America's Unnoticed New War
As I've traveled this week for the launch of The Oil and the Glory, I've been asked if we're at the start of a new Cold War with Russia. Even my wife says that I at times seem to regard Russia as the devil. The answer is no.
Yet, the West and Russia are undeniably in a new battle for influence and power.
But there is a difference in how their armies are arrayed: Russia, in the person of Vladimir Putin, has fought brilliantly so far. But the U.S. seems barely to have noticed that it has a new war front in addition to terror.
The war is over the flow of oil and natural gas from the former Soviet Union to Europe. It's similar to the 19th and 20th century struggle for mastery of sea lanes in that the conflict is over who will control arteries vital to everyone.
The stakes are high -- influence in Europe, on whom the U.S. relies for support on political and economic issues around the world. And, so far, Russia has the pronounced advantage.
The odd thing is that the U.S. actually won the first battle of this war, but it's Russia that's learned the lessons and applied them.
The U.S. victory was the construction of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, linking the Caspian and Mediterranean seas. Its launch last year spelled the first break in Russia's nation-breaking economic stranglehold over Central Asia and the Caucasus, sending about 1 million barrels a day of oil to the West.
Yet, while the U.S. has now turned its focus to missiles, Russia is fighting the new war by building its own ingeniously plotted energy pipelines to Europe. They have names like Nord Stream and South Stream, and there are more.
This is Russia pursuing its national interests -- the market dominance of Europe for Gazprom, its natural gas giant, and its oil companies.
That's not evil. It's devilishly shrewd. And it's been all but unanswered by the U.S.
Labels: bush, diplomacy, european union, geopolitics, oil pipelines, Russia, war on terror
15 Comments:
steve,
i agree with ur comments...
russia has been successful in using karimov to expel usa from central asia...and making anti-usa comments within sco....
do you think russia's next goal is to push for end of nato partnership with central asian states?
has russian started undermining nato activities in afghanistan? that is, if nato fails in afghanistan, then russia can push central asians to end their partnership by arguing nato is not successful partner?
Hi Orta, I'd say that a severing of relationships with NATO is remote. The Central Asian states are simply playing the two rivals against one another. I actually don't take Karimov's "pro-Russia" policy very seriously. I think that soon enough he will have a fresh tantrum against Moscow, and again send signals seeking a thaw with Washington. That's been his style. Thanks for the comment and best, Steve
I am posting the following at the request of reader Imogen Crawford in Atyrau:
The Great Game is alive and well – with the players true to form. We have always made the mistake that because Russia can make itself presentable in a western context it thinks in a western way. Russian mentality is Central Asian ('scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar') with a mix of Slavic serf. The genes of liberal intelligentsia has been systematically killed and weeded out for at least the last 200 years, and the brain drain is still happening. The trained professionals are leaving the country for Canada, UK etc – the very people a country can least afford to lose. So, a blinkered, unsophisticated blunt instrument, shrewdness coming from a finely honed bundle of pent up aggression, suspicion and grievance (a bear waking up in spring?) is a player in 21st century power politics.
Central Asia is a khanate system; soviet veneer was only ever skin deep. Volatile, capricious, ruthless, driven by personality rather than policy and smarter than the northern bear.
And the new players – naïve, baby faced US and inscrutable China; and Britain, who could be a shrewd operator, subsumed under EU.
Russia has an appalling Safety and Environmental protection record. Just as we thought we were winning with the big oil companies – with legislation, shaming, lending bank intervention and committed presence of HSE personnel – ground gained will be snatched away as countries with a 3 rd world mentality run the show.
However, might the collapse come from within? Russian demography is beginning to show the impact of the 'cannon fodder' approach to running a country. Health care is overwhelmed and the people suffering from the effects of serious environmental pollution and vodka consumption, let alone the newer ravages of drug abuse and AIDS.
It makes for a very interesting ongoing saga………
Imogen Crawford
(imogencrawford@hotmail.com)
"Naive, baby-faced US"... Ah-h-h-h..
The US is the major danger for the rest of the world due to its unconstrained consumpion at the expense of other nations, flagrant disregard for global environment as the world's top CO2 emitter (25% of twe world's total produced by 5% of the Earth's population), and its finely honed bundle of pent up agression, suspicion and grievance leading to numerous illegal military adventures abroad. Moreover, US "endebted consumer" psychology makes pooerer China to continue polluting the Earth's atmosphere with another 25% of CO2, bringing the world ever closer to a global crisis.
However, might the collapse come from within? US unparalleled obesity figures are beginning to show the impact of the "GMF testrange approach" to running the country by its corporatist government. Health care remains unaccessible to tens of millions of Americans who find their only refuge in unlimited junk food consumpion, decades-long drug abuse and successful exports of AIDS around the world.
It makes for a very interesting ongoing saga... That is, if we have time before naive, baby-faced US starts the 3d world war by attacking, for instance, Iran.
Evgueni,
Say what you will about the US and her foreign policy in general, but "naive" and "baby-faced" are a good way to describe United States' policy in Central Asia. Can't deny that.
You accuse the US of acts stemming from "aggression, suspicion and grievance." Fair enough. Every major country has committed those acts. But in the case of Russia, it's a consistent, never ending pattern rooted in the Russian's insecurity about their identity. What makes a Russian Russian? Are they Asian? Or European? Didn't the late Yeltsin commission six studies into the subject and none was able to come up with an answer? Russia acts like a pimpled-faced, immature adolescent and not like an adult. She could learn a thing or two from China in that regard.
Imogen: The kind of a khanate system you mention is often based on a very parochial view. Do you think that parochial view is being eroded thanks to a greater contact with the outside world? If so, do you think, this broader mindset is in any way eroding the khanate system? Maybe not at the very top but at lower levels? Thank you. -- Peter
Kristina,
You may have noticed that half of adjectives I used for describing US policies I borrowed from Mr Crawford’s post. Therefore although I agree with you that many nations have committed similar acts, I think that the US is singularly fond of severely judging others while portraying itself as an ideal altrusitic baby-faced democracy (Mr Crawford’s post is just another example of this). Some people call this hypocrisy, others – blind patriotism. I’m wondering whether this has smth to do with the Americans’ strong sense of national identity? Tell me.
As to my own country, indeed it does often speak - not act – in an immature way (adolescent or not, depends on what adolescent you have in mind, some of them are not pimple-faced at all). I would not defend a lot of statements made by Russian leaders, but I’m sure you have had many occasions to feel shame after the words of your own leaders in the past 8 years, so let’s leave politicians’ words aside. Russia’s actions towards other countries, however, on the whole have been surprisingly peaceful and contained. Often short-sighted, sometimes cynical, mostly egoistic, but again – mostly peaceful, and sometimes even surprisingly wise (in case of Kosovo, for instance). If you can cite any concrete examples to the contrary I’d be glad to discuss them.
I’ve never heard about any STUDIES into Russian identity commissioned by Yeltsin or whoever else, probably you could enlighten me on this… True that there have been some “national ideas” which the authorities tried to sel to the public, mostly in vain. In my opinion the majority of Russians are just plainly uniteretsed in anything which goes beyond their everyday life. They’ve had their share of ideology in the USSR. They just want to make and spend money now. A bit of national pride always sells well of course, epsecially before the elections, but that’s more like a toppingfor a cake, smth to watch on TV after a day’s work. Personally I think that the true sense of national identity in this country comes from the language. Asians or Europeans, we all speak one native language since ages, and with this language comes the same cultural baggage. This helps to form a nation. Lots of things continue to keep us apart though.
What makes an American American by the way? Surely not English, at least not in California…
Evgueni,
Per your request, a couple of links on Russia's search for a national idea:
http://query.nytimes.com/
gst/fullpage.html?res=
9C06E6DF113BF932A05750C0A96E958260
http://www.carnegie.ru/en/
pubs/media/76677.htm
Russia's policies have not been exactly peace loving. She has been involved in the civil war in Tajikistan and in wars in Nagorno-Karabakh, Moldova, Georgia. Her tactics in Chechnya amount to genocide.
One question: why can't the Russians put their Soviet past firmly behind? The rest of the former Communist bloc have done just that and they are doing fine. It's puzzling: the Russian government has admitted that communism was evil. And yet they cling to its symbols. Russia is the only country to feel outraged at Estonia's removing that monument off the centre of the city. Millions of Ukranians, Byelorussians and others died in WWII, not just Russians. But no one else gets so furious when a country does something anti-Soviet. The Germans admitted the Nazi regime was evil and made a clean break with everything Nazi. Why can't Russia do the same with regard to her Soviet past?
Also, why does Russia get so upset when its neighbors try to be more independent? Slovakia and the Czech republic had an amicable divorce. Romania and Hungary amicably settled the issue of the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. Ukraine and Poland have settled their historical wounds. Why can't Russia have amicable relations with its neighbors? Today she views almost all of its neighbors with suspicion, if not hostility.
The general population in Russia still gets treated like dirt. By traffic cops. By every bureaucrat, big and small. Hazing in the Russian is as common as before and leaves many young men crippled or dead. The Kursk disaster revealed the government's profound indifference to the human life. Same old thing as in the Soviet times, isn't it? That's the fundamental difference: in North America, Europe, Japan and South Korea, an average Joe lives with dignity, unlike an average Ivan.
As a way of responding to your accusations of the West, I refer you to Edward Lucas' latest piece. I couldn't have said it better myself:
The Kremlin's useful idiots
Our correspondent meets yet another bearded Brit
http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/
Kristina,
I’ll address your points one by one. Thanks for the link to NYT depicting this country in 1998, one of the hardest years in its latest history. I’m not sure how it proves your point though. I’ve also failed to find any mention of any STUDIES into national identity subject commissioned by Yeltsin. As I said to you previously, and as your other link (Shevtsova’s artcile) proves, there is a lot of bellicose rethorics here and politicians certainly try to sell some national unity ideas based on Axis of Evil a-la-Russe, but that happens everywhere , as you should certainly know being exposed to regular sermons of your war-time president about Americans defending democracy throughout the world, saving the Earth from WW3, unrelentlessly going after rogue regimes and WMD (regularly vanishing into thin air) etc.
In answer to you question: why can't the Russians put their Soviet past firmly behind? - there is no simple answer. The Russians have certainly put part of their Soviet past behind. They are no longer winding up arms race with the US. They’ve closed down their military bases in Cuba and Vietnam. They are no longer waging a war in Afghanistan (it’s the US turn now). They are surrounded by NATO members among their former satellites and publicly say that it’s the free choice of Ukraine and Georgia whether to join or not. To me all this is pretty much “putting the Soviet past firmly behind”.
Contrary to what you say, Russia has NOT been involved in civil wars in Tajikistan (there are Russian border guards at the request of the Tajik government, which together with the Tajiks try to intercept drugs on their way from Afghanistan to Russia and Europe, but nothing on the scale of the US military presence in Afghanistan; you should also realize the importance of anti-drug wars after so many years in Colombia), Nagorny Karabakh, Moldova and Georgia. Russian troops, whose presence is some of those places is authorised by the UNO and OECD, have kept warring parties apart and prevented bloodshed similar to ethnic wars in Moldova and Georgia in the 1990-s. FYI: Nagorny Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan which is popualted by Armenians, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are parts of Georgia populated by non-Georgian peoples, Pridnestrovye Republic in Moldova is a self-proclaimed independent enclave. All these areas have demanded self-determination and independence from their title states, however Russia does not support these claims (unlike the US for Kosovo, in flagrant violation of the existing international law).
As to the war in Chechnya, you should not confuse external and internal agression. Chechnya has been a part of Russia since 200 years, whether the freedom-loving US likes it or now. Half of its population were Russians. When the war started there were numerous human rights violations committed both by the Chechen militants and by the Russian troops –committed against both the peaceful Chechens and Russian citizens. If you could base your judgements about Russia not only on English-language sources I’d cite to you a lot of Russian articles about how Russian troops killed and murdered Russian and Chechen citizens. This is outrageous and I, as many Russians, are deeply sorry about this (just as I’m sure you are sorry about what your countrimen did in Abu Graib). Moreover, I agree with you that the internal rights of the Russians are often violated (I would not say “treated like dirt” if I were you, just as I do not pretend to know whether the US black population is treated like dirt or not; although from what I’ve heard many Joes are not so rosy and sure about living with dignity as you are).
However, all this is missing the initial point: whether Russia is acting agressively on the intrentional stage? No, it is not. Again, it is not acting wisely or altruistically, but throughout the past 15 years it has been very peaceful and contained. Russia’s domestic human right record, however appaling, has nothing to to with its foreign policy. Again, if you can cite any concrete examples to the contrary (apart from naming different countries and regions bordering with Russia), I’ll be happy to discuss.
Probably you would better understand why Russia cannot totally reject its past if you tell me: why can’t the US put their cold war past behind? Why does it press ahead with NATO expansion and anti-radar missile bases on Russian doorstep (which can be easily converted from defence to to attack missiles)? Why does it continue to meddle in the affairs of countries which are lying continents and oceans away? Why does it call any oil-rich souvereign state an area of its geostrategic interests? Why have it invaded Iraque on false pretexts? Why doesn’t your president listen to 70% of your voter who want your troops out? Why are your troops permanently stationed on four continents? Why does it brush aside international law and UNO resolutions when it pursues its interests? Why do all your presidential contenders claim they are ready to militarily attack other countries if they pose just a potential threat (based mostly on some vague and faulty classified intelligence)? Why does the US Congress discuss the Armenians genocide motion while it has NEVER apopogized to the Indians whom your peace-loving nation has extermintaed almost completely, save for several tax-free reservations?
BTW, I’am not accusing the West, as you claim. I think that the European Union is a visionary structure and an example for the world to follow. And many people in Russia willingly listen to their criticism and suite Russian authorities in the ECJ. However, there is a world of differnece between wise and peaceful community of European states, Russian neighbours since ages, and the arrogant, aggressive, tactless, hypocritical US bully. The Russians as a nation have mostly learnt their lesson after Hungary, Chechoslovakia and Afghanistan. You, baby-faced Americans, have led and instigated wars in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Afghanistan, Iraque, now talking about Iran… The American nation seems incapable of learning on your own mistakes and is brazen enough to preach peace and love to anybody else!
And yes - why are the Russians so touchy on the WWII issue? Well, for a start because they lost between 20 and 30 mln lives in it, and because their economy was in tatters. Therefore when Estonians or Ukraninas start to commemorate ex-Nazi collaborators as war veterans (as they did in Ukraine in October), it is difficult to understand to some people in this country. However, I agree with you that the particular story about moving the monument was a silly overreaction on the part of the authorities as there was nothing humiliating about.
Posting for Imogen of Atyrau, who is having trouble getting the link to work:
Hi Peter,
I suppose internet, television, a monetary economy, globalization etc are eroding all edges. But I also tend to think society fundamentally changes through evolution rather than revolution, and reality is at the lower levels. Any khan can put on a suit and tie and perform in London, Paris or Brussels; and also be a player in the international community; but the psyche of the population will dictate the decisions made. I was surprised when I visited Gori, a shrine to Stalin. The people I met conceded he killed millions, they were not ‘in denial’; but he was ‘a strong man and therefore a good thing’. This premise is at the heart of a khanate system, and it has a validity; biologically humans are highly territorial primates, probably with a dominant male social structure. In a simple agricultural community it makes sense when civil unrest quickly leads to starvation and a strong man will see off any invader (such as a multinational oil company come to rape the resources of one’s territory). Democracy is a system that comes with socio-economic complexity, and is not necessarily ‘fit for purpose’ for all situations.
So, I don’t think it’s a parochial view; and I don’t think it’s a broader mindset per se that brings change, but evolving socio economic complexity. And a person and a community is multi leveled, and some levels change quicker than others, and are not always in harmony.
But I am quite happy to be persuaded on alternatives.
What do you think?
Imogen
Posting for Imogen/Atyrau
Can I be provocative and add more fuel to the fire, it reads like the very Russian game of ‘whataboutyou-isms’:
Is the present and future war over oil dictated by the cultural baggage a nation carries, including our identities (or lack of them) and our preconceptions? Is our behaviour, as nations and as nationals, predictable?
As our great bard said:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
In comparing US and Russia – there are some amazing similarities, and differences. Both countries were decimating the indigenous populations and wildlife of Siberia, Alaska and the American West during the same period, as both peoples were brutally staking their territorial claim. Both were after territory and lebensraum, whereas European colonialism was biased on trading opportunities and sphere of influence (which could be no less bloody).
