Category Archives: Articles in English

Battle for Eurasia (III)

Leave a reply


Logistics of political rallies, which were held in conditions of freezing Ukrainian winter (sometimes for few weeks), have left nothing up to chance. All these facts — silent and rapid seizure of parliament in such unstable and unstrained country as Georgia, or part that nearly oppositional non-governmental organization CеSID played — it challenged election results in Serbia even before they were publicized — or the beginning of well-coordinated demonstrations cannot be accidental. In fact, these events are the results of activity of particular people, who were taught the propagandistic methods and united within various movements. These people are revolutionary-professionals to the bone; they organize coups and move from one country to another, from one revolution to another at the expense of non-governmental organizations, i.e. at the expense of American interests in Europe. Common trait of all these revolutions is the emergence of youth movements in each country — absolutely similar both in form and in content — and similar technique of carrying the revolution out…..

The first color revolution that took place in Serbia in 2000, was mostly organized by youth movement called ’’Otpor!’’ — the real moving force of students protests. Alexander Marich, one of its leaders has later confirmed «his direct connections with State Department and White House employees, and also he acknowledged that the U.S. Agency for International Development, international organization „Freedom house“ and Soros Foundation „Open society“ financed the most part of campaign». Marich confirmed that «training seminars took place in Budapest, Bucharest and in Bosnia during the spring, prior to these events». «Otpor» movement activists met there with the functionaries of Albert Einstein Institution and also with leaders of Polish movement «Solidarnosc» (Solidarnosc). As Marich asserted, the technologies they used were straightly casted by non-violent methods of Sharp and Ackerman’s actions and the aim of it was «to discredit the governments, to incline people for civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations. Everything was under the authority of association with no definite executor. Besides, the movement was to position itself as something distant from politics and mainly to draw undecided youth1 attention to its side.» Also the group was obliged «to use short messages and slogans, and activists were to be picked out due to their appearance in order to represent the movement properly, giving it touch of romance and freedom-loving, and to inspire the followers with the ideas of «special purpose2». And finally the movement could counted on broad support of leading world mass-media, which filtered and sorted information out to present the demonstrations as spontaneous meetings of youngsters, striving for freedom and democracy and longing for integration into international society.

After the Serbian success, two of «Otpor» members, Alexander Marich and Stanko Lazendich were employed by «Freedom house» and sent to widespread their skills and knowledge to other countries and to support preparations for other revolutions: in Georgia in 2003, and in Ukraine in 2004. The support mostly consisted of training: both methods of non-violent resistance, techniques of negotiations with authorities and also of logistics, which was essentially important for arranging the weeks-long demonstrations. It proved particularly useful to Ukraine, where demonstrators were given thousands tents and bedspreads to defend them from hard frost in the camp set up in the Square of Independence. During the entire stay at Maydan free-meals were served.

Symbols that these fraternal groups use (clenched fist) leave no doubts whatsoever about their correlation, whether we look at Ukrainian movement «PORA!», Kirghiz «KelKell» or Georgian «Kmara». It’s necessary to notice that such groups also exist in the countries that are (so far?) not going to carry out revolution. These are Byelorussian «Zubr» or Albanian «Mjaft», for instance. By the way, in Albania significant demonstrations are going on right now. Uzbek movements «Bolga» and «Youkol» and Azerbaijani movement «Jok» are also worth mentioning. Mind that it were activists of Georgian «Kmara», who carried out the trainings for their Russian fellows from «Oborona» — adding fuel to the flame of intense relationships between two countries. Speaking of «Otpor», in 2003 this movement was transformed into Serbian political party that deplorably failed Parliament election of the same year and then dissolved into Democratic Party (DS) of Boris Tadić, current President of Serbia. The most part of members of this movement re-trained into experts of local political analysis, being employed by such institutions like Center of applied non-violent actions and strategies (CANVAS) and National commission of justice and conciliation (CNVR).

One of the former «Otpor» members, Ivan Morovich has collaborated with the above-mentioned International center of nonviolent fight, «York Zimmermann Inc» company and with videogame developers «BreakAway Ltd» since 2003. He helped the latter with making a videogame «A Force More Powerful. The Game of Nonviolent Strategy», which came out in 2005. The game is based on different strategies and tacticsof acting without using force — these tactics were used in many countries to overthrow «dictatorships», «enemies of democracy and human rights», with Milošević being one of them. Thereby, the circle closes and practice unites with theory of developing videogames of Eckerman based on present or future scripts of color revolutions we spoke about. We have to mention another peculiarity of color revolutions. They are characterized by uniting nationalism and anti-imperialism (in this context it doesn’t matter whether it’s Russian or post-Soviet), while nationalists and radical right groups play an important role in the riots. This is exactly the case of Serbia and Ukraine. This is why we talked about orange-brown front of anti-Russian powers and heterogeneous coalition that united pro-Western democrats with radical right neo-nationalists. All these movements are openly anti-Russian. Today such alliances, where weak and heterogeneous liberal opposition comes out side by side with skinhead-nationalists, supporting leftist national-Bolsheviks or basically ultra right movements are commonplace.

Results of color revolutions and their prospects

We’ve been able to see that Goal of color revolutions is to reinforce the American presence (and, consequently, presence of NATO) in the center of Eurasia, around Russia — in order to carry out geostrategic and geopolitical tasks, formulated in theories of such geopolitical strategists like Mackinder and Spykman. It’s worth mentioning the rightness of their predictions that Eurasia is going to be the most important worldwide region in terms of energy resources, population and ties between civilizations. Color revolutions have a lot of in common, indeed. Particularly, it’s the orientation on countries that are admittedly important due to geographic or political (neighboring Russia) reasons or due to their location the energy corridors. But another common trait of color revolutions is orientation on countries with rather weak or unstable political regimes. Russia and Byelorussia, for instance, aren’t concerned about threat of such coup because necessary countermeasures as prohibition of non-governmental organizations activity and banishing revolutionist-mercenaries from the country have been undertaken at once. However, Russia somehow novelized taking upon a development of a large-scale youth movement «Nashi» that served for prevention of any attempts to get out on the streets or to resist the regime. Besides that, the activity of Soros Network and its subsidiaries was simply banned in Russia and Byelorussia alike.

According to Karine Ter-Saakyan, governments that came to power after color revolutions had no future by the time of 2008. She claimed: «The failure of color revolutions in the post-Soviet world is absolutely natural, it’s simply unavoidable. Democratic society and free market George Bush was enthusiastically promoting, seemed to be the targets of these revolutions — and they turned out to be untimely.» In practice these color revolutions, named after flowers mostly — like revolution of tulips, pinks, roses — faded away. What happened to Ukraine and Serbia is quite symbolic in fact — these countries showed that leaders who came to power due to results of color revolutions are unable to maintain even the minimum economic stability, while opening the economic system to American investments didn’t work out. This tendency broke down minimally by its long-lasting political projects. Prooflessness of this strategy became quite clear. Countermeasures can be successfully carried out — Russia and Byelorussia make good examples of that. Moreover it’s obvious that financial crisis hit the budget of color revolutions. And, finally, swift diplomatic and military response of Russia in August of 2008 clearly showed that it is ready to resist this democratic violence and to protect its citizens even abroad.

Now all that intellectual energy that spearheads of color revolutions waste on different attempts to destabilize Russia could be as well aimed at measuring and estimating effect of Arab spring. The losses are still beyond count, but they can affect Europe, Russia and America in the long run.


1«At Moscow yards» by Patrice Vilal pages 149 and 150
2 «At Moscow yards» by Patrice Vilal, page 151

Battle for Eurasia (II)

Leave a reply

So, after the Second World War Europe was divided into two with an Iron Curtain, the USSR was consider the major bidder for Eurasian dominion and at the same time «Promethean» movement, desperately wishing to split the Union into separate pieces, was actively supported by the CIA. American strategists were going to try out the geopolitical skills of their ideologists for real, attempting to girdle Russia with a network of buffer countries, allowing the USA to promote their own Eurasian policy. They’ve used an utmost innovative approach: they’ve organized the delusively spontaneous wave of people’s riots against existing regimes in the neighboring countries, but without usage of violent fights and via the well-arranged network of underground organizations. In order to do so, they’ve created a variety of associations and NGOs. They’ve dubbed themselves champions of democratic principles but mostly they’ve been only protecting American political interests in the countries that it recognized as unreliable and non-democratic. I.e. these are the countries that do not enter Western alliances and belong to the union of non-allied states. That strategic concept is not new; it is dated by the 80s, the height of the Cold War. Strategy developed into tremendous number of NGOs, funded by Reagan government in order to weaken Soviet influence and oppose it.




They included USAID, USIP and NED, which is an international democratic staff training institution itself and administers various liberal associations that promote democratic values. We’d also mention the Institute for study of the USSR and American Committee for Liberation of Bolshevism, which leader of Promethean movement joined after the WWII. This list also features Aspen Institute, Jamestown foundation and The American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus that organized, funded and maintained the jihad against Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. This committee prototyped the Freedom House — heart of the system, found in 1941 to resist fascist influence and afterwards, influence of the Soviet Union. The list wouldn’t be complete if not for Heritage Foundation, found in 1973 as a tool of President Reagan’s anti-Soviet doctrine and being one of the most prominent conservative «think tanks» of America. There’s also the «Open Society» network of the Soros Foundation, intended to promote liberal principles and democracy at the post-Soviet space via their subsidiary associations. Finally, we have to mention AEI that is considered to be the right wing of the liberal Brookings Institution «think tank» along with American Enterprise Institute.


Albert Einstein University, found by Gene Sharp is of peculiar interest to us. Its founder is an American public activist and an author of the book «From dictatorship to democracy» — truly a textbook for the non-violent means of fight against dictators’ regimes. Most part of youth movements, funded by above-mentioned NGOs that expect them to overthrow the undesirable governments. Gene Sharp politicized the means of non-violent fight for the case of possible resumption of the Cold War in order to prepare European resistance for probable invasion of the Red Army. This little-known philosopher has been publishing his works on the non-violent fight since 1985 till 2005. Since 1987 he was carrying out internal NATO trainings. It is worth mentioning that since the 90s, participation of Colonel Robert Helvey, former employee of American CIA, allowed the institute to be lavished with financial injections of Republican IRI center — GOP-associated «think tank» that is also one of four NED branches. Simultaneously with these theories, we have to reviews the activity of ICNC, headed by Peter Ackerman. Ackerman proclaims the tactical advantage of non-violent fight within the framework of global informational society. His plans stipulate the development of videogames, based on real or probable (future) theaters of war and civilian coups. Thus, theories of Sharp and Ackerman are the cornerstones of global misinformation system and ideological war that are necessary to inspire the bloodless revolutions. This ideologically-cultural impact, carried out via Internet communications, civil journalism and social networks will allow spreading the unnoticed messages, fiddling with the subconscious incentives. Along with application of innovative means за ideologically-cultural influence, we’re to see the non-violent state coups as large as life: mass «color» protests, usage of social networks to destabilize a country or wage an information war, i.e. non-violent internet-war. We might state that few observers grasp the importance of funding and the scope of activity of all these association, «think tanks» and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Also, few observers have understood their common origin within the framework of a single tool of geopolitical impact.

Color revolutions at the Russian threshold

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain moved to the East. Weakening of the Soviet (and therefore, Russian) influence indirectly suited NATO geopolitical interests. In addition to that, NATO and the EU expansion was re-dividing Europe. According to Italian expert of geopolitics Tibério Graziani, Eastern European countries, joining the NATO, have created an American jumping ground for attack at Eurasia. In September of 1997 one of the most influential American political scientists Zbigniew Brzezinski published an article regarding Eurasian geopolitics and American dominion, which was to be preserved (according to him) via splitting Russia into three separate parts, united with a name «Russian Confederation». Brzezinski offered to split Russia in order to liberate the Western and Eastern Siberia from the burden of Moscow bureaucracy, having stated in his magnum opus that it will «reduce Russia temptation to get back to its imperial agenda» and, therefore, won’t stand in the way of improving American control over Eurasia. Besides, there are certain traditional Russia allies within the Russian sphere of influence and among its neighbors — they don’t urge to enter NATO, resisting its expansion to the East. These countries are strategically important in political and geographic senses, thus, making perfect targets for democratic coups that are often dubbed the color revolutions.


2000, Serbia: Soros-affiliated organizations — Open Society, Freedom House and NED have organized the mass people’s rallies between two rounds of presidential elections in 2000. Revolution, supported by nationalists (as it is also to happen in Ukraine) was dubbed the Bulldozer Revolution, because thousands of miners have used them to assault the capital and the parliament, having even failed to wait until the election results to be published — that testifies to an apparent democratic nature of revolution, of course. New government appointed Prime Minister who was soon killed for extraditing Slobodan Milošević to the International Criminal Tribunal, where the latter died in the preventive detention cell before the sentence was made. American troops have built the Camp Bondsteel military base in Kosovo and completed the sovereignization of this Serbian province. 10 years from that, in 2010 majority of the UN country-members still wouldn’t recognize the independent formation. At the same time Serbian is doing its best, trying to negotiate its way to the EU, while state of national economy is simply disastrous. Weakened government doesn’t stand a single chance to win the forthcoming elections.


2003, Georgia: here was the classic scheme — opposition proclaims the elections results to be forged and hit the streets. Demonstrators made Eduard Shevarnadze leave the presidential post and seized the power. That is the Rose Revolution. Having become a President, its triumphed leader Mikhail Saakashvili opened the country for American and Western economic interests and reflected upon joining the NATO and the EU. Quite naturally, he has broken all the ties with the neighboring Russia. Five years after that, in August of 2008, Saakashvili bombed the population of South Ossetia, killing lots of Ossetians, most of whom had double Russo-Georgian citizenship, along with the UN-authorized Russian peacemakers. Moscow struck back and ousted the Georgian military attack, which was supported by American and Ukrainian officers-instructors. As a result, the country was brought to ruin. Elections of 2008, when President Saakashvili was re-elected were strongly condemned by the global community that perceived them as non-democratic.


2004, Ukraine: Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko opposed President Viktor Yanukovych during the elections — the former two politicians featured the Western support and sympathies of the global community. Different results were published after the vote and thousands of Ukrainian held a rally at the central square of Kiev, where Viktor Yushchenko called for non-violent resistance to dictatorship. OSCE and Freedom House have condemned the election results, while Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko have recognized Yanukovych’s victory — he was the one, whom the Ukrainian election committee dubbed the winner as well. After two weeks of skillfully arranged rallies that united liberal and radical right movements and given the strong mediating pressure (OSCE, NATO, Council of Europe and the Euro-Parliament…) election results were abrogated and the third round was held, which the Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko won. This was the Orange Revolution. After the presidential term, country was devastated and in 2009 Yushchenko wasn’t re-elected, having gained less than 5% of the votes. Nobody was surprised that it was Viktor Yanukovych who became the new President, while Yulia Tymoshenko — ultra-nationalist and a symbol of Orange revolution and westernizers — was accused of corruption.


2005, Kirghizstan: Kirghiz opposition challenged the results of parliamentary elections and brought demonstrators to Bishkek from the south of the country — they overthrow President Askar Akayev. This was the Tulip Revolution. National Council chose pro-American candidate Kurmanbek Bakiyev who was the President and Prime Minister at the same time. When the situation stabilized Bakiyev sold several natural resources deposits to Americans and built an American military base in Manas. Being accused of corruption and deterioration of the national economy, he lost the power in 2010 after yet another people’s uprising.

Battle for Eurasia (I)

1 Reply
 This article was published on the website : www.win.ru
“An uneasy situation has emerged in Arab world, shattered by revolutions; its further destabilization can break several countries into small pieces. This is the scenario they’ve prepared for us and now they will try even harder to bring it life. But it will never happen anyway.“
Dmitry Medvedev, Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, 22th of February 2011


During the last 10 years there was a tidal wave of revolutions at the post-Soviet spaces (in Central European and Central Asian countries). These revolutions — at least those of them that ended — caused the change of power and political re-orientation of the above-mentioned states. All those changes had one similar violence-excluding scenario. All of them were portrayed by mass media as democratic revolutions, led by younger people, who needed freedom and wanted to break free from pro-Soviet, semi-democratic corrupted political systems. Those «color revolutions» or «Orange revolutions» (named after revolution in Ukraine) were presented to us as a logical and complementary continuation of «velvet revolutions». This was the way Eastern European countries started to unyoke themselves from the Soviet Union. We’ll see however that these political changes were neither coincidental, nor caused by political will of opposition. Those were carefully planned geostrategic operations,which were organized and controlled from without the countries of action. 


In the 20th century American global supremacy replaced the British one. One dominating maritime power changed another, but approach to the global affairs — especially the continental ones — didn’t. This persistent necessity to maintain its presence in the center of Eurasia was the main priority of any major state policy (Britain in the 19th century and America in the 20th century). And by all means it led to reduction of Russian authority in this area, which was full of Russia’s neighboring states, by the way. You should take into account the theory of continental presence, if you want to understand the rules of Russo-American and Russo-English relationships within the framework of the Great Game that took place at Central Asia in the previous century. In fact, both England and America obeyed the same geopolitical laws and geographical limits. Their itch for the world supremacy should have got over two obligatory obstacles, caused by island situation. Firstly it was mastering the ocean spaces (which led to their naval power) and then the obligatory integration (not to remain isolated) with geographical world center with its lots of people and the majority of energy resources, where the history of the world was being written. This aim was clear from Anglo-Saxon political doctrine, which defined relations between countries as the rivalry between so-called maritime powers (England and America) and continental powers (Germany, Russia, China). Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) — one of the fathers-architect of modern geopolitics — has forged the term «Heartland», which was situated in the center of Eurasia. It is an area of modern Siberia and Caucasus. Mackinder was afraid (it was a period before the Second World War) that this zone will become completely sovereign. America then would be kept away from world dominion because of its overseas position. According to his words, the biggest danger was the possible union of two great continental states — Germany and Russia. That’s why he claimed to establish common front for concerned countries to prevent Russian-German coalition. In 1945 he considered the USSR to be the supreme power, which is able to unite this «Heartland» due to its sheer size and influence. So, by default the USSR was the main rival of America.


According to the second theory by Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), the main zone meant not just the «Heart of the World», but rather and interim area between «Heartland» and coastal seas. This theory, complementing the first one, showed how important was an idea to deprive the main continental power of outlet to the sea (former USSR and Russia since 1991). For this sake common front was to be established, thus creating a buffer area between the USSR and neighboring seas (the North Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea). According to historian Nataliya Narotchnitskaya, Russia is still prevented from getting a sea outlet. The matter here is the attempt «to keep the north of Russia off the area of world energy ellipse, which consists of Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Iran, Persian Gulf, the Northern Caucasus (Russian part) and Afghanistan. The point is to seal access to the gulfs, seas and oceans, important energy recourses for Russia. And in the end, the point is to press Russia back to the north and east, as far from the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas as possible. It is allegedly the first penetration line — it stretches from the Balkans to Ukraine (to control the Aegean and the Black Seas) and the second line, which stretches from Egypt to Afghanistan (thus, allowing to control the Red, Caspian Seas and the Gulf). There’s nothing new to this strategy, only some oil interests». Also the subject is to separate Russia from Western Europe in order to prevent the continental unions between two dominating states. In the beginning of 21st century they are Germany — the first European power —and strengthening Russia.

Back to the origins of color revolutions: division project for Russia

Intention to weaken and split Russia into many pieces is as old as the hills. In the 19th century, during the period of great geopolitical game at the territory of Central Asia and Caucasus, Russian and British Empires were rivals. England then has clearly understood an importance of lands Russia has recently conquered — the Ottoman Empire — and its threatening factor. These territories open the way to Mediterranean and Black Seas for Russia. Since 1835 England has tried to destabilize Russia via supplying weapons to the Caucasus (mind the case of English schooner «Vixen») and creating Chechen and Circassian committees at the Parisian Congress in 1856, where Crimean war was concluded.


Caucasus front will likely be a Russian underbelly in the 20th and 21st centuries alike. England and America will try to use it in order to destabilize Russia. In the beginning of the 21st century leaders of Russian Muslim republics in the Caucasus and Central Asia tried to unleash wars for independence. There were two contestants in the opposition: both were supporters of territorial nationalism and common Turkish union (Turkish intelligence played an important role here by preaching Turkish reunion). Aim of separatists was to gain the disposition of Western democratic countries. They called to help Caucasian republics to get the sovereignty at the Versailles Congress. Bolsheviks has given no chance for such separatist sentiments though. People, who have stood for independence since 1992, had to live in voluntary exile. The first wave has immigrated to Istanbul and it has damaged the reputation of the movement, mixing it with Turkish expansionism. The second wave went mostly to Europe, France and Germany. At that time Bashkir Zeki Velidi considered France as a «center of Turkish-Muslim war against Russia». Polish Prime-minister Józef Piłsudski called this movement «Prometheism». Soon its adherents started publishing a magazine of theirs in France, Germany, England, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Turkey and Romania. These people took English and Polish sides, when the Second World War was started and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union was signed. This movement had considerable financial support in Poland. And French «France-East» committee — being under the auspices of Senate leader Paul Dume — rendered them political support as well. Their main aim was to create Caucasian Federation of the Swiss kind.


After defeat of Poland, Nazi strategists carried on with this movement. They’ve planned to split the USSR into many little territorial entities, which would be easier to control and conquer. That’s why Germans had established SS legions in Russian Turkestan and similar divisions in the Muslim Caucasus. After the Soviet victory its borders were recognized by the League of Nations, so «Prometheism» movement turned to America, who seconded «Prometheus League of Atlantic Charter» establishment. The movement had the backing of Turkish Muslims, then Catholics, anti-communists and national socialists as well. Suddenly the movement was supported by the CIA. During the Cold War the CIA had used it against the USSR. It caused great ideological confusion, which is why «Prometheism» movement developed furthermore, constantly remaining considerably anti-Russian. In general, we can call it a sort of united orange-green front, absolutely heterogeneous coalitions of Western and Caucasian Muslim separatist agenda aimed against Russia.

Critics despite bombs

Leave a reply

And yet the abominable happened. At 14:30 on Monday January 24th, a suicide bomberdetonated his bomb in the arrival lounge of Domodedovo International Airport. The attack occurredafter Russian’s president visit to the Middle East and on the eve of the World Summit in Davos. It clearly intended to undermine theRussian government and to make the international community worry,  by targetingforeigners. The toll was heavy: 35 dead and 180 injured. Besides, Russia could have ended the year in a worse way as the airport
suicide bomber was apparently linked to a terrorist cell, a cell that had been however identified and dismantled. This cell had planned an attack on the Red Square, in the evening of December 31.

 

Even in such a difficult time, Russia has only been facing much criticism and little support, with a special mention to the French press which, one more time, stands out. For Helene Blanc on France-Info[1], for example, one must be be particularly careful she says, mentioning the series of attacks that killed 293 in Russia in 1999: “TheChechens were not to blame for the attacks, although they were held responsible for it, as it was the work of the FSB” Anne Nivat says[2] that: “Putin, just like Medvedev, exploit the obsession about security in order to get votes and both were elected because of their rhetoric on Chechnya”. The correspondent ofLe Figaro in Russia, Pierre Avril, tells us[3] that “the country is close
from a civil war”. In the end, Vincent Jauvert thinks that the attack proves “the failure of the Putin system [4]”.
This assertion has already been hammered this summer, when the fires that hit Russia had supposedly demonstrated the failure of   hypothetical “Putin system”[5]. In addition,Mr Jauvert added: “The corrupt and incompetent security services have not identified the suicide bomber”.

 

Yet, far from the posh suburbs editorial offices of Paris or Moscow, in the field, the results of Russia’s anti-terrorism fight speak for  themselves. In 2010 alone, in Northern Caucasus,  301 terrorists were killed and 468 were arrested. 4,500 raids were conducted, as well as
50 major anti-terrorist operations. 66 attacks have been foiled, although 500 terrorist acts (including 92 explosions and attacks) have killed over 600 people. In 2012 in Russia, over 360 Russian policemen were killed while on duty. Of course, the Muslim Caucasus and Chechnya particularly, have systematically been presented by Western media as a region of the world, occupied by tyrannical Russia aspiring to its independence and freedom. From that point of view, terrorism in Caucasus would only be a desperate reaction of local people against  oppression.  A large part of the French population, still having in mind the nostalgia of the Gaul village besieged by the mighty Rome, and being misinformed about the reality in the country itself, is easily persuaded. Yet this is not reality. The goal of terrorists is not to liberate oppressed people but to enslave them. Caucasian terrorists are more and more linked to the Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement under strong foreign influence. This Wahhabi movement is connected to a destructive and revolutionary ideology which seeks to establish an Islamic Emirate across the whole region.  Its core probably finds its roots in the first Chechnya war, when numerous foreign auxiliaries (Arabs, Afghans…) have joined the Chechens, thinking to transform the war of independence war into a religious conflictand bring the holy
war in the region.

 

We know what happened next: Chechen nationalists though they lost the war on the ground against the federal army, ultimately obtained a very important political and religious independence for Chechnya, but within the federation.

 

Since then, tensions   between Caucasians and foreigners haveexploded. Caucasians acknowledge with difficulty the foreigners methods and their uncompromising radicalism which is far from the Caucasian Sufism and not really adapted to the local traditions. Kadyrov also recently and symbolically proclaimed the defeat of Wahhabism in Chechnya. The separation of Caucasus and Russia as wished by the Wahhabis, by the Islamists and by some intellectual foreigners, would not be a solution in any way.

 

It seems clear that the primary consequence of such a  decision would be an abandon of the area and a start of internal conflicts and probable development of internal terrorism. Let’s also remember that these regions of southern Russia are mostly Russianand since much longer time for instance than the city of Nice has been French. Moreover, many Muslims feel Russian and full citizens of the Russian Federation. They indeed represent one of the facets of the Russian multicultural identity.

 

It would be really nice if foreign commentators could focus their attacks and their energy on criminals and not on the Russian state.

 

As far as I know, from Madrid to London or Moscow,victims are victims of a one and only terrorism. I do not recall having read from Russian commentators, when similar events struck other European democracies such as Spain or England, in 2004 and in 2005, that the attacks meant a failure of the countries’s governments or that their security services had not done their job properly. The reason is that it is virtually impossible to prevent all terrorist attacks. The Spanish, the Israelis, the Turks or the Indians, whose countries are often targeted by terrorism, have since  long understood the need for drastic security measures in order to prevent most of these attacks, with varying degrees of success. So even if those measures restrict some individual liberties, they are probably essential in order to let life to follow a peaceful course despite the threat.

 

Minds are prepared if further attacks occur in Russiaand perhaps again in the capital, a fact which unfortunately seems inevitable. The goal of terrorists is always to frightenthe population and to destabilize the society. But we, Russian and foreign citizens, must not be destabilized. Rather, it is the coordination of a determined State and of a united and attentive population that will be the best shield against  terrorism.

 

Russia has the ability to overcome these challenges. As Alexei Pimanov, broadcaster of the program Chelovek i Zakon[6] (Rights and law) perfectly summarized in a recent broadcasting dedicated to these events: “Those who spontaneously and voluntarily offered their help after the attack, those who transported passengers for free from the airport to the subway, those who gave their blood and those who helped the rescue in the first difficultmoments, those people represent the real Russia”.

[1] http://www.franceinfo.fr/monde-europe-2011-01-25-attentat-suicide-a-l-aeroport-de-moscou-domodedovo-la-piste-511239-14-15.html

[2] http://issuu.com/bollore/docs/direct_matin_816

[3] http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2011/01/26/04016-20110126ARTFIG00689–davos-medvedev-veut-rassurer-les-investisseurs.php

[4] http://globe.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2011/01/27/la-faillite-du-systeme-poutine.html

[5] http://www.lejdd.fr/International/Europe/Actualite/La-faillite-du-systeme-Poutine-212361/

[6] http://chelovekizakon.ru/chiz/archive/20110127/programma-chelovek-i-zakon-efir-27-yanvarya-2011-g-8450

 

Moscow as a would be capital of Europe

Leave a reply

 

Almost every French man is a staunch Europhile, which is quite paradoxical in fact — most part of foreigners, visiting France are often stricken by their relatively narrow views, lack of foreign languages knowledge and their (at times excessive) chauvinism. Nevertheless, it were the Frenchmen who backed up the first attempt of European integration. By the end of his rule in the 9th century Carl the Great, Emperor of the West reigned over the continental empire that included contemporary France, parts of Spain and Italy, German territories and the Balkans. For many intellectuals and historians Carl the Great is the founding father of today’s Europe. Fortunately for Europe or not, but after his death the empire was disbanded. Second French attempt to create united Europe belonged to Napoleon — he hoped to control vast territory, stretching from Corsica to Moscow. It is well-known (in Russia especially) that this armed attempt to unite the continent by the power of arms failed in 1812, having met fierce resistance of Russians and the terribly cold winter.

 

After the Second World War, Europe fetched itself divided into two blocs — American trans-Atlantic bloc and the Soviet continental one. Western Europe was restored for American Marshall Plan funds in exchange for NATO integration, which was a U. S.-controlled military alliance found in 1949 and intended to prevent any imperial aspirations of the Soviet Union. In 1955 countries of the Eastern Europe, being under the Soviet auspice, entered the Warsaw Treaty, yet another military alliance, created as the NATO counterpoise. French Europhilia made itself visible once again in 1967, when General De Gaulle withdrew his country from the NATO and gave it an access to the nuclear energy.Turning his back to the Anglo-Saxon world, De Gaulle maintained his farseeing project of continental Europe, temporarily tore down the iron curtain and stood up for the historical proximity with Germany and Russia within the framework of continental Europe stretching from Atlantics to the Ural Mountains. In 1960 Paris established itself as a political capital and France undertaken yet another attempt to re-create Europe.

 

This Gaullist idea of Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis and the concept of Russia (Soviet Union at that time) being a part of Europe tended to turn fairer as the time went by.There have always been discussions whether Russia really belongs to Europe in France. Many people, poorly knowing Russia or not knowing it at all, were asking me about this Gaullist border, which the Ural Mountains might have been. They asked if the Ural — border line between Europe and Asia — really was a border right in the heart of Russia or Europe. And are the people living over the Ural Mountains really different from those, living in its western part? These questions may undoubtedly cause a smile on the faces of those who know the country but they are not make-believe. In my opinion, semantic mistake of General De Gaulle and the relative lack of knowledge about Russia among the common Europeans make this quite understandable.Since I live in Russia, I can only confirm that before my arrival I considered it to be a completely European country — so to say, European in its essence, be it the mentality of its citizens (Orthodox Slavs) or the dominating cultural legacy of Rome and Athens. This European tint is present all along its territory — from Moscow to the heart of Siberia, in Vladivostok, at the Pacific coast, in the Caucasus and Northern Karelia. Even Kazan with its eastern culture is not less European than, say, Sarajevo.But I have to admit that Russia is not like the rest of European countries. Sheer size, variety of nations inhabiting it, territories stretching to Asia and Pacific Ocean — Russia is an empire, colossus, which spine is European but certain vertebrae may be Asian, Tatar, Muslim or even Buddhist. I often tell French friends of mine that we have a lot to learn from Russia in the field of “multi-cultural model” that Europe is trying to establish with such great efforts.

 

Today, while Russia and NATO discuss the creation of security architecture in the Northern hemisphere, stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok, the discords remain. Via NATO, which extended itself up to the Eastern- and Western-European borders, the United States infiltrated the Eurasian continent — theater of war that is considered to be vitally important for orchestrating the world politics. Russia, being a member of Shanghai Treaty Organization, often called the Asian NATO is willing to attract Europe into new additional continental security system. In that sense, Russian initiatives on creation of continental security structure and a common integral economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok are every bit as Gaullist as they are farsighted.The only difference is that this time political impulse comes from Moscow, rather than from Paris like 40 years ago. There’s a certain reason for that: gauging from Moscow, Europe stretches 4.000 km to the Atlantic and 6.500 km to the East, through Siberia to the Pacific Coast. European political centre of gravity just shifted to the East. Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance would have allowed Europeans — who failed to gain real political and military autonomy after the 1945 — not to get stuck in the unilateral NATO ties and to obtain an exit to the utmost important regions of tomorrow: Caucasus, Central Asia and Asian-Pacific region.

In the past Paris was the capital of Europe, today it is Brussels — what if Moscow to become one in future?

 

Development and building institutions and traditions is more important for a new country than democracy.

3 Replies
* Development and building institutions and traditions is more important for a new country than democracy. That’s precisely what Pakistan needed and continues to need. In Pakistan, we need a visionary nationalistic leadership at the top backed by the strength of the Pakistani military to install a confident visionary leadership and give it consistency and continuity. That’s the formula that worked for China. The more time we waste in propping up a fake democracy, the more Pakistan will come closer to internal failure.


* Consider Mr. Musharraf and Mr. Putin, both products of military institutions in their respective countries. Both came to power around the same time. Ten years later, Musharraf faces the humiliation of exile and defeat while Putin is still in power. Musharraf led the country into internal and external chaos leaving Pakistan humiliatingly even more dependent on other countries that are taking advantage of the situation, while Putin saved Russia from collapse and reasserted Russia’s power when everyone had written that country off.

A very clear analysis from Timothy Post

1 Reply
Since this last 3 years, i have been reading comments from pseudo specialists about Russia which sometimes made me laugh, sometimes upseted me and sometimes were making me feel totally depressed .. Many of those comments were made by people who weresupposed to be “specialists” )).. Whatever today i red this short analysis from Timothy POST and i founded that is was so clear and logical that i decided to post it ! You can find Timothy on Facebook.

” Think of the Russian presidents since perestroika as a continuum which started with a closed society and a planned economy and has as its destination a modern liberal democracy (think: France).
– The first 8 years of Yeltsin’s rule was a messy dismantling of the old system. The dislocation was perhaps unnecessarily rough but the job was finished. 
– Putin’s 8 years were about regrouping and stabilization. The key goal and accomplishment of Putin’s was that Russia was able to stand on its own two feet and was beholden to no organization (IMF, World bank, etc.) or country (USA, Germany, China, etc.). 
– Medvedev’s 8 years are all about modernizing (i.e. bringing Russia up to Western European standards)“.

One possible scenario would be for Putin to shift over to become head of the Supreme Court and a women appointed Prime Minister with the expectation that she will become President after Medvedev in 2016. This will enable Putin to continue to play a stabilizing role and also for him to take his place his unique place in history as the only person to have served as head of FSB, President, Prime Minister, and head of Supreme Court.

These guys are all on the same team and want the same thing- to ensure that Russia is self-sufficient  (economically and militarily), a full partner amongst the leading nations of the world, and to improve living standards. 

So far they have executed very well on this plan.

Seliger 2010

2 Replies
J’ai déjà sur ce blog expliqué ce qu’est SELIGER. SELIGER 2010 à eu lieu, moins politisé, et sur le thème de l’ouverture. Je me permets ici de recoller quelques passages d’un article du Moscow Times.

LAKE SELIGER, Tver Region 
The summer camp on Lake Seliger used to be a private party for pro-Kremlin youth, but this year EU flags and a motley crew of foreign participants indicate that the times are changing.
“I really don’t care about Russian politics because I am not from Russia,” said Akhilesh Chauhan, 20, a student from India who praised the friendly atmosphere at the camp.

Among the 5,000 campers at this year’s gathering, which opened last Friday and runs through July 30, are more than 800 foreigners, including students from Britain, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Slovakia.

The pro-Kremlin pundits who warned campers in years past about shadowy menaces to Russia’s “sovereign democracy” at daily lectures have given way to educators, film producers and fashion designers.

Seliger was founded as a training camp for Nashi, a youth movement created in 2005 with the support of authorities seeking to stave off  “color revolutions,” popular uprisings that led to regime change in countries like Ukraine and Georgia.
But the camp has steered away from politics to become an education forum open to all public organizations,Oleg Rozhnov, the Deputy Sport, Tourism and Youth Politics Minister who is also involved with the forum, said last year.

That does not mean that authorities have thrown the project to the wind. President Dmitry Medvedev made a splash at the Seliger camp on Thursday in his first visit as president. He previously attended in 2007 as a first deputy prime minister.

The president viewed several innovation projects by young inventors and chatted with Stanford University representatives who invited him to come and give a lecture. Medvedev gave a speech at the university in California late last month during a tour of Silicon Valley. He also visited President Barack Obama in Washington.
“I will try to settle it with Obama and come and visit you one more time,” Medvedev said Thursday, RIA-Novosti reported.
Buses carrying 400 children from another summer camp in the Tver region were stopped by traffic police for three hours to make way for Medvedev’s cortege, the opposition web site Kasparov.ru reported. But Interfax said Medvedev arrived by helicopter.

A Kremlin spokesman could not immediately say late Thursday how Medvedev had traveled to the camp but noted that decisions to block roads are made by local police, not the Kremlin.

When Nashi ran the camp, the national anthem was used as a wake-up call, and the practice has persisted. But the Nashi members in attendance are mostly employed as guides and guardians of order, not propagandists like before.
Discipline also remains strict like in Nashi times. Campers have a 1 a.m. curfew, and those who drink alcohol are kicked out on the spot. Even skipping lectures can result in a camper’s badge being punched with a hole — and three punches mean a ticket home.
But the atmosphere around the camp was cheerful during a visit this week, with campers spending their time alternating between lectures and leisure activities like rock climbing, bicycling and boat rides.

Previous Seliger camps had political posters plastered all around the place. But this year, only two big photos — of Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin — were featured on the walls of an open concert stage.

Even those traces of propaganda puzzled some guests.
“Honestly, I was very surprised [to see] Putin and Medvedev. In Japan, we do not see the pictures of political leaders in places like this,” Japanese student Yumi Tsubaki said as she sat on the grass chatting with a Russian-Korean friend, Kim Me Dua.
Tsubaki, one of 26 Japanese students at the camp, said she was an English major attracted to Seliger because of her interest in Russian culture. Some foreigners have complained about visa problems, but Tsubaki said she had no trouble.
Mikhail Mamonov, director of Seliger’s international program, said about 30 foreigners were not able to attend but insisted that no one had been denied a visa. He did not specify what prevented them from coming.

Some foreign youth who made it to Seliger were still dissatisfied, and a British student, Haidar Ali, even showed The Moscow Times a list of complaints he had compiled: no English translations during some lectures, a general lack of planning, and “couples engaging in inappropriate sexual activity.”

“They have failed in what Seliger promised to deliver,” Ali said.
He said he was particularly disappointed by the lack of political lectures by Western professors, as scheduled by organizers.

Ali said Frederick Starr, a professor on Central Asia, Afghanistan and Caucasus from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, was the only Western lecturer who had spoken so far.

