Translated material
Friendship won
So, “as I predicted” in one of the posts, the pilots in Tajikistan were released.
More precisely, they will be released in the coming days.
The prediction was self-evident.
Indeed, WHY should the Tajiks keep them in prison and transfer government grain?
So.
Russia “and Medvedev personally” won and demonstrated the Triumph of Will.
Very opportune for the elections.
Tajikistan “and Rakhmonov personally” - won, showed the Triumph of Will and the triumph of justice.
How so?
What is the Tajik triumph?
Elementary, Watson!
First.
In general, they detained obviously innocent people - they gave Russia a loud slap on the nose. In Russia, the TV viewer will know that they LET GO (= We insisted). In Tajikistan they will know that they DETAILED (= We insisted).
This is what real TV art is – the objective work of a journalist.
Second.
There are different ways to let go. Tajikistan has retained its PR face. We held out in the ring - this is against Russia! – more than 15 days-rounds. The pilots were publicly sentenced (the PR time countdown does not start from the silent arrest, but from the resounding verdict) on November 8th. They will be released sometime at the end of November.
And they released him decorously and nobly, with his head held high, within the period provided for by the Law - “by court decision,” and not by ORDER from Russia.
Third.
It is very likely that - in a month or two or three - and from our table to your table, the Russian court will release Rakhmonov’s son-in-law-in-law-in-law-or-whoever-he-is-he is on all four sides. Only the federal TV of Russia will not talk about this, which means it won’t happen...
As for TV in Tajikistan, I don’t know.
Morality.
First.
Competent work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - they did not quarrel with Tajikistan to pieces. The fool in this game was “a man who looks like Onishchenko” - such is the suit of this card...
And so Russia did not agree to a public scandal. "Ally" saved.
Second.
The memory will remain. In Russia - that Tajikistan knows how to show its teeth, in Tajikistan - that it is necessary to prepare better for the next demonstration of teeth.
Third. And the most interesting thing.
The fact that it happened exactly this way - softly - is not so much a merit of our diplomacy as an INEVITABILITY.
Otherwise, in our time it is almost impossible.
Leaving aside the specific features of Russia's relations with Tajikistan, there are also general considerations.
There is no gunboat diplomacy in the 21st century world.
Colonies are not captured these days. It is impossible to wage long wars in other countries - the home front is rebelling. The USA/NATO, for internal political reasons, cannot wage a long, bloody (a la Vietnam) war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and did not dare to send troops to Libya. For internal political reasons, Russia was unable to end the war in Chechnya with a “complete victory” - it had to make a “rotten compromise” and pay moral and material tribute to the real winner – Kadyrov. For foreign policy reasons (the matter simply did not have time to reach internal political ones), Russia was unable to “finish off Georgia” - and only got South Ossetia on its neck...
But if war - as a continuation of imperial policy by other means - is almost impossible, very difficult, and does not give complete and obvious political and moral Victory - then what do the words about DOMINANCE mean?
Global or regional?
The ability to impose one’s position with soft power?
Or, in other words, just the need to conduct strong bargaining with an obviously weaker partner?
Yes, it is immeasurably weaker militarily, economically, informationally, but...
But bringing him to his knees in the sense of the 19th century is impossible.
Someone else’s leader can be killed (Saddam, Gaddafi, Dudayev, Moskhadov), he can be expelled, but his COUNTRY (with its elites, by the way!) will not become a colony, it will still remain to a very large extent independent - even if formally it is “within your country "(like Chechnya), or is not recognized by anyone (South Ossetia, Abkhazia), and even more so if it is an international subject. rights (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). Thus, the Iraqi government issues oil concessions (all oil, of course, belongs to Iraq) not only to the United States, but also to China, the Russian Federation, and other countries, has not become an ally of Israel, and maintains relations with Iran that are much better than the United States or the same Iraq during the time of Hussein .
Universal political right...
With universal suffrage, everyone is in some sense equal: a homeless person and a billionaire, a political science professor and an illiterate person each have one vote.
With universal political law, all countries are also, in a sense, equal - those who feed and those who are fed, those who have won a military victory and those over whom they have won.
Everyone still has some minimum rights that cannot be taken away today.
This means that the previous understanding of DOMINANCE is over.
Only the general public - especially in the “dominant countries” - cannot understand this. And accept.