I don’t share Evgueni’s view of Russia as a soft and cuddly teddy bear. More like an irascible, myopic brute from the dark forest. I have never been in a more corrupt and backward country – and I have worked in Africa and the Middle East as well as Central Asia. The appearance of Mafia thugs and their equally hard faced trophy wives in Europe is not attractive phenomena. Many Mediterranean hotels have banned Russians – they have money but no class. But then all nations can be at their worst abroad.
There are some really interesting questions come out of this exchange, especially the search for national identities. To compare the US and Russia again (and this is from a European perspective) – they have both had to unite a disparate group of people over a large tract of land and forge a national identity. US has perpetuated the American dream, with a simplistic egocentricity and sublime belief in the rightness of its institutions and life style. It has led to material wealth and a deep ignorance about the rest of the world despite its supposed freedom of information.
Russia has a legacy of lugubrious and humourless Slavic introspection of Ibsen-esque proportions. The question of Russian identity was being asked in the late 19th century, and resulted in an artistic blossoming (Kandinsky etc). However, these were the Russian émigré populations who carried all the nostalgia and sentimentality of emigrants, and the Slavic-Siberian dichotomy has not been resolved. Russia today is intensely zenophobic with a very racist outlook.
Yes, I agree, identity lies in the language which also embodies a history to our conceptual thinking, and what we have assimilated from other people down the years. Which is why the new Central Asian countries are bouncing back and reasserting their own languages by throwing off Russian and Cyrillic. One by one they are changing the Cyrillic script for Latin, probably like Turkish which better expresses the phonetics. It is the Russians in these countries who are now the second class citizens and can’t get jobs, rather than the indigenous Mongolic peoples. A major soviet legacy is one of extraordinarily high literacy rates and female emancipation, lets hope they don’t throw out the baby with the bath water; Islamicism is always looking for an opportunity.
But then the idea of ‘nation states’ is a relatively new one (even Italy and Spain are not 100% comfortable with the idea). We have not outgrown Tribalism and have made a huge mess of drawing red lines on maps all over the world. And we are all – American, Russian and European – guilty of interfering in other countries business’ to further our own vested interests. Intervention is never altruistic, we do not respond to human rights issues. I wish we had the honesty to admit it.
And if you think the fight for Oil is bad, just wait until the global Water Wars get under way – this is seriously scary.
Imogen: Wow, you've brought up many subjects. First, back to the khanate system. Maybe the word parochial was not a good one. Let me try to re-phrase my question. Do you see any signs that the next generation of leaders are perhaps more visionary, even if equally authoritarian? Similar to Lee Kwan Yew, Chiang Kai-shek and Park Chung-hee, perhaps? None of the fellas was a Jeffersonian democrat but they all were successful in making their countries prosperous. Usually a broad mind is required to be a visionary. Do you see any indication that rising stars among the mid-level officials have those traits? Thank you. -- Peter
I’m starting to be confused: is it the same Imogen from Atyrau whose posts Steve continues to put on line? They seem too contradictory for one person. How has its darling “naïve, baby faced US” (first post) turned out into a country which acts with “simplistic egocentricity and sublime belief in the rightness of its institutions and life style” leading it to “material wealth and a deep ignorance about the rest of the world despite its supposed freedom of information” (last post)? Or is it the way Imogen sees babies – egocentric, ignorant, greedy and domeneering? In general I’m amused to see how much my US opponents like to use simplistic (thanks, Imogen) analogies: baby-faced naïve creatures and pimple-faced adolescents, soft and cuddy bears, “a bear waking up in spring”, an irascible, myopic brute from the dark forest… Quite poetic. I’ve never known politology is so close to biology in the US.
It seems that Imogen bases this behaviourist analysis of the Russian nation on some evidently hurting personal encounters with its representatives (probably in a Mediterranean hotel?) His historical generalisations and his captivatingly objective reflexions on the tribal nature of his own countrymen and human beings in general are interesting. However, what is even more interesting is that he – just as Kristina before - wanders away from the main topic: is Russia a posing a real threat? Instead of presenting us with evidence that it is, Imogen tells us how badly history treated Russians and how poor their cultural baggage and their manners are (funny to hear this from an American; I’m wondering whether Imogen has ever talked to the French about what they think of American manners and class…) So, are we talking about the way this country treats itself, or we are talking about the way this country treats others? I have a feeling Imogen talks about everythinig at the same time, venting his personal frustrations against my poor backward country. Well, let’s see his arguments.
I do not know where Imogen found such a cosy “soft and cuddy” view of Russia in my words. As I already said previously, human right violations are abundant in this country: hazing in the army, police torture, corrupt and inefficient judicial system, lack of independent social control over state institutions, and lots of other things which even NYT reporters do not know about. Moreover, these problems are actively discussed by the Russians themselves (not on NYT forums though). Let me say for the 3d time though: despite numerous setbacks in Russian domestic politics, Russian foreign policy has been very peaceful. I cannot remember any acts of agression or threats of agression against other states since 1991. If Imogen or anybody else can prove this is not so (without bear or brute fairy tales, if possible) he is most welcome. Now, there may be various reasons for this peacful foreign policy. Many people in Russia suspect that the current leaders could not afford a serious conflict of interests with the US or Europe where they have their bank accounts (talking about corruption is one thing, acting against it is quite another). Others have a less cynical view and believe that Russia has learnt its lessons and is no longer interested in competing for world hegemony with the US or whoever else. Whatever the reasons, the nation as a whole, however brain-washed by state media and occasional bellicose rethorics of its leaders, is much keener on fixing its own home rather than building or pulling down homes of others.
Imogen says: “It reads like the very Russian game of ‘whataboutyou-isms’”… Well, the US is certainly better at the “Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-ism” game. Any critic must have some moral credibility in order to be taken to seriously, and here is clearly a problem for the American empire (quoting your Controller General). While it preaches respect for environment, it refuses to join Kyoto (unlike Russia and the EU). Faced with the major planetray crisis, its president says he will never sign any intl agreement harmful to the national industry, come what may to the rest of the world. While US teaches others peace, its own diplomats are on the verge of a walkout refusing to serve in countries ravaged by it. Back in 2003 the US voters supported by a comfortable 70% margin their president’s illegal attack on Iraque brushing aside international law and national sovereignity. However, it took some 3000 US soldiers’ lives (and over half a million of the Iraquis’ lives, but that’s of no concern to the US voters) to reverse this enthusiasm… the strongest democracy and the finest military in the world indeed! The US leadership engages in rethorics about WMD and WWIII, while it was the first country to have used nuclear weapons against civilian population, killing some 200,000 peaceful Japanese and never apologizing for this. The US threatened a preventive unilateral use of nuclear weapons on more than one occasion (against the SU during the Carribean crisis or, more recently, against terrorists in Afghanistan). Leaving aside the phenomenal hipocrisy of this government and its citizens, one wonders: how much more of such destructive and deeply destabilising policies can the world take before the US puts the last nail in its coffin? It’s not a question of ‘whataboutyou-isms’. It’s a question of one country’s complete lack of responsibility and vision leading the whole world to the end.
Imogen says: “I have never been in a more corrupt and backward country [than Russia]” Well, a lot depends on where you go. I doubt a Pskov village is much more backwards than an Idaho potato farm. A lot also depends on how backwardness is measured. If we look at education, Russia surely fares better (99.4% literacy rate according to UNO) than the US (over 20% of functionally illitarate adults; “appauling illiteracy level of our children” according to G.W. Bush – who knows what he is talking about). It’s hardly impossible to imagine another wealthy Western country where Darwinism is banned from schools and where the president publicly supports teaching of Intelligest Design instead. If we look at religiousness, which is hardly a proof of a country’s progressiveness, the US is surely much more advanced than Russia. However, if I were Imogen I would not be proud of this. I suspect it’s the religious conservatism which has played a major role in turning the US into the world’s scarecrow. Maphia and corruption? Yes, criminality is rampant in Russia. However, Imogen would hardly have been shocked with it after regular school shootings and some 12,000 firearms victims a year in his native America.
Part 2. History.
Imogen’s “amazing similarities” between the US and Russia, apart from not being fattering, are also false. 1. “Both countries were decimating the indigenous populations and wildlife of Siberia, Alaska and the American West during the same period, as both peoples were brutally staking their territorial claim.” This is not factually true. The Americans, with their European white race supremacy cultural baggage, wanted new territory singularly for themselves and drove away the natives. The Indians opposed of course, so the easiest way for the Americans was to physically exterminate the whole race. Epidemics helped. This early formative experience of ethnic genocide, the biggest of its time, must have scuplted the nation’s psyche for centuries to come. They tasted the blood…
Unlike the US, when Russia extended its territory over Siberia and Far East (by the way, it was not “during the same period” – Russia’s most active phase of territorial expansion took place in the 16th century, long before the American nation was formed of colonial settlers), it advanced in mostly desert land. The harsh climate made it an extremely thinly populated part of Euroasia. There were native tribes, but they were vey few, and due to mere land size, low agricutural yields from these newly acquired lands and small numbers of Russian colonizers, there was little basis for conflicts. For the Russian crown the new acquisitions were initially of next to no economic benefit (apart from hunting fur animals). The first ore production in the Urals started in the 18th century. Therefore Russian domination over Siberia (and initially Alaska) was not based on ethnic genocide, as the American colonists’ in the US, but on the policy of populating pristine lands and integrating the indigenous peoples into the host of some 130 nations within the empire. The Russian tzar proclaimed native tribesmen his subjects. Native Russians were also driven to the new lands to boost up population levels and develop agriculture, which led to cross-marriages and christianization of the locals.
The second false claim is about decimating wildlife – and not because Russian rulers were humane environmentalists (which they were not) but because the man’s footprint in Siberia remained so small and feeble compared to the magnitude of this great forested land mass that it was virtually impossible to harm nature before the industrial development started there. However, even now, with admittedly bad Soviet ecological legacy, low population levels remain the main environmental conservation factor. Neighbouring China is a good example of what may go wrong with the nature in the absence of effective population control.
Therefore, Imogen’s claim that: “Both [US and Russia] were after territory and lebensraum, whereas European colonialism was biased on trading opportunities and sphere of influence (which could be no less bloody)” is rather lop-sided. Here we have three different cases of civilisations’ development. Europe promoted a “centre-versus-colonies” approach, resulting in ethnic segregation, white race supremacy and slavery. It developed democracy and economy at home at the expense of whole enslaved continents which served it as production base. What Imogen calls “trading opportunities” was in reality mass pilfering and looting of these continents of their natural resources, and stealing native peoples of all their political and economic rights. US colonists, small in numbers, pioneering and intolerant in spirit, and partly burdened with their European ancestor’s white race supremacy complex, went for a short cut in their newly-conquered homeland and plainly burned down any vestiges of previous cultures. They also creatively developped their white race supremacy culture cornerstone into perpetuating slavery in their own homeland until late 19th century and enriching the rest of the world with the word “lynching”. As recent events in Gena show, this colonial slavery past is far from being overcome for many of Joes. Russia was different from both Europe and the US in that it had no racial supremacy issues (only religious supremacy which helped the state convert new citizens to the country’s title faith) and that from the outset it was focused on integrating the local population, not estranging it as in Europe or ethnicallly cleansing as in the US. Unlike in Europe or in America, there were never any racial or ethnic stratification of socity on Russia. It had slavery (serfdom pretty much anounted to it), but its slaves were not discrimintaed on the raical or nation basis, the majority of them being Russians themselves.
In view of all this I do not understand what Imogen means by “Slavic-Siberian dichotomy”. He must have it all pretty messd up in his head: trips to Central Asia, khanate system, Slavic introspection, artistic blossoming, Kandinsky, sentimentality and nostalgia, xenophobia and racist outlook… Is Russia xenophobic (=has fear or contempt for other nations)? It well may be, just like any other ethnic tribe on this planet is, Imogen is right here. However, does Russian xenophobia make it racist? I see no proof of this, no more than occasional nooze incidents in the US make it racist. Russians’ fear of foreigners, mixed sometimes with contempt and sometimes with self-inflicted subjugation, is rooted in centuries-old conflict between orthodoxy and catholicism. It was certainly not helped by the iron curtain and cold war. However, Russia has been home to dozens of nations and several religions since centuries. Ethnic Russians are slighly over 50% in this country. Now, what on Earth does Imogen mean when he talks about racist outlook? How can a racist multi-national country have survived for one thousand years?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home