home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso
/
txt
/
fbis
/
fbis0991.003
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-02
|
6KB
|
108 lines
<text>
<title>
Russian Commentary Views Great Power Nationalism Charge
</title>
<article>
<hdr>
Foreign Broadcast Information Service, September 26, 1991
RSFSR: Commentary Views Great-Power Nationalism Charge
</hdr>
<body>
<p>["Commentary" by political observer Vladimir Kuznechevskiy:
"What Lies Behind the Charges of Imperial Ambitions Leveled at
the Russian Leadership?" Moscow ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA in Russian
20 Sep 91 p 1]
</p>
<p> [Text] Of late some of the mass media of a radical left
persuasion in Moscow and, in their wake, Western newspapers
have written a lot about the Russian great-power imperialism
manifested by the Russian leadership. The charges are generally
personalized, with Yeltsin, Khasbulatov, and Silayev being
named. Analyzing recent articles in the Moscow and Western press
in this regard, Mrs. Irina Ilovayskaya-Alberti, chief editor of
the Paris-based RUSSKAYA MYSL, in an article of hers entitled
"A Different Russia in a Different World. Or Why the Fears
Previously Instilled in the World by the Soviet Union Are Now
Being Transferred to Russia," comes to the conclusion that the
attacks are groundless and are most likely deliberately
organized and directed. Those behind them are the supporters of
the junta which failed in August.
</p>
<p> Among a host of more or less surprising phenomena
accompanying the collapse of communism on the territory of the
USSR, Irina Ilovayskaya writes, the fear of Russia which has
suddenly broken out is noteworthy. This phenomenon is being
spoken of unduly loudly on both sides of the East-West divide.
An impartial observer is bound to be struck by the fact that the
democratic West, which quite recently showed its commitment to
that very Soviet Union which it had so strongly and correctly
feared over half a century, has today suddenly taken alarm at
the altogether imaginary prospect of the emergence of a Russian
power hitherto vested by them, and not by them alone, with the
attributes characteristic of the Soviet Union: Namely,
aggressiveness, expansionism, a proclivity for violence, and
great-power arrogance. The Soviet Union, in the opinion of most
Western commentators, has already completely purged itself of
such sins, but now Russia has suddenly acquired them. And this
fear, it transpires, dominates the minds of Western politicians
when formulating international policy. They are tormented by the
fear of destabilization following the breakup of the USSR.
</p>
<p> The Soviet Union has collapsed.... Destabilization is not,
however, visible as yet. Most players in the game are showing
moderation, restraint, and realism--as if they have been able
to partake in some secret and imperceptible way of that ethos
of the modern world where problems and competition are social
and economic in nature and are tackled by means of money,
application, and negotiation. Although the situation is
difficult, no Saddam Husayn has yet been espied on the
territory of the former USSR.
</p>
<p> But what about Russia, then? Russia has played in all these
recent events--and, prior to them, in the process of
disposing of communism--a role which has almost invariably
been worthy, positive, and really democratic. And yet suddenly
the forgotten bogey of the Russian imperial threat has reared
it head. Both in the USSR and abroad. In the West they became
accustomed in general to Soviet imperialism, which was quite
real and frightening, identifying it in a blithe, facile,
superficial, and historically unfounded way with Russian
imperialism. When, however, the Soviet Union became "good," that
is to say, under Gorbachev, they temporarily forgot about this
identification. But now the animated bogey of the Russian bear
again bristles intimidatingly on the pages of Western
newspapers. Russian President Yeltsin, previously denied respect
as a rival to Gorbachev, is now regarded with mistrust and
doubt: Is there not Great Russian chauvinism lying hidden
somewhere within him? There are undoubtedly strident voices and
clamorous groups inside Russia itself which express extremely
nationalist and even chauvinist tendencies. In the past, and
even quite recently, many of them subscribed to national
bolshevism, which was skillfully fostered by the KGB. Today the
word "bolshevism" is disappearing. It was even absent from the
junta's appeal. The few free elections held thus far in Russia
have shown that these groups, no matter how much they bawl and
shout, are held in scant regard by the people.
</p>
<p> However, there is tendency to endow them with undue
significance. This tendency is, by all appearances, directed
and supported from somewhere. This is in general
understandable. After all, the whole colossal propaganda and
disinformation apparatus previously belonging to the CPSU has
not instantly disappeared. There is a desire on the part of some
to suspect the Russian Government and Yeltsin personally of
being capable of being tempted by a lure such as that of a
"Great Russia" which would become the basis of the revival of
the Russian empire, that relic of the past. Which past, which
period--that is unclear. However, those decent people devoted
to Russia who support these tendencies along with those who rise
up against the independence of the republics and autonomous
formations are committing a great error. The point is that
independence has become for very many people the prime, basic
demand. And the current attempts to impute alien views to
Yeltsin can only be overcome on the basis of respect for it.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>