The complaints did not prevent Vasily Yakemenko, who headed Nashi when its members harassed Britain’s ambassador in 2006 for attending a Russian opposition event and now heads the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs, which organizes the annual camp, from speaking fondly about the foreign participation this year.
“The main topic of the international session is to open Russia to students worldwide,” Yakemenko said Wednesday, Interfax reported.

None of the foreign participants interviewed by The Moscow Times were aware of the Seliger camp’s politically charged history.

But many Russian participants noted that the gathering had improved without Nashi.
“There is more freedom and artistic spirit,” said Yana Belotserkovskaya, 19, an amateur poet from Lipetsk in central Russia who raved about a lecture by acclaimed poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko.

Representatives of foreign and Russian companies that are sponsoring the camp said they would not be involved if the camp focused on political themes like in previous years. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid problems with camp organizers. Camp partners include Russian Technologies, KPMG,Siemens and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

“Before it reminded me of a Communist camp. I think it has became much better now,” said one Russian company representative. “All they need to do is maybe stop broadcasting the national anthem in the morning.”



 



 

ALEXANDRE LATSА: World in the face of future challenges

Leave a reply
Marat Kunaev, Russian bloggueur, interviewed me a few days ago, the interview can be founded in English Here and here on win.ru‘s website.
Alexandre Latsa is a French publicist, writing on the geopolitical matters connected with Russia and the other countries. He also has a blog named “Dissonance” offering “different view” to Russia and intending to replenish the lack of profound information about Russia in the French-speaking internet. Today Alexandre is a guest of our site and, as a matter of courtesy he agreed to answer our questions.
— What can you say about the general state of affairs in the world, in Europe and about Russia’s place in it and its prospects in particular?
— The existing world order began in 1945 and may now be characterized by its non-parity nature due to the unilateral America-centrism. Today, however, we are seeing certain signs of weakening of American power and emergence of new actors, while the world economic crisis has raised the issue of the economic principles that dominated over our planet until the recent times. It seems that the new shapes of tomorrow’s “great spaces” come into sight. What will they look like? Apparently, these would be the state unions or state groups, established on the grounds of economics, culture, military, religion and language…
These shapes will appear in the face of the future challenges: hyper-terrorism, ethno-civilization conflicts, strengthening of international mafia (having the equal power as the states), severe economic shocks…
Europe that we see today — the one dubbed the EU (or the Brussels Union) — seems to be incapable of giving the adequate answers to these challenges. This hyper-structure that was founded due to the reasons that “hardly” were economic — in fact in order to prevent its founding fathers from starting yet another war against one another. Without doubt, they were guided by the good intentions but the European structure appeared at the height of the Cold War (in the beginning of 1957) and in the world that was quite different from the one we live in today. The EU possesses neither respective fundamental grounds, nor the necessary instruments to secure the actual sovereignty. Today it has none and completely depends upon the NATO, it doesn’t have its own policy, it has neither internal, nor foreign policy project whatsoever. Presidents of its state-members are deprived of any freedom of actions, while the very European institutions are awkward and bureaucratized. EU seems to be approaching its collapse because of the critical situation in its members and — as the example of Greece indicates — due to absence of the economic solidarity (between Germany, Slovakia)…
It seems to me that Russia, on the contrary has all the chances to become the actor of this epoch. Political elite of this country has a realistic and modern worldview on the place that Russia is to occupy. Perhaps, the key characteristic of Russian leaders of that period is that they are “pragmatics”. Besides that, thanks to its geographical location, natural resources, its status of the civilization and religious crossroads — generally speaking, thanks to the factors composing its potential power — Russia seems to have the ability to adequately perceive and react to the coming great changes.
 
— What do you think about NATO bloc and its prospects?
— NATO is a tool that America successfully uses to impose its will and consolidate its supremacy in every place it considers necessary. I don’t believe NATO to survive this period. Re-alignment of the world powers according to the “consonance” of identities will cause the growth of contradictions and discords between its country-members and the states close to them. Today’s Turkey — its clashes with America upon the issues of the War in Iraq or Israel — makes up a graphic example of that.
Russia could have also promoted the NATO collapse, had it convinced (I’d wish that to happen) the European countries to create the European security system. From the other hand, NATO influence at the Eurasian continent is to be decreased as a result of growing authority of the countries that are not parts of it — such as Russia, China or India.
 
— What’s your estimate of the Mediterranean Union?
— Mediterranean Union is a reckless project. Theoretically it could have promoted the improvement of international infrastructure and the possibility to bring the migratory influx from South to North into the legal framework but I’d be willing to know what the actual goals of this project are. So far, I see only negative reaction towards it both in South (Turkey, Egypt, Libya…) and in Europe. I don’t think that it would be brought to life on any significant level of authority.
— What is your opinion of the relationship between the USA and France, France and Russia, France and Great Britain?
— It seems to me that the influence of the Great Britain is about to face its dawn, which is not bad for Russia, because Britain would always remain what it used to be — traditionally pro-American Atlantic power “playing” against Europe.
All the French governments after De Gaulle were playing up the NATO and America interests a little at a time right until the recent policy of Sarkozy took place. This became a major strategic victory of the Atlantic powers and largely promoted the American supremacy (that does not depend upon democratic or republican label). And that has driven France to the dead-end, having made a pawn out of it, given the background signs of Germany, seemingly parting with the pro-Atlantic position. “Coalition of the regional unions” at the continent poses obvious danger to the Atlantic adherents and America, as long as it would be able to undermine NATO dominion and authority little by little. A coalition like that would also be able to take the much-talked-about “Great Game” straight to the junkyard.
Creation of “Paris-Berlin-Moscow” alliance could have become a key step towards the change of the current situation in the short prospect. Moscow indicates its willingness to bring a project like that to life and Berlin seemingly does not oppose it. I may denote that France is not making any clear and definite decisions if the question is not an internal NATO issue. Sarcozy is not an independent President; he does not belong to any kind of patriotic elite, caring about the future of the country. It seems that French policy is being born not in France, but rather follows the orders of its Washington masters. Surrender of Serbia, for example, speaks volumes about it.
 
