Russia's 3rd-term President Vladimir Putin (who has been sick in recent months) and his feisty foreign affairs minister, Sergei Lavrov, have given an explanation of Russian foreign policy, as recounted by Fred Weir in SCM, that has changed my own thinking in regard to the geostrategics of the situation, seeing the world thru Russia's eyes. It holds not only for the Russian Federation as such, but also for imitative autonomous republics in Central Asia -- like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and in Caucusus the historically Christian states of Georgia and Armenian, and the Muslim-majority Azerbaijan -- most with overwhelmingly Muslim populations and all repressive of religious pluralism and saddled with state-guided religions-minded policies based on fear to the point where they feel they must outlaw the writings of one of Islam's most creative theologians of recent times, Said Nursi, because his understanding of Islam might bring it to life however gradually in ways that threaten these latter régimes, were they granted any religious freedom at all. But this anti-pluralism approach also threatens the kind of Islam that exists in its tight structures and is fully tolerated within the Russian Federation itself and is heavily regulated, the official Islam. It's the same geostrategic understanding that prevails with Putin and Lavrov (but not so much Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev who woud like to be closer to the leading Western approaches). I finally realized that what the Russians had learned in Chechnya with its Muslim majority and bitter jihadist war, and even before that in its effort to maintain its conquest of Afghanistan, was only part of the picture. The Russian leaders understand that the Muslim masses of Russia are a tinderbox that, with free propaganda and "visitation rights," coud bring the Sunni constellation into a raging vortex of jihadism, presumably one Assad is beheaded. That's behind the current effort to explain to France (in Mali and Africa generally) and to the USA which did not win the hearts and minds of the Syrian opposition to align itself conclusively with the West. Indeed, from Putin's and Lavrov's perspective, the Western intransigence in trying to leverage diplomatically the ouster of Bashar al-Assad where the opposition won't even talk to the present regime, is in the same zone of disaster where it allowed Hosni Mubarak to be leveraged out of office in Egypt, and Ghaddafi out of Libya, and perhaps Tunisia as well. Putin and Lavrov are saying: work with the dictators who can keep a lid on these countries by repression. And don't "foment jihadist 'blowback' " which, when it spreads, will make the whole world much more volatile than at present. Putin and Lavrov don't want the Arab Spring to become the Central Asian Spring, nor especially the Russian Muslim Spring. That woud magnify the amplitude of jihad over their national thresholds by a factor of 100.
They are trying in good faith to prevent the USA's "naive" policy of democratizaton of the world from setting everything in the world into a bloody motion that can only lead to more terror, more torture, more decapitations, more hand-cuttings-off ... We are reaching a critical hour. I'm hoping much, nevertheless, for the revolution in Syria to fill its course and establish a new régime that seeks justice for all in its territory. I hope that Christians and their ancient communities in Syria will be ready and able to make peace with the Sunni majority, and that the terms will not be severe or humilitating.
-- Politicarp, refWrite Frontpage politics newspotter, analyst, columnist
Christian Science Monitor (Jan28,2k130
Russia's Vladimir Putin says West is fomenting jihadi 'blowback'
Moscow is criticized for weak support of the Arab Spring, and for actively backing Bashir al-Assad in Syria. But the Kremlin says its policies are consistent and the West is exporting revolt.
Both Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister have lashed out at the West in recent days for pursuing what they regard as naive and incoherent Middle East policies.
Related stories
The critique targets Western backing of anti-dictator rebellions in Libya and Syria, which, as Mr. Putin tells it, only fuels the spreading flames of extreme Islamist insurrection, including the current war in Mali and last week's terrorist strike on a gas complex in Algeria.
"The Syrian conflict has been raging for almost two years now. Upheaval in Libya, accompanied by the uncontrolled spread of weapons, contributed to the deterioration of the situation in Mali," Mr. Putin said at a meeting with new ambassadors in the KremlinThursday.
"The tragic consequences of these events led to a terrorist attack in Algeria which took the lives of civilians, including foreigners," he added.
"Those whom the French and Africans are fighting now in Mali are the same people who . . . our Western partners armed so that they would overthrow the Gaddafi regime," in Libya in 2011, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a news conference Wednesday.
Many in the West may be inclined to shrug off Russian criticism as the routine sniping of a government whose Mideast influence has slumped since the Arab Spring began, or the self-serving rationale of an autocratic regime that fears popular revolution and automatically backs authoritarian rulers.
But many Russian experts, including sharp critics of the Kremlin on other issues, argue that Russian leaders are being realists about the blowback that has followed Western interventions in the Muslim world.
They say Moscow has been dealing with the threat of militant jihadists since the Soviet Union's disastrous 1980s war in Afghanistan, and has watched as it has shown up in parts of Russia's heartland. Kremlin leaders accuse the West of an enthusiasm for toppling dictators that has led, not to democracy, but to spreading mayhem and rising Islamist militancy across West Asia andNorth Africa.
2
"Russia is on the frontier, we are in jihad territory," says Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the independent Institute of Middle Eastern Studies in Moscow.
"Our own fringes, the northern Caucasus,Central Asia, and even the central Volga region are threatened. That's why we're very clear about who the enemy is.. . . We know this, and you would think that after 9/11 and other events that our American and European colleagues would have some clarity about it, too. Yet they always seem ready to play with fire, and to use militant jihadists against Russia and its national interests – as they did in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya, and Syria," he adds.
Over the past decade Russia has used its UN Security Council vote to oppose the US invasion of Iraq aimed at overthrowing dictator Saddam Hussein; yet it has strongly supported NATO's anti-Taliban mission in Afghanistan. Last year, Putin even urged the Western allies not to leave Afghanistan before the "job was done" and Moscow gave NATO the use of a huge airbase in central Russia to help with the resupply effort to its embattled forces there.
Moscow abstained on the March 2011 Security Council resolution that authorized the use of force "to protect civilians" in Libya, and last month it actually backed another resolution empowering France and others to intervene against Islamists threatening to overrun Mali.
On the other hand, Russia has repeatedly vetoed any resolution aimed at international cooperation to ease Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad from power and continues to back his regime with political support and shipments of weaponry. The UN estimates 60,000 killed in the ongoing civil war in Syria, with some 500,000 to 600,000 displaced or categorized as refugees.
3
Outsiders may be forgiven for seeing Moscow's policies as a bit tangled, not to say hypocritical, but many Russian analysts argue that they have been completely consistent – with the sole exception of former President Dmitry Medvedev's decision to abstain on the Libya "use of force" resolution, which was publicly slammed by then-Prime Minister Putin.
"The Libya resolution contained promises to Russia that were never delivered. Today our abstention on that vote can be clearly seen as a mistake, a symption of Medvedev's non-professionalism," says Mr. Satanovsky.
The Russians argue that they back secular goverments and stability, even where it is enforced by a dictatorship, because the alternatives are almost universally worse. They insist that Western efforts to back democratic revolution have backfired almost everywhere, and will continue to do so.
"All attempts to export revolution end badly," says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's international affairs committee.
"In Iraq, the Americans came in to eliminate fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and knocked out all the pillars of stability in that country. Look at the mess it's in today.... Libya was stable, Syria was stable, until revolutions aided and abetted by Western powers tore them apart. All this chaos is a gift to militant fundamentalists and no one else," he adds.
Russia's backing for the current French-led intervention in Mali is just a case of lining up against the common enemy, the jihadists, pro-Kremlin analysts say.
They point out that the government the West is propping up in Mali is a dictatorship, the result of a military coup last year that overthrew the democratic government on the eve of elections.
"We agree with the French about this. Maybe they're finally seeing the light," says Sergei Markov, vice president of the Plekhanov Economic University in Moscow and a frequent adviser to President Putin in the past.
"It's an attempt to stem the damage that's a result of the misguided operation in Libya. It's against the jihadists and we support it," he adds.
"When the West is helping to destroy a stable regime, and willfully opening the gates to the radical Islamists, we oppose it. . . We wish that Russia and the West could work together on this. We are willing, but we doubt the West is ready to cooperate with us," Mr. Markov says.
"Will it have to take a few more Western ambassadors being killed by the very forces they created before they will listen to us?"
