasparov’s ‘Russia without Putin’ is entirely a Western initiative. The pro Khordokovsky PR is disseminated by Grey Advertising, one of the world’s largest ad agencies. Timoshenko’s rants against Russia are being written by the Lincoln Center. Berezovsky and Murdoch are best friends and business partners - so much for the credibility of The Times.
There’s more than enough black propaganda coming from the West, so I see no reason for Putin to encourage it on his doorstep. No other country would entertain this level of foreign intrigue.
Remember why Britain’s premier Harold Wilson had to resign all those years ago?
Well, thank you, but we discussed the Hutton report a long time ago already… So I was clearly not referring to the BBC which is obviously a public channel. A public channel which is certainly a lot more free than the Russian ones, but a public channel nonetheless.
This said, Putin is poorly placed to make any comment on Western supposed interventionism in Russia (considering how mild such an intervention is) when we see how nicely he has treated his neighbours. There is a long list of countries which have “enjoyed” the Russian game: Chechnya, Georgia, most Central Asian countries, Ukraine, the Belarus, the Baltic lands, etc.
What I am also obliged to notice is that, if the only resistance to Putin is the one you claim being supported by the West, where are the other opposition parties? And please, don’t tell me about the Neo-communists. They are pathetic. A lot more dangerous than the Kasparov’s et alii, but pathetic anyway because they represent the old order. The fact is that any credible opposition party (and particularly the liberal ones) has been nicely eradicated by Putin’s friends. Maybe not physically (at least not always), but efficiently.
We have put up with Communist Parties in the West for ages. We put up with quite a lot of Russian interventionism nowodays. I don’t see why poor Mister Putin couldn’t put up with a bit of Western influence. He should at least recognize that the West actually would prefer to be friendly with Russia, do good business and live in peace… But there s a point where he seemed to miss that. And for what? Stupid pride? Money? I don’t know, but the future does not look too bright.
‘Russian interventionism’ and communism itself in the West was largely unsupported by Russia. Trotsky’s 4th International was a failure and it went downhill from there on.
Your point about ‘we should do good business’ is the nub. Good business for whom? Big Oil and Western Banks?
How does the West steal other country’s assets? You only have to look at Iraq - by dividing and destroying societies. Russia was all but destroyed by the IMF in the nineties. ‘The West wants to be friendly’. Yeah right. By surrounding Russia with Rumsfeld’s ‘Lilypad of Bases’ ?
Russia takes what it wants of Western culture and leaves the rest. IKEA furniture is probably OK.
“I simply think the West should shut up, take its double standards and butt out.”
Hey, so do I. But that doesn’t mean we have to paint the current Russian regime as better than it is.
“Why is an article on Kasparov filed under ‘human rights’ , for example, rather than ‘regime change’ or ‘destabilising Russia’ ?”
As a citizen of Russia, Kasparov should be able to visit any city in the country whenever he wants. The fact that Bush & Co. “closed down Riga” for a NATO summit is not an argument in favor of such policy. You seem to be implying that if Bush does it, that makes it OK - which I don’t think is an argument you really want to make.
Apropos Russophobic, Siberian Light is now parroting all the current vocabulary: ‘bully’, ‘energy as a weapon’ and ‘little countries won’t have to fight the bear alone’. It is sounding more like the Daily Telegraph every day.
You don’t want to know the amount of grief I get from my (staunchly conservative) Dad about reading the Guardian…
As for using energy as a weapon, I think that’s a pretty fair assertion when it comes to Russian approaches to the use of energy in the past 15 years. To my mind, the amount of times that energy supplies are cut off in commercial disputes that just happen to coincide with political disputes are too frequent to be anything other than a Russian attempt to leverage its dominance in the energy market for political ends.
Which is not to say that Russia doesn’t use it’s energy wealth for economic ends. It plays hardball in the energy market when it comes to profits and, in my opinion, usually quite rightly. In the past I’ve quite happily defended Russia’s right to remove subsidies on the price of energy it supplies to former Soviet states.
By the way - I couldn’t find the ‘little countries won’t have to fight the bear alone’ quote - where was that?
Why is an article on Kasparov filed under ‘human rights’ , for example, rather than ‘regime change’ or ‘destabilising Russia’ ?
I shouldn’t read too much into this - categorisation at SL is rather haphazard, and depends mostly on whether I can find a matching category before I get bored.
If I recall correctly, I posted the Kasparov article under human rights because I felt it fitted with the right to travel freely, but it could just have easily have ended up in a number of other places.
The categories do need to be updated to reflect changing political realities, though - an election 2008 category is probably long overdue.
If I don’t forget, I’ll get around to it someday…
dispenses employ a excellent site decent Gives thank you for the working hard to help everyone