— What would you say about the future and the present of the Ukraine?
— Russia and the Ukraine are the two sides of the same coin. For now the Ukraine follows the path that can be compared to a highway leading to independence between Brussels Union and Russia. I’m not sure that it’s the best way for Ukrainians but they are sovereign and freedom-loving nation and we have to respect their choice.
New Ukrainian President is not an artificial master, who was brought to power thanks to the intrigues of the foreigners. We may hope that unlike his predecessor he would do his work in the interests of population, not against them. The Ukraine is a weak country in a post-illness state that desperately needs its neighbor — Russia — to rely upon.
We continue to publish our interview with the French publicist Alexandre Latsa. Theme for our today’s conversation is the situation in the Middle East.— Mr. Latsa, what, in your opinion, the further development of Palestinian crisis would be?
— The very Israel’s existence disposes no other resources rather than Israeli citizens and the world-spread Jewish diasporas. As for me, I don’t see any positive prospect in that, as long as the logic itself prompts sides to the struggle for total victory with the latter destruction of the lost side. I believe that the Israel’s collapse is inevitable. Country is in the face of the demographic situation that plays into the hands of their neighbors and the irreversible turning point is to come very soon. Without the American shield — that is obviously lowering already — this state will undoubtedly decease…

I believe that the most part of Israeli population (the Russian-speaking one) might come in handy to Russia — why not to use the repatriates of Birobijan in order to develop, say, Far East? It seems to me that the presence of active Jewish (Judaic) community at its territory would answer the Russian purposes quite well — just the same way it is with other various religious communities (Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims).

— Should we expect radical changes in Afghanistan?
— Without any doubts, Western occupation is moving toward its resume that is similar to the results of the Soviet occupation. Long story short, nothing essential will change. In the meanwhile, “Talibs” (according to Alexandre Latsa, the very actuality of this term raises certain doubts) are little by little establishing their control over the country regions. And I see no other possible scenarios: Afghanistan is to remain the country of military lords, clans, tribes and Kabul where — even under the auspices of Western occupation — it turned out to be impossible to introduce fast-food restaurants and cinemas, showing the Hollywood fables. We may use the occasion to congratulate the Afghani loyalty to “their kind of freedom”.

In my opinion, there’s also a risk of the regional explosion. Troops, trained against the NATO soldiers in the real combat — in case if the latter would be pulled out of the country — may find themselves new goals and the “arena of actions”, destabilizing the weak states of Central Asia and, accordingly, Russia itself.

— What is the probability of American or Israeli strikes against Iran in your opinion?
— I don’t believe in the possibility of conducting a strike right against Iran. I believe that this can’t be done as long as it would have set the whole region on fire and I doubt that U. S.-Israeli coalition aims at unleashing the war. From the other hand, I don’t believe these “substantial” Iranian threats to Israel to be real at all. No kidding — Iranian officials are not self-murderers. Iranian nuclear program was supported by America and Europe since 1950s and by Russia since 1979, long before Ahmadinejad.

Theoretically, Iran’s desire to have a nuclear weapon (in the likeness of several other states) has nothing to do with the statements about “destroying Israel”, which is something that a lot of Muslims — especially the Palestinian ones — desperately desire. I can ascertain that anti-Iran cooperation is perfectly systematized but the only possible solution is the discussion, not the sanctions. And here you go — the desired example of European lack of strength and unity — otherwise it could have made everyone to listen to it and support Russian efforts to organize the negotiations with Tehran.

— Should we expect any further strengthening of anti-Iran sanctions?
— Obviously, Western society, dancing to the American tune wants to fund the Israeli power furthermore. And we have to expect the further strengthening of sanctions against Iran. But let’s be serious at last: what are they for? And even the more important question: what’s next?

— What, in your opinion, the position of Georgia and Azerbaijan would be, if the warfare against Iran are actually to take place?
— Azerbaijan has a long-term dispute with Iran that they’ve decided to dim a little because of the conflict with Armenia. Azerbaijan is playing the geographic party of the Caspian Club and has the common border with Iran. I believe that this country is quite “neutral” as opposed to Georgia, which nationalistic government seems to be too pro-Western to me. Georgia has broken up the diplomatic relations with Iran due to some make-believe occasion, as long as it urges to be a dog at the U. S.-Israeli leash, preferring them to Moscow and Iran. We also have to take persistent Georgian desire to enter NATO into consideration — it believes its possibility to be more likely, had it been ready to take part in the military enterprises, threatening to destabilize the entire region. This includes the warfare against Iran as well as the fact that Georgian authorities are the children of color revolution. But still, I don’t really believe into the possibility of using the military scenario against Iran.

— What do you think about the whole situation at the Russian Ciscaucasia and the entire situation at the Caucasian region in general?
— Attempts to destabilize the situation in the Caucasus from the outside have been taking place for a long time and they continue today. Natalya Narochitskaya has perfectly explained at one of her papers that the Baltic-Black Sea arc has a strategic value for those who want to surround and weaken Russia during the “Great Game’ and gain access to the respective energetic corridors. Russian Caucasus is a one of the most important parts of Russia and non-Russian Caucasus is a pledge for the geopolitical stability of that region that borders Russia. Accordingly, Caucasus is the indispensable object for different kinds of ill-wishers (Prometeists, Americans, Wahhabites) to influence the situation. Caucasus is one the main keys to the Russian “tomorrow”.

Recent events like two wars in Chechnya, war in Ossetia in 2008, wars in Ingush Republic and Dagestan give the grounds to assume that Russia is not going weaken its presence in the region even a jot. And that’s good. Federal project “Strategy of social-economic development of Ciscaucasia until 2020” seems to be a wonderful initiative to me.

— Mr. Latsa, what would like to say to Russian readers as a conclusion? What important matters of Russo-French relationship would you like to draw attention to?
— I often read the Russian news and I think that the degree of degradation of two countries (Russia and France) is incomparable. Impoverishment of the French population during last 10 years had a huge impact, economics is unhealthy, unemployment became reality for 12% of the population and about 8% are just not taken into account by the statistics. At that, lack of political “will” of the government mutilates the country; its condition is highly explosive at the moment. In the nearest future France risks to fetch itself in the middle of the civil war. Suburbs have turned into ghettos, which population has mostly African or North African origin. Distinctive feature of this population is the counter-culture of hatred and destructive attitude toward France and its institutions. This is a mix of American culture of violence, rap, guns and the post-colonial revanchism.

Riots take place on a regular basis and about 40.000 cars are annually burnt in France so the government decided not to publish these numbers in order not to worry the people. Uncontrolled immigration, combined with the mentality of colonialism victims, authorities lacking the political opportunities and the will to solve the situation, will eventually lead to the aggravation of these discords. And mind that the same situation is unfolding in England, Belgium, and Holland…

This internal impotence of the European states quite correlates with their foreign-policy powerlessness. Neither political conscience, nor realistic worldview characterizes the European community anymore. I think that NATO is the only power, holding the European countries together. And as long as this institution is moving towards its collapse, quite soon European states would have to look for another pole of power, capable of playing the role of a director who would save the EU from destruction. It’s obvious that Russia may become such pole within a united Greater Europe, lying from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Interviewed by Marat Kunaev
Translated from French