U.S. Prefers Anti-colonial War Instead Of Jihad in Caucasus
27 February 2011By 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.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments