Will Russia ever make the West  happy for long? Muyanja Ssenyonga

It was a bashing for real. An article appeared in one Newspaper decrying Gazprom’s tactics to screw out more money from Ukraine for the supply of Russian gas. It unveiled long memories. Recalling the days when we are at school, High school to be exact,  I cant forget the phrase ‘Russian bear’ coined by some Russophobes in then powerful England. The image was featured in one of those history textbooks that one couldn’t dare fail having, save passing Advanced level examinations was on the lowest rung of your pecking order. Apparently, hopefully I made right interpretation then, the bearish Image portended the  perception Britons ,  as the  most powerful nation on mother earth, had about  large Slav state, under Rumanovs, to the  East.

 The failure of one of the extinguished War Generals,  France’s  Napoleon Bonaparte, to bring Russia to its shaky knees, didn’t  lessen the fears Britain had of ever losing their hegemony on World power , to the bearded debauchery-loving ‘Bear’. The juvenile simple and apparently  simplistic mind,  couldn’t figure out the whys and  hows, the image of a nation depicted as bear about to pounce on (call it maraud, however scavenge should be more to it), a meek, nimble, helpless being, came to underpin the relationship between Jingoistic Britons and Vodka ‘loving’ Russians. What is obvious it became indelible to this day and beyond. This treatise attests to that.  Many  wars were fought, driven by  the sole aim of  bringing  the Russian bear to its knees, using any means possible, direct and otherwise, overt and covert.  Such skirmishes involving the two nations   were ostensibly caused by other factors, yet in fact the Russian Phobia was behind public support for any engagement involving Britain and Russian empire.

The most spectacular was of course the Crimean war 1850s, most likely an attempt at gaining a foothold on the gates on Russian empire where British, ended up laying bare great  mishaps and blunders, perhaps only lessened by humility and caring services of Florence Nightingale. The Balkan wars that ranged in the second half of the  19th century, and were directly responsible for catapulting the World into World, at least that is what most reliable sources say;  though  praised as attempts at  nationalities under the yoke of subjugation to win their self –determination were supported by Britain simply because the virtual collapse of  the Habsburg Empire in 1866, has left only one stumbling block in the way, toward opening Russia to balkanization-the vast Ottoman empire. The collapse of  the Turkish empire, would leave Russia bare, making it easier for its collapse, if not in the short run, certainly in the long haul. One shouldn’t forget the Russian-Japan war in early 1900s, in which Britain , not surprisingly, Emperor Hiro Hito’s  Japan , which turned the tables against the Russian Bear, as it lost the skirmish.  Then came the  communist regime. As if social-political events were in favor of perpetuating the rivalry between the two peoples(you can call it nations), Vradimir Lenin, having imbibed all that Karl Max and Fredrick Engels could think of putting down as their postulation of political theory, brought the Romanov Russia under Marxism-which of course true to their likes, he christened it Leninism. From 1917 to 1991, Russian influence had a stranglehold over last expanse of territory in much of former Habsburg and part of Ottoman empires. The world saw one of the most vicious battles fought ostensible for the sake of helping countries under austere and oppressive regimes to achieve self determination,  and out of sheer philanthropy. The friction between the two nations sharpened with the rise and fall of Hitler.  Herr Hitler , vicious as he was tried to achieve what Napoleon had failed to do, defeat the Russians (this time they were professed ardent communists).

Failure was to be his reward, and once Russia proved unconquerable, the march was on to the West to pre-empt any further incursions, Russians should have argued.  By the end of the Second World War, large swathes of the Eastern Europe were to be under the loathed Russian bear. And worse still, Britain, was no longer the power it once was, hence there was nothing much it could do. Did I say not much? Not exactly.

Having lost its helm as the most powerful nation on Nation to its Anglo-Saxon mentor, United States, Britain would henceforth back any efforts and moves that sought to roll back the influence of Russia in Europe. The chance to strengthen the resolve presented itself when Russia refused to be part of the Marshall plan,(it would have sounded ironical if it did being a avowed self-reliant communist), the Berlin Blockade, and  Russian incursions into then Czechoslovakia and Hungary.  The war was on, only this time, not between Britain and its Russian bear foe, rather a united democratic Europe under threat of an impending communist apocalypse. Wars were not only fought in Europe, but moved South in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Definitely,  at the time,  no one could have the audacity to attribute such wars to the long running rivalries between Britain and Russia(Soviet Union it had become). That was then.  A closer look doesn’t lead one to any other conclusion. The first person to praise Mikael  Golbachev for his ‘business like’ manner was the Iron lady, Margaret Thatcher. The praise was never lost to Mr Gorby, who embarked on Perestroika(restructuring)  and Glasnost (openness). We all wondered how such tenets would apply in a regime whose strengths lay in the very antithesis of the two policies above. In less than a decade, other Soviets were demanding Glanost and restructuring of their own, to which of course fervent support was given by Britain(this time carrying the torches of  NATO,  EC, and the democratic west.  Unable to reverse the trend, Mr Gorby seeing his helm falling asunder, realizing the tumultuous trend he had been hoodwinked into,  by such ‘emboldening’ and welcome into the fold flatteries’ , took counter measure too late, and if not by sheer luck would have cost him his life, forget his Presidency.  Sensing the benefits of enjoying liberties were under threat,  the liberal Moscow Major, Yeltsin, galvanized his troops, to demand for Russian exit out of the Soviet Union.

The center of the edifice was asunder, what was happening in the periphery, is anybody’s guess. Having visited free America, and drank to debauchery its life, wealth, liberty, name it, it should have dawned on him, that  that was the kind of society Russia wanted. Of course, it is doubtful whether he knew  how long, the 102 or so  storied mansions, pervasive liberties, institutions, and immense wealth, had taken Americans to build. For him it was ‘now or never’. Doubtless, the West could give him the advice to more slowly, as it would lengthen the death of the long-loathed Russian Bear. Headlong, the guy moved, bombarded parliament into submission, and there he went on his ill-fated economic liberalization binge! And this was a nation that had had no experience in running a privatization program, more so on the scale that went on in Russia. Hardly were there any institutions to conduct the identification, valuation, and selling. To most Russians, having been under Communism for close to 78 years, private property should have sounded sinister.

Which was perhaps why they didn’t bother when the bureaucracy , easy to learn the new lessons of free market, capital, money , wealth, and good life, from what would become their western counterparts, saw the laxity and lack of all manner of  state mechanisms and procedures, divided state assets amongst themselves, becoming nouve riche billionaires, we are now reading about in the papers.  No complaints were made then by anybody when state assets fell into the hands of those very individuals who were supposed to  conduct the privatization process. Chaos and anarchy could hardly be avoided. The 1998 Russian economic crisis attests to the immense cost ordinary Russians had to pay for faults that weren’t their own. Even then, If you are an ardent news reader you should have seen how disparaging Russia was depicted: the most telling was Yeltsin’s weird dancing, and antics, that arose from his intense liking of the bottle. This was a Russia following the lines drawn by those it thought were its  forerunners in the drive for  better democracy, economy, and  social welfare. Yet the economy was falling into tatters as state assets were stripped off, ordinary people  fell hungry as the replacement of the collapsed state planning machinery was not yet in place. I am sure Russian endured because they knew it was cost worth paying. However, the 1998  convulsion delivered the most clear message to them: there is never even free lunch.

The falling Ruble lead to an upsurge in prices of all manner of goods. Liberalization was in town, but it was very clear to them that , money to buy the abundant products in shops was no where. Economic liberalization doesn’t per se better social welfare. News papers could of course fail to show the suffering Russians, of course no bear, word this time. It should have sounded sweet victory to those schemers who had been dreaming of a time when a huge Russia genuflects, seeks for bail outs, for this was what Russia came to.    Perhaps Russians, has seen enough of many empty promises and few tangible results. Even Yelsin, grogy as he often looked, should have realized that some mistakes were made and needed correcting. Then came the almost stoic, austere Putin. True to his background( Russian intelligence agency), he has ushered in democracy, albeit truncated; restored normality (the Russian economy is now one of the most resilient economies, reigned in economic Czars who couldn’t pay taxes due, continued with privatization(but on Russian terms). Surprising the resurgence of Russia has received cool reception from newsmen. Bringing order into Russia, which has made the country less of a hell run than it was prior to Putin’s Presidency,  hasn’t won much praise either. Putin is accused of stifling democracy and  a threat to private enterprise. And efforts have been underway to box Russia in. This is discernible in the NATO and European Union expansion to the East; the vicious remarks about Putin’s role in  Ukraine  and Georgia, support for Uzbeskistan’s Nazabayev, and   disruption of gas supplies to Georgia and Armenia. Oh. How one even dream of  forgetting the recent spat over the exotic spying rock, should have said rocks, pitting Britain and Russia?

A resumption of Cold war gimmicks and antics of espionage accusations and counter accusations? Perhaps not. Nonetheless,  by the looks of things,  try as it may, Russia’s acceptance into the unity of nations,  as an equal  let alone, influential nation , will continue to face old stubborn habits that may take long to  overcome, if ever. .even if this  the 21st century I recall! Anyway, it sometimes happens, didn’t one wit say, countries don’t have permanent friends or enemies, but permanent interests! ...and there is some thought, for sure!

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1