Last week there was a truck in nice. On this train in Bavaria. That will be next week — no one knows. Leaders are forbidden in our country of the terrorist organization ISIS and inspired by their calls “jackals single” clearly firmly took hold of Europe and the entire Western world. From now on, nobody can feel safe. And it is a tragedy of enormous proportions.
But in parallel with this human tragedy, in my opinion, is still the political tragedy: the tragedy of misunderstanding, the tragedy of inability to understand the reasons befell the continent full of misery, tragedy, caused by the absence of European politicians the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. Europe and not only Europe, the whole civilized world is now faced with absolute evil, with a force that is, or will be stopped in time, or drown in blood all around him.
But what, meanwhile, are most concerned with the highest European policy? Not the state, it would be logical to assume. The highest leaders of the Old world remain particularly concerned about the “terrible Russian threat”. And here’s my depressing prediction: while this situation does not change, ISIL and other similar organizations will thrive. Emanating from the Middle East threat requires not only long-overdue and overdue unification of efforts of Russia and the West in the fight against the common enemy. It requires more and coming to the West understanding: the political course of Moscow in the middle East is based not on an irrational desire “evil Putin” throw a lifeline “evil Assad”. The Foundation of Moscow’s policy in the region is a very sober interpretation of local realities. And the fact that the West refuses to admit it, is, in my opinion, a very powerful “engine” for terrorism.
Some time ago in the UK was published “a report of chilcote” — the official report of the state Commission established to investigate the circumstances of the beginning of the Iraq war. This document looks as if it was not written in London, and in Moscow, and in Moscow, not even in 2016, and 2003. All what warned Russian leaders thirteen years ago (and all that arrogantly discarded by officials in London and Washington as “nonsense”) — now recognized the truth.
Of course, and now in the UK there were a number of retired politicians who said the decision on the beginning of the war was absolutely correct. But the opinion of most thinking people in the British political elite now coincides with the main conclusion of the report of chilcote and Putin’s position in 2003: the Iraq war was not necessary, to start it should not have. But here’s what amazes me: the Russian arguments 2003 against the war in Iraq de facto almost identical with the Russian arguments, 2016, against the Syrian policy of the West. For example, 13 years ago, no one in Moscow claimed that Saddam Hussein’s all good and so it is in any case can not be touched. In Moscow said the brutal secular regime in Iraq is better than the inevitable alternative in the form of anarchy.
In 2016 with regard to Syria, Russia said absolutely the same thing: Assad makes sense to not support because of his remarkable personal qualities. It is not about Assad. We are talking about that controls the country’s harsh secular regime in Syria is far better than the absence of such a regime. One can think about this: when Bashar Assad was the absolute Lord of Syria, the current “capital” of raqqa ISIL was not the epicenter of the global terrorist threat. Raqqa was known as a major center of cotton industry, the location of numerous archaeological sites.
It would seem that the arguments of Moscow there is a concrete logic. But it sill rejected by the West about the following motivation: “bad Putin protects Assad bad”. The horror of this situation is not that we “don’t like and don’t understand.” The horror that such a position makes it virtually impossible to effectively fight ISIS. I do not cherish any illusions: even if ISIS will be destroyed as a force physically controlling a significant amount of territory in the middle East, the group will still continue its existence. The power of ISIS is in its ability to turn people into zombies, insane fanatics eager to kill. But at the same time the destruction of ISIS as a territorial entity is an absolutely necessary condition for an effective fight against this terrible scourge.
But while the sense of control over a certain territory ISIS remains a “state”. And it happens in large measure, this is why: the West can not decide who is it more a disgrace — ISIS or Russia and its “client” Assad. At a time when the civilized world needed most was unity, such unity is completely absent. At a time when we need a clear and understandable strategy, the West, as in the case of Iraq in 2003, there is only a set of hopes and assumptions: first, we need to remove Assad, and then we’ll think about the rest!
This position is a terrific “gift” of ISIS. This position objectively favors all new and new terrorist acts in Europe. The West is not simply painted themselves into a dead end. West was not even aware that the dead end and it is time to try to get out of it. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, I in the course of informal conversation asked Yevgeny Primakov question: “What is now will change dramatically in world politics?” Response wise academician and former Prime Minister of Russia is very firmly etched in my memory: “The worst thing that fundamentally will not change anything!”.
Unfortunately, these sad words the most direct way can be applied to the current situation in Europe. What has changed dramatically in the behaviour of senior European politicians after the terrible tragedies in Paris, Brussels and nice? Yes, nothing has changed. Russia is still “the main threat”. This is the most recent example of this kind of applications. This Monday, 4.15 PM GMT, the house of Commons of the British Parliament, the debate on the need to preserve national British weapons. The new Prime Minister Theresa may: “Threats from countries such as Russia and North Korea remain so real!”
Of course, I understand. I realize that in modern British politics rhetoric about “Russian threat” is how the slogan “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” on the newspaper hat in the Soviet time there. But what I recalled Theresa may if I had the chance talk to her. Among the predecessors of Ms. Mei as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party was including a man named Winston Churchill. In the period when Churchill, in the years 1919-1921, he occupied the post of Minister of war, Soviet Russia was not in the British government’s worst enemy than him. As the ideologue and head of the British military intervention in our country, Churchill made every effort to “strangle the Bolshevik monster.”
But after Hitler’s attack on Soviet Union in 1941, Churchill made a speech here which read: “Over the last 25 years nobody has been a more consistent opponent of communism than I am. I will not take back a single word I said about him. But all pales before the spectacle now unfolding… Any man or state who fight against Nazism, will receive our assistance. Any man or state who go with Hitler, are our enemies… Attack on Russia is only a prelude to an attempted conquest of the British Isles”.
ISIS is a force, which according to the degree of their bloodlust not far removed from Hitler. The faster this chilling fact comes to mind of Western leaders, the sooner the civilized world will finally a full-fledged fight against terrorism.Related posts: