Around Russia

Between Assad and Mubarak

June 4, 2012 Alexander Golts

Each time the situation in Syria exacerbates (this time it happened after a battle in the village of Hula), foreign colleagues piss me off questions about the logic of the behavior of the Russian authorities. Well, what, in fact, makes the Russian chiefs stupidly repeat about the mutual responsibility of the parties. What forces representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry to repeat the version of the Syrian military, that some Islamic extremists made a massacre for the purpose of provocation. It remains to find out where the extremists came from artillery. Meanwhile, the president of our country explains during the blitzvizites to Germany and France that the number of victims is by no means so serious as to talk about the guilt of Assad’s regime: “We are now talking, for example, about the tragedy that recently occurred in one of the villages: in my opinion, 14 or 15 people killed, and some were tortured. This has become the property of you and your colleagues, the entire world community. And how many civilians died from the contrary, from the hands of the so -called militants, did you count? There, too, the score goes on hundreds. ” And at the same time explains that Moscow does not supply Syria with weapons that can be used in the civil war. From this it follows that the ship Professor Katsman has just delivered to the port of Tartus or a missile defense complex of the Bastion coast, or anti-aircraft missile systems-the only weapon that cannot be used against the rebels. For the simple reason that the anti -government forces have neither aircraft nor ships. But the Western states have them, whose leaders periodically begin to talk about the possibility of using force to cease reprisals with a civilian population. Thus, Russia provides assistance to Assad on the eve of a possible foreign military intervention.

Why does the Kremlin put its international reputation on the end? Foreign analysts claim that, supporting Assad, the Kremlin is trying to maintain its only naval base in the Mediterranean. Or indicate the desire to ensure the implementation of arms sales contracts. Honestly, these versions cannot withstand critics. Because it is more or less clear: the days of the hereditary dictatorship of the Assads are numbered. Those who come after the dictator will not consider themselves obliged to fulfill the obligations of the authoritarian ruler. There is no doubt, power will change and our native Navy will drive from the tartus base. It is also quite obvious that the new owners of Damascus will not feel connected by the obligations of the “vile dictator” in the field of arms supply. We watched all this first in Iraq, and then in Libya. But the Kremlin violently protects Assad.

The answer, it seems to me, lies in the field of psychology (if not, psychiatry). Putin considers himself his campaign Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak. He is firmly convinced that democracy, the rule of law, human rights, all these are fictions in order to more or less cleverly mask the right to manage the weak. Actually, this is the Realpolitik of the nineteenth century, which is professed by the Russian president: all politics boils down to the fact that large states are imposing will their satellites and intercept strangers.

The Russian president quite sincerely believes: large powers are starting this buyda about human rights, about mass killings, only when they need a reason to overthrow the objectionable ruler. The ruler, who, of course, is invariably a Russian client. That is why Putin is sure: mass protests in Moscow are the result of a special operation of Western special services. In the same way as protests in Syria, Libya and Egypt were organized by Western “subversive centers”.

Putin, like Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad, built a system of decorative democracy, where the elections only imitate popular will, and the court is the rule of law and justice. The Russian president is firmly convinced that only such a purely imitation, and there may be a system of public administration. The real leadership of the country, he believes, everywhere occurs without the participation of the population. The Westerners who are simply sophisticated in political technologies can impose their will to the subordinate people without the help of tanks and artillery, as in Libya and Syria, and even without a riot police, as in Russia.

It is no coincidence that he is so annoyed when there is a need to communicate with neophytes like the French president Hollande, who suddenly, as a result of such stupidity as the will of citizens, turned out to be at the head of state. After all, this decisively violates the Putin system of the universe. In the same way, attempts to overthrow the authoritarian regime look in his eyes an obvious violation of the rules of the game. And here you have to fight to the last. Because, if you give a slack, you will instantly find yourself in the position of Hosni Mubarak, to whom the ungrateful Egyptians gave a life sentence for a thirty -year -old immunity service on power galleys ... Today it is vital for Vladimir Putin to impose his understanding of sovereignty to the world community. The sovereignty, which consists in the right of bosses to create anything with their people.

Photo by RIA Novosti