2024-01-11 12:45:48
The first one even contained the word “danger” – an article written in Russian by the BNF leader Zenon Pazniak “About Russian imperialism and its dangers” was published in the parliamentary “Narodnaya Gazeta” on January 15-17, 1994.
The then president of Estonia issued a second warning on the same topic Lenart Mayors at a formal dinner in the ancient town hall in Hamburg, Germany, on February 25, 1994.
Mary considered the problem in a pan-European context; Pazniak projected the topic on Belarus. However, both authors agreed in the argumentation, and in some cases even in the choice of examples from history.
Both texts can be found online. I will give a fragment of each.
“An imperial state cannot be democratic”
Zenon Pazniak wrote that the new Russian leaders, led by Yeltsin, use “the old imperial policy – to divide peoples and population groups, to provoke them among themselves, to destroy some, riding on the backs of others (as in Abkhazia), to seize territories, management, property and dominate through dependents and substitutes.
The ideology of this traditional policy is simple, borrowed from Hitler: to protect the strategic interests of Russia and the rights of Russians in neighboring states (remember the “rights of the Germans”, Hitler’s “Anschluss” and similar phenomena condemned by the world community). Moreover, they are going to “protect” the rights not even of Russians, but of “Russian speakers”, that is, of the Soviet population in other countries. This means that no national-cultural revival and democracy will be recognized in these countries (because national-cultural revival, leaving the empire are essentially democratic processes). This means that there will be pressure and interference in the internal affairs of neighboring countries.
… An imperial state with an imperial social consciousness, an imperial extensive policy, and a multinational structure cannot be democratic. This is an axiom that needs to be reminded.”
These lines, as well as Pazniak’s article itself, caused an extremely negative reaction at the time. The person under control came forward with the accusation of trying to provoke “fraternal peoples”. Vyacheslav Kebich “Soviet Belarus”. The representatives of the democratic community, who did not agree with the assessment of Russia as an “empire”, also expressed quite sharp criticism of the leader of the BPF.
The evaluations of the new Russian leaders who, against the background of the post-communist Belarusian government at the time, were perceived as the embodiment of democracy and liberal reforms – Yeltsin, Gaidar, Kozyrov. Not to mention the parallels with Hitler. Yes, Hitler captured the Sudetenland, then Austria, but the Kremlin does nothing of the sort – is it permissible to draw such global conclusions from some political statements?
“Waiting for a step, he leaves the hall. The door slams shut.”
And now a quote from the speech of the Estonian president Lennart Meri, a writer and translator (at one time he was a well-known dissident, and he spent his youth in Siberia, where he was exiled with his diplomat father after Estonia joined the USSR):
“… It is clear that the collapse of the Soviet Union is viewed by the West as a kind of triumph; It is also subjectively clear that the West focused all its hopes and sympathies on the reformist forces active in Russia. Nevertheless, with such an attitude, the West risks soon finding itself in the grip of self-deception.
… Let’s take a closer look at the document released not so long ago by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It says that Russia will solve the problem of ethnic Russians living in neighboring countries not only through diplomatic means. And this despite the fact that ethnic Russians often appeared in neighboring countries due to their violent occupation and deportation of the local population.
From this Moscow memorandum, we can only conclude that, if necessary, Russia will be ready to take other measures. We, the Estonians and other small nations, know too well from the example of our recent history what these measures can be.
… If you really want to help Russia and its people, then you need to clearly explain to the current Russian leadership that no one will suffer another imperial seizure. Those who do not do this will help the enemies of democracy in Russia and other post-communist countries.”
The President of Estonia was still continuing his speech when one of the guests left the gala dinner as a sign of indignation.
The testimony of the correspondent of Die Zeit has been preserved Anna von Munchausen: “Waiting for a step, casting a disdainful look at the receiving party, he leaves the hall, every step accompanied by the creak of the parquet. A whisper is heard behind him. Who was it? What is he? The door slams shut.”
“Who was that?” – when the answer to such a question sounded in the walls of the town hall, the surname did not say much to those present. He was the vice-mayor of St. Petersburg, Hamburg’s sister city, Vladimir Putin.
“Yeltsin will teach Lukashenka about democracy”
Just as Pazniak’s publication was not received in Belarus, Mary’s speech was not understood by the Western political establishment.
In 1994, Belarusian society had not yet separated itself from Russia in its worldview, many perceived independence as a temporary phenomenon, and Russia as the closest nation “for centuries” (they did not particularly talk about Muscovy’s wars of conquest at school).
At that time, the West was going through what Francis Fukuyama defined as “the end of history” – being certain that communism, the symbol of which was the USSR for a long time, has been defeated and bright times of democracy are ahead.
Western leaders saw Yeltsin’s Russia not only as the victor of the communist system, but also as a guarantor of the irreversibility of democratic processes both in Russia itself and in other post-Soviet countries. Leaders of opposition parties, who in those years had to meet with American and European politicians, can recall their expressed hope that “Yeltsin will teach Lukashenka about democracy.”
Meanwhile, Moscow froze the conflict in Transnistria, unleashed first one and then another Chechen war. In 2008, it sent troops into Georgia, and six years later it did something unprecedented in the post-war history of Europe: it annexed part of the territory of a sovereign state, cutting off Crimea from Ukraine and actually occupying a significant part of Donbass.
Finally, in 2022, a full-scale war was unleashed. The reason for which, among other things, was the “protection” of ethnic Russians and “Russian-speakers” – just as it was warned in 1994.
From phantom to realized reality
The other day, a member of the European Parliament Race of Yuknyavichen in an interview with “Nowadays” she stated that for many years European countries did not take the threat from Russia seriously. Even the events of 2014, when Crimea was annexed and hostilities were launched, were not properly understood, she said. Now it will take years to reorganize the military infrastructure. Yukniavicene knows what she is talking about: she was the defense minister of Lithuania.
Today, essentially, the entire European security system is being revised, countries are revising their budgets, increasing funding for the army and arms production. At the same time, the potential attacker is not an abstract enemy, but a concrete state – Russia.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy Antonio Tajani declared the creation of a pan-European army as an urgent necessity and a “fundamental prerequisite for conducting a European foreign policy”. Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Sweden Mikel Buden and the Minister of Civil Defense Karl-Oscar Bulin urged fellow citizens to be ready for the fact that war may begin. Commander of the army of the Netherlands Martin Weinen called on his compatriots to be ready for war with Russia – despite the fact that, as he reminded, the country is 1,500 km from the Russian Federation.
The moment has come when the imperial aspirations of the Kremlin are no longer perceived by the political elite of the West as phantom.
#West #hear #warnings #postSoviet #politicians #threat #imperial #revenge #years