| observer |
Dmitry Bykov
Baghdad, Ashgabat - then everywhere else?
Two conflicts are shaking the world: everyone is talking about one, and only a few are talking about the other. The first is exceptionally large: a superpower versus the holder of a huge share of the world's oil reserves. The second one is quite modest, since both participants are no longer (or are not yet) capable of playing the role of a superpower. America is trying to destroy the dictatorial regime in Iraq (few doubt that the X-hour has already been set). For the first time, Russia drew attention to the Niyazov regime in Turkmenistan. Iraq is not a direct threat to America yet. Turkmenistan is arresting and putting Russian citizens on the wanted list, and its special services feel very free on Russian territory. Moreover, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council Vladimir Rushailo promises Turkmenbashi assistance in investigating the attempt on his life.
Dictatorships often arise in Asian countries that have good oil reserves (like Iraq) or gas (like Turkmenistan). The population can live comfortably in a relatively favorable environment, with free or extremely cheap public services - and how much does such an obedient population need? But what should the world do when two such boils are brewing before its eyes?
Let’s assume that the world community initially looks at all personality cults with laughter. Because at the beginning of the 21st century this is really funny. Then sanctions and other measures of economic pressure begin - but when there is a lot of gas and enough oil, this is not so threatening. But then what? The Strugatskys have been asking this question since the sixties and came up with progressors - people sent from outside and destroying the totalitarian regime from within. But it would not be a sin to listen to the forecasts of the same Strugatskys, who proved: progressorism is almost always doomed. Because people really like its current state. And the alternative to a dictatorial regime is almost always no better than this regime: confusion, vacillation and the triumph of radical Islam. Even in Russia, almost as many people have already died out of democracy as were transplanted in the thirties. But Russia is not Turkmenistan, it had some experience of democracy...
So far, both the United States and Russia are demonstrating the same helplessness when faced with a totalitarian monster. This issue cannot be resolved by military force, and the commercial rationale for the next American crusade is too obvious. Russia generally cannot oppose Turkmenbashi with any clear policy regarding the former republics, which have turned into enclaves of the most cavernous authoritarianism. So it turns out that everyone is powerless against the dictator except death and his own subjects. Because any other attempt to neutralize him will lead to the fact that sooner or later he will be resurrected as a national saint.
So without the personal participation of the residents of Iraq and Turkmenistan, Russia and the United States equally will not succeed...
|
| |
