|
FYI: ej.ru is one of the very few opposition outlets left remaining in Russia. This is a translated article from one of their authors, by Alexander Golts. I tried to translate it from a somewhat complex Russian text with a help of Google language tools, fixing the mistakes here and there, while retaining the tone and sticking as close to the original form as possible.
| quote: | Why Russia is not trusted?
Besides reports from South Ossetia, where Georgian troops seem to be leaving the positions, Russian TV channels are full of angry comments. They are angered by the reaction of Western politicians and (negative reaction in Western) media to a new Caucasian war. They (seem to) ignore the obvious fact that unlike Saakashvili, Russia did not violate all the agreements and for the last day subjected Tskhinvali to a barbaric bombardment. "One can argue indefinitely about who fired first" – a dismissive reaction expressed to main Russian argument by a certain senior representative of the US administration who conducted a breefing for American journalists.
What is placed first and foremost is the disproportionate use of (russian) military force - above all, the air strikes deep into Georgian territory. The president of the United States threatens that the ramifications of the new Caucasian campaign will very seriously affect Russia’s relationship with the outside world. Foreign Ministries of other Western countries, representatives of the EU and NATO, have expressed similar views. If diplomats are at least trying to avoid using the word "aggression", the world's leading TV channels are not so reluctant. Not the least because the lion's share of time in programmes are granted to Mikhail Saakashvili, who speaking in excellent English lays out the Georgian version of events.
Our own media is predictably blathering “Bastards are lying”. Through lips of Mikhail Leontyev it explains what is happening worldwide is an anti-Russian conspiracy, in which Mikhail Saakashvili simply performs tasks assigned by the “Washington Office”. Obviously, the propaganda department of the “Office”, expectedly, is providing its’ support in the media.
If one does not assume the paranoid view of the global conspiracy, it is necessary to answer a simple question: Why in a situation where Moscow and Tbilisi provide two directly conflicting versions of what is happening and when arguments from both sides have obvious flaws, somehow Georgia’s version seems believable?
In my opinion, bombing of other regions of Georgia play the deciding role. The logic of our generals is easy to understand – by all the rules of military science you need to deprive the enemy of the reserves and not allow it to replenish the stocks of military equipment. Therefore, Russian warplanes strike at military bases and airstrips of the airfields. And this is considering that our airforce is not guilty of high accuracy, bombing the residential areas instead of military bases. All this was not difficult to forsee. Therefore,one should really weigh the hypothetical military effect of such bombing against a quite real PR damage. Avoiding it (PR damange) would be possible only if the (true) aim of the bombings was not to terrorize the Georgian population.
Very broad military action by Russia has created quite natural questions about what is the real purpose of this operation. It would be good if the objectives of Russian troops were limited to only "forcing (Georgia) to peace" in South Ossetia, restoration of the line of separating the sides - as it was stated by the Deputy Chief of General Staff, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn. However, if that’s the case then it is not very clear why Moscow actually supports Abkhazia, which opened a "second front" against Georgia.
And most importantly - how can it be explained that in a telephone conversation with Condoleezza Rice, the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said quite sincerely that "Mikhail Saakashvili must leave"? It is quite telling that Americans have taken an unprecedented step during the meeting of the UN Security Council by publicly disclosing contents of confidential telephone conversations. I think this signifies that the current administration has no further plans for serious relationship with Russia. Even though Lavrov hastened to declare that he was misunderstood, it is perfectly clear that Moscow was not motivated just by the desire to establish a lasting peace in South Ossetia. There is (also) a strong hatred of the regime of Saakashvili and this (conflict) was a possible opportunity to destroy it. And Moscow cannot seem to mask it, which is what undermines the confidence in its words.
It cannot be overlooked that russian leaders ignore the the opportunity to convey their point of view to the world community. Saakashvili really is on American TVs at all times. However, I suspect that if Dmitry Medvedev decided to talk to foreign journalists they would certainly show up.
Finally, and perhaps the most important fact. The fact that the whole world now considers Russia an aggressor is the most significant outcome of its’ previous foreign policiy. The one which not long ago was characterized as successful actions to bring Russia back into the international arena. Why all of the sudden Moscow would be trusted by partners, which for several years have been convinced of, to put it mildry, the inadequacy of the Kremlin leaders. Let's recall promises to target missiles at Poland, the Czech Republic and Ukraine, thus responding to the deployment of U.S. missile defense and NATO expansion. Think about all these silly asymmetrical but adequate Russian responses: about flights of strategic bombers to Cuba, about the deployment of "Iskander" (missles) in Kalinigradskiy region. Think about Vladimir Putin's historic speech in Munich.
It is unlikely that Moscow would enjoy a special trust in the U.S., to whom a senior Russian Foreign Ministry quite recently predicted an unprecedented crisis and whom it promised to delete from the list of partners. Should Britain trust Russia? After polonium scandal, spy stories with a stone, and practically closing the British Council – that would be quite difficult. This is due to the fact that each of these stories were accompanied by endless lies from the mouth of Russia's official representatives. The current diplomatic defeat (one can only hope that it will not lead to a full diplomatic isolation of Russia) convincingly demonstrates the effectiveness and the success of our foreign policy.
|
Source: http://www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=8296
___________________
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
|
