U.S. Prefers Anti-colonial War Instead Of Jihad in Caucasus

27 February 2011

By Markaz Kavkaz

The Russian Section of the Voice of America reported on the American preferences in the Caucasus in connection with recent attacks by the Mujahideen in Nalchik. The propaganda radio writes in particular on its website:

American Dream

A professor of Sociology, Musa Shanibov, said to the Russian Service of Voice of America he did not believe in the project "Islamic Emirate". Moreover, he thinks that it absolutely failed.

"Ethnicity in the peoples of the Caucasus historically prevails over any other features, including the religious", said the professor.

According to Shanibov, it is to be expected an inverse transformation of the armed resistance from Islamic to Nationalistic in Northern Caucasus.

"In fact, this is an anti-colonial war, it lasts so long that periodically it changes its format, but at the end it always returns to its true format - a war for freedom", said Musa Shanibov.

''Russia returns to condition of controlled authoritarian brutality''

An influential British newspaper The Guardian published an article by a well-known political analyst Julian Glover, which tells about Russia. The article in particular notes:

"Russia exists in the foreign imagination less as a real place than as a series of stories: tsars, Rasputin, revolution, music, vodka, Red Square, military march-pasts, spies, oligarchs and sudden death.

No observer of Russia, or at least no layman like me, is able to think of it as just another part of Europe. Any hope that this might have been possible - that the brilliant democratic moment that followed the fall of the Soviet Union, and the first superficial glamour of capitalism, might have made Russia a country whose people and rulers resemble ours - has gone.

The country's ham-fisted attempt to deny the Guardian's Moscow correspondent Luke Harding a visa was one dismal sign - but British politicians should not have needed that to show them what is obvious. They should not hide from the truth that Russia has returned to a condition of controlled authoritarian brutality.

In his final dispatch from Moscow, sent in 1992, the former British ambassador Rodric Braithwaite quotes a 16th-century predecessor, George Turberville.

The Russians, Turberville wrote, were "a people passing rude, to vices vile inclined ... In such a savage soil, where laws do bear no sway, but all is at the king his will to save or else to slay".

Is the king now called Putin? Was post-Soviet Russia always going to end up like this? Braithwaite's dispatch, sent as Russia's wealth was being stolen and its people subjected to the mayhem of lawless liberalization, held out hope of a decent future.

Instead the security state returned, trading a restricted economic freedom for the political liberties of the Russian people. Perhaps a younger generation - richer, informed through travel and the internet - might want something better.

But there is no sign of it. The old bargain - order in exchange for freedom - has been struck.

A social and economic link never became a political one. Britain has not yet followed the self-interested abasement of Germany, Italy and France - a moral decline culminating disgracefully in Gerhard Schroder's employment by the Russian gas and oil industry.

If politicians persuade themselves that Russia can never do anything other than replay repressive cliches, the next step is to tolerate compromise. Why bother to call for freedoms, when the people don't want them?

Russians - even those who hate Putin - do not want to be patronized by the west.

This leaves the British government treading a narrow and untidy path. History, geography and the institutions the Russians have devised to cope with them impose a heavy burden. But how we deal with Russia affects others too, not least Georgia and Ukraine, whose chances of survival are considerably influenced by our resolution not to look away.

Even inside Russia, the fact that protests may fail does not mean we should be silent.

If the current Arab revolt teaches anything, it is that comfortable co-operation with people who are not democrats is unsustainable.

We have no sway over Russia. We need its money. But we should be ashamed by the direction in which this pulls us. We might hope for change - for Red Square to become Tahrir Square - but that chance, if it existed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was missed.

Pushkin's stage direction, at the end of Boris Godunov, still applies: "The people are silent." That is their prerogative. Ours is to remain obstinately on the side of progress, treading carefully the awkward line between passivity and provocation", wrote the Guardian.

It is to be noted that this is not a prerogative. The real prerogative is to abandon the Western religion which is promoted by Julian Glover, because, as is known and confirmed by independent scholars, like Sheikh al-Awlaki, Democracy is the religion of the West, and to act based on pure pragmatism in the secular field.

Since Russia is a danger to all humanity, it is necessary to eliminate Russia, so that this country does not exist anymore on world maps.

To do that, the West must help in every possible way the oppressed peoples in their aspirations for freedom from the yoke of dire Muscovy and to restore independence in about 100 old new states in post-Russian space.



Add Comments

Comments & Debates :-: التعليقات والمحاورات

:-: Go Home :-: Go Top :-: