And now a word from Gorby
Mikhail Gorbachev still doesn't enjoy much popularity among his countrymen. The first, last and therefore only president of the U.S.S.R. will long have his name associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and, accordingly, the collapse of order in Russia. I understand the resentment, but in my opinion, it's misdirected. Yeltsin did far more to ruin Russia. Gorby is still tops in my book, which is why I listen with interest when he decides to speak out.
Johnson's Russia List for June 4, 2006 (#129), carried the full text of Mr. Gorbachev's recent comments at a Carnegie Endowment roundtable about Russia and the West in Moscow. Although I tend to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism about much of Carnegie's work in Russia, I was happy to see Gorbachev included. His comments were rather disjointed, but I can picture him standing there just speaking off the top of his head. The septuagenerian has earned the right. Most importantly, he has nothing to lose and nothing to gain. There is little reason not to take his comments at face value.
Here are some highlights.
Commenting on so-called "experts":
"Some people are going so far as to say that a new Cold War is on. I think this is alarmism which borders on panic. I don't think this is so. And secondly, some people -- this conference is organized by the Carnegie Foundation and I have read the contributions by Trenin and by a professor from the Hoover and Stanford universities, only he writes in Nezavisimaya Gazeta I think, and their judgments are something like this: what is Russia up to? It should understand where it is today and calm down. Very deep judgments indeed, bordering on stupidity."
On Russia's historical baggage and present accomplishments:
"We in Russia want them [governments of other countries] to understand our problems better, to understand who we are, where we come from, with our thousand years of history, what has happened to us, especially in the 20th century, in the past quarter of a century. That is known, and I have to say that once this is known, it is hardly worth expanding on that. I just have to say that what has happened in Russia over the past 20 years of the reform -- in historic terms, this is not much, 20 years, and big changes have been accomplished. If we compare the scale of changes having occurred in the country with the burden of the past, one should rather be surprised not by the fact that some things Russians wanted to implement have not been implemented -- this explains our problems, our losses. One should rather be surprised at what a leap Russia has made over two decades."
On the West's paradoxical attitude towards Russia:
But the main thing that worried me, and I would like to share it with you, was the paradox that I witnessed. Particularly in those years when that was all happening to Russia, Russia itself and the regime that existed at the time were not criticized by the West. On the contrary, the West -- as I could see and I have spent much time in the West, meeting with all kinds of people, perhaps, more than many of those present here -- was pleased to see the country lay prostrate. Russian citizens then had doubts about the West's position already. Citizens were displeased with the Yeltsin regime and the headway of reform, the way the ownership problem was dealt with, but the West was pleased.
Now, under President Putin, certain stability has been reached, manageability has been established. Measures have been taken aimed at improving the social status of the population. Now that Russia has started rising, gaining strength, which naturally has had effect on its domestic and foreign policies, its Western partners have increasingly criticized it.
On the United States' role in international relations:
I think the events in the first years of the 21st century have clearly showed that unilateral moves even by such a powerful country as the United States can only yield the results contrary to the desirable results. I think that in terms of understanding of the profound changes in the world, the United States has been lagging behind, having stuck to old approaches. This is the root of what we have seen in the moves by our counterparts.
On the emerging new arms race:
One cannot fail to notice the growing process of militarization in the United States. Today it has to be mentioned. The war budget has already outstripped the budget in the times of the Cold War. Who is threatening the United State? Terrorism? Yes. But what has that to do with guns, missiles, the improvement of nuclear weapons, and a change of doctrine which again stresses a first-strike nuclear weapon, etc. Russia is not to be outdone and next to the United States puts forward its own doctrine: also a first-strike weapon that can be used preemptively. And so things go on. Again a race is starting. A race in pursuit of what? A chimera. Are we going to overlook this and start regarding each other with suspicion again?
On United States militarization:
I think the process of militarization -- and I would like to use this term -- is due to the fact that American policy sees military might as the chief instrument in creating a Pax Americana. I remember the famous words pronounced by President Kennedy in 1963 when he said that it will be a world for all, and not only for the Americans.
Tags: Russia, Mikhail Gorbachev, Carnegie, Johnson's Russia List
Powered by Qumana