Publius Pundit - Articles

Edward Lozansky: Traitor to Liberty

2008-05-21T10:18:16Z

Pity poor Edward Lozansky.

There he was on Monday morning about to open his sick, sordid little confabulation of Russophiles, seeking to dupe unwary Americans into dropping their guard and allowing Vladimir Putin to further consolidate his malignant rule over Russia. He'd lined up financial support for his dastardly enterprise from the Kremlin's propaganda TV network, Russia Today, and he was even given an op-ed column in the Moscow Times to publicize it. All the bedraggled Russophile garbage across the land was converging on Washington DC for his "World Russia Forum" including even the vile Yuri Mamchur of Russia Blog.

And what happens? He opens up his morning edition of the Washington Post and what does he find? An op-ed column by none other than leading Russian dissident Oleg Kozlovsky (shown above in the loving embrace of Vladimir Putin's neo-Soviet goons), a column accusing his benefactor of turning Russia into a giant neo-Soviet gulag!

And it wasn't just any op-ed. It ran in the upper left corner of the hard copy of the paper and included the above photograph of Kozlovsky -- not one but two distinct honors for the column, showing the Post's influential editors stood behind Kozlovsky 1,000 percent.

Ouch. Miracle if Lozansky wasn't rushed to the emergency room with a nasty case of acid reflux. Lozansky is well known to regular readers of my blog La Russophobe; we've exposed him repeatedly in prior posts as the fundamental fraud he is. Reading Kozlovsky's terrifying words, its impossible to see Lozansky as anything other than a modern Neville Chamberlain.

Lozansky claims that presidential candidate John McCain is "alone" in his stark opposition to Russia, but in fact it's neo-Soviet collaborators like Lozansky that stand alone, surrounded by their truly ridiculous, detached-from-reality, neo-Soviet lies. In a classic bit of Soviet dishonesty, he claims that the U.S. needs Russian uranium to run its nuclear reactors; in fact, Russia itself just inked a deal to import uranium from Australia, without which it couldn't run its own reactors. Moreover, the idea that the U.S. should ignore Russia's barbaric desecration of the institution of democracy just so that it can get hold of Russian energy resources defiles the very foundations of American civilization. This man is truly beneath pond scum.

Lozansky claims that Russia needn't worry about McCain's threat to oust Russia from the G-8, because the other members wouldn't go along. Apparently, he thinks McCain is crazy and off the reservation. But if that is so, why is Lozansky so worried? The fact is that McCain can, with the stroke of his pen, make the G-8 choose between the U.S. and Russia as members. If he does that, the nations of Europe won't have to think twice before siding with their NATO ally.

The only person Lozansky actually names as disagreeing with McCain is the senile lunatic professor Steven Cohen, whom La Russophobe has, like Lozansky himself, repeatedly discredited for the ridiculous gibberish he spews from the radical Nation magazine published by his own wife. The fact that Lozansky is insane enough to believe that Professor Cohen's opposition means that one of the most powerful figures in America's foreign policy establishment stands alone is proof positive, all by itself, of what a ridiculous fraud Lozansky really is.

And then, in classic bit of Russian insanity, he completely contradicts himself. He states:

To be fair to McCain, the other two presidential front-runners, Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have not offered a positive-thinking agenda for Russia either, pledging to be tougher with Russia than Bush and endorsing further NATO expansion by accepting Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. All three presidential contenders have promised to expand the Bush administration's effort to "spread democracy," a policy that an overwhelming majority of Russians see as a thinly veiled smoke screen to strengthen the U.S. position in the world at the expense of Russia.

Hmm. So then, it seems that McCain isn't really so alone after all, now is he? No wonder Lozansky is getting desperate.

In his MT op-ed, Lozansky complains that he'd invited McCain to attend the Forum and debate his hard line on Russia and was apparently surprised to find that McCain was ignoring him. Of course, Lozansky doesn't say a single word about his failure to extend any Forum invitations to any Russian opposition figures -- such as Garry Kasparov or Kozlovsky himself. Though Mr. Lozansky's forum made a place for pro-Russian propaganda from Russia Today and many other sources, no such place was laid for the United States -- nor did his column say a single word about any changes any Russian leader needs to make to accommodate the U.S.

We can't help but wonder how Americans would have reacted in 1938 to a forum sponsored by a state-owned Nazi TV network and calling for "economic, political and military alliance" with Hitler's Germany. Since the sponsor of Lozansky's conference is Russia Today, Putin's propaganda network (recently condemned by the New York Times), one would hope Americans will be just as suspicious of his effort, kicked off by the Russian ambassador. Does Mr. Lozansky, a card-carrying Kremlin shill, really believe Americans might be foolish enough to believe he's concerned about their national security interests as well as those of Russia?

Simply put, Americans can't trust Kremlin mouthpieces like Mr. Lozansky to look out for their best interests, and won't do so no matter how much Kremlin money greases the skids. Fool me once, Mr. Lozansky, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

Annals of Neo-Soviet "Education" -- Denying Holodomor

2008-05-16T10:36:37Z

It isn't only fanatical extremist rulers like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who deny the holocausts of World War II. G-8 member Russia is doing exactly the same thing.

A May 15th story in the Moscow Times about the repugnant parade of Soviet military hardware through Red Square a few days earlier stated:

After the parade, Medvedev hosted a champagne reception at the Kremlin for veterans. Medvedev has also sent out congratulatory telegrams to the leaders of other former Soviet republics. In his note to Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, Medvedev warned him against any attempt to justify the Nazi crimes and "question the liberating mission of the Soviet Army," the Kremlin said. Many in Ukraine sided with Nazi Germany during the war, and Ukrainian veterans who fought against the Soviets have been recognized and praised under Yushchenko. Putin, for his part, sent out congratulations to the prime ministers of the same countries, and in his telegram to Tbilisi he wished peace and well-being to the Georgian people. Relations with Georgia recently sank to a new low after Moscow increased the number of peacekeepers in Georgia's breakaway republic of Abkhazia, sparking fears of an armed conflict.

Andrei Richter, an Associate Professor at the School of Journalism of Moscow State University, responded in a letter to the editor as follows:

When I read this story, I was reminded of a recent trip to Kiev. While I was there, I picked up a copy of Kyiv This Month magazine only to be stunned by its column titled "History In Brief," which read: "1944 -- Soviet army occupies Ukraine again. In WWII, both German and Soviet armies were responsible for some 7 to 8 million deaths." When I wrote the editor of this magazine, I received a reply referring me to another web page from where this phrase was copied, almost word-for-word. To my surprise, the web page was taken from the official site of the CIA. I wonder what would happen if a Russian official web site wrote about, for example, French history something like this: "1944 -- U.S.-British army invaded Normandy. In WWII both German and Allied troops were responsible for some 600,000 French deaths." Wouldn't that cause uproar in the West? Why do our wartime allies believe they can twist history as they like?

Interestingly, Professor Richter had no interest in asking why Russians themselves believe they can twist their own history as they like. Last week, just for instance, La Russophobe published Paul Goble's report on yet more evidence of the Kremlin's efforts to whitewash Russia's litany of outrages and glorify the Soviet past. Just click here to see a whole lot more such evidence.

Equally interesting, Professor Richter likewise didn't seem to notice the irony embodied in calling himself a "professor of journalism" in a country that simply doesn't know the meaning of the word. He works for a university that is run by the Kremlin that destroyed Anna Politkovskaya and a whole host of other journalists and has seized control of every major publishing forum in the country. Neither Russian history books nor Russian newspapers or television give Russians the remotest clue about the actual facts of history, either their own or anybody else's, and yet so many Russians, like this poor sap, arrogantly imagine they have the right to sit in judgment based on the ridiculous falsehoods they've been fed since birth.

But back to the point: Which is what, exactly? As we understand it, Professor Richter (who obviously finds expressly himself clearly in writing quite challenging) is saying that he once read in a Ukrainian magazine that Russians killed 7-8 million Ukrainians during the World War II period, roughly as many as the Germans killed when they invaded, and claims this is false. Apparently, that's not what Russian history books say, and according to him there's no chance they could be wrong. Russians, in other words, know the history of Ukraine better than Ukrainians do. Moreover, he believes that this magazine is engaged in some sort of conspiracy with the CIA to foist false information about Russia onto Ukrainians -- apparently, he thinks this is the reason that many Ukrainians hate Russians and want independence from them, something that he apparently thinks is totally unjustified.

But note well, dear reader, that Professor Richter makes no specific mention of the source of his information that these murders did not occur, though he has no problem citing with specificity the sources that outrage him with their alleged CIA propaganda. Is he suggesting that Russians would never murder their allies? Is it just a myth too, then, that after liberating Poland Russia murdered thousands of Polish military officers, in cold blood, in the dark corners of the Katyn forest? Is it also a rude foreign plot that Russians murder Russians, that the dictator Josef Stalin slaughtered at least 20 million of them in his gulag archipelago? Is Alexander Solzhenitsyn's epic text by that name in reality just a work of fiction?

Apparently, Professor Richter believes that the Ukrainian holocaust called Holodomor (known as the "man-made famine") is also just a frivolous fairytale. Apparently, it makes no difference what the Ukrainians say about it, because they're just dupes of the CIA; nobody in Russia, of course, has been duped by the KGB, and certainly not Professor Richter Moreover, reports that Russian soldiers murdered thousands of political prisoners in their jail cells are similarly based on nothing but CIA lies, as are any claims about political purges of the Ukrainian government by Stalin, such as this one:

Ukraine was among the worst-hit areas. Unlike the purges of 1933, during which opponents of collectivization and Ukrainizers had been purged, in 1937 Stalin decided to liquidate the entire leadership of the Ukrainian Soviet government and the CPU. […] By June 1938 the top seventeen ministers of the Ukrainian Soviet government were arrested and executed. The prime minister, Liubchenko, committed suicide. Almost the entire Central Committee and Politburo of Ukraine perished. An estimated 37% of the Communist party members in Ukraine - about 170,000 people - were purged. In the words of Nikita Khrushchev, Moscow's new viceroy in Kiev, the Ukrainian party "had been purged spotless."

And reports of similar activity by Russian soldiers in other countries are just as bogus. If Canadian scholars make such allegations, they too are simply stooges of the CIA.

Professor Richter might like to actually go to Ukraine some day, and visit The Museum of the Soviet Occupation in Kiev. As an article in Izvestia pointed out, the net impact of the museum's exhibits is basically to show that Ukraine was better off under the horror of Nazi rule than under the domination of the Russians. The Russian reporter for Izvestia bristles when the Ukrainians dare to blame the atrocities on "Moscow" rather than "Communism" as if Russians were as much victims as Ukrainians -- but if that is so, where are Russia's memorials to the outrages committed by "Communism" in Ukraine? Look hard, you will find none. Apparently, it has never occurred to Professor Richter that Ukrainians might have exactly the same attitude of outrage towards Russia that he (and many other Russians) has towards the West because Russia treats Ukraine with just as rudely as he perceives Russia to be treated by the West.

For the record, though we may be hapless dupes of the CIA, we'd like to note our understanding, widely documented by Western scholarship, that there was active underground resistance to the Soviet occupation of Ukraine until the early 1950s when it was finally liquidated by the Stalin dictatorship. Things were so bad in Ukraine just before the Nazi's invaded, as we understand it, that many Ukrainians actually welcomed and assisted the Nazi invasion.

In conclusion, we can only say that that we believe Professor Richter's pathologically malignant and insane remarks are indicative of the neo-Soviet character of the Russian state today. The country is run by a KGB dictator and its leading institutions of higher education are dominated by apes like Richter. What can be expected from such a situation other that exactly the same kind of collapse that crippled the USSR?

Come to think of it, though, perhaps we went to far with that remark about apes. It's an unforgivable insult, and we feel we should apologize. To the apes.

Oleg Kozlovsky on Echo of Moscow Radio

2008-03-26T10:26:51Z

"Why do they want to evict the leader of Oborona from his apartment?"
An interview with Oleg Kozlovsky (pictured above)
By Matvey Ganapolsky, Masha Mayers
Echo of Moscow Radio (Audio Link Available)

Originally Aired March 18, 2008

GANAPOLSKY: Our guest today is the leader of the movement "Oborona" -- Oleg Kozlovsky. Greetings.

KOZLOVSKY: Good afternoon.

GANAPOLSKY: Tell us your story.

KOZLOVSKY: Well first of all, I heard your announcement today, and it was not completely accurate. So I think it would be best if I started from the very beginning. The problem is that the apartment I rent is located in the Khamovnika region of Moscow. Activists of the "Oborona" movement meet there fairly frequently, as do activists from a variety of other organizations, for example the group organizing the demonstration "For a Volunteer Army." Yesterday I was summoned to meet with a local police officer named Sergei Alekseevich Nikolaev.

MAYERS: Did you bring a tape recorder with you?

KOZLOVSKY: That has not been my habit up to now, but perhaps I should have, because it was very interesting conversation. What most impressed me was the man's frankness. I had expected that there would be a problem of some sort, but usually they try at least outwardly to maintain a certain neutrality and legality, and look for some kind of normal justification that will make them seem more-or-less decent. But this time everything was right out in the open. Cynical and plain. In a way I almost have to thank him for not being sneaky about it.

He began: "I've been told that an organization meets at your place, 'The March of Those Who Disagree', and a magazine where this organization is also talked about. Here's the magazine, 'Oborona', which this group publishes. And it is my understanding that this is an undesirable organization for us here." This is the usual basis for these sorts of complaints. "Now you understand," he continued, "the Kremlin is located not far from where you live." The Kremlin, in fact, is some distance away. But this is the Centralniy District, you see. "He himself may drive by." And here he did not even mention the name, but simply motioned to Putin's portrait on the wall. "You never can tell what might happen. So you should move somewhere out to Butovo, or better yet Zelenograd. There are a lot of regions somewhere further away, but not here. You shouldn't be here. And I am going to do everything I can to make you leave quickly."

So I said, "We have a completely legal, official rental agreement. We have every right to remain here until July. We are not violating any laws."

"I understand completely," replied the policeman. "I will not interfere in your civil rights. But I think that you need to revoke your contract. This should be considered a force-majeure situation."

At the same time, they began putting pressure on my landlords. They told them that an extremist organization was located in their building. That they were practically preparing acts of terrorism. I was told that if I did not leave voluntarily they would turn to the homeowners of the building, who would write complaints that we were loud, held drunken parties, engaged in debauchery, and bothered everyone. That I would be visited every day by the police, who would conduct searches and force everyone to submit written explanations for their presence. In general, they would use every means to force us to leave. The policeman added that he would send reports to the FSB, MVD headquarters, and every other agency of that type, in which he would include any political publications that mentioned "Oborona", so that they too would take part in this process. In other words, the situation was made absolutely clear, with no attempt at creating any kind of legal basis. Just a completely brazen, simple, cynical racket or more exactly - blackmail.

MAYERS: So you didn't actually engage in any drunkenness or debauchery there? It's a little hard to imagine, given that hot-blooded young men from the "Oborona" movement were gathering in your apartment to talk about the current realities in Russia.

GANAPOLSKY: How do you know they were hot-blooded?

MAYERS: And maybe with girls too. Are you sure you never raised your voices there?

KOZLOVSKY: Our hot-blooded young men and women know all too well that we are under constant scrutiny, that we need to cross the road at the right place, so that no one will take notice of us and detain us. We've had things like that happen to us, where the OMON riot police have detained us literally for crossing the street in the wrong spot. So obviously, in the places where we meet, we strictly adhere to the letter of the law, so as not to give them the slightest cause to pick on us.

GANAPOLSKY: What does you landlord think about all this?

KOZLOVSKY: I spoke with my landlords about all this in fairly great detail even before this conversation, and they were inclined to abide by the rental agreement, at least until it expires in July. But after that, they said, we'll have to wait and see.

GANAPOLSKY: And what was the result of the pressure they put on your neighbors?

KOZLOVSKY: I don't know yet. But I think it is entirely likely that they will start writing things, because people do not usually want to argue with police, and in any Moscow entryway you can find one resident or another who will gladly create a stink against anyone. Especially if you tell them that these people present a great danger, are criminals and extremists, and may blow up your building any day now.

GANAPOLSKY: We can imagine that his will be set in motion too, because once someone decides to take up this task, it becomes his sacred mission. It's also possible that the policeman is being pressured himself to get you out of there. Do you plan to leave, or do you have any way of defending yourself?

KOZLOVSKY: Legally, and according to my rental agreement, we have the right to remain in this place for as long as the agreement is in force, and we plan to do that. If they try to evict us by some illegal means, we will defend ourselves. Both by all legal means, and simply physically, we will hold onto this place, because the police have no legal grounds for their demands.

GANAPOLSKY: But what if the landlords on their own revoke the contract, claiming that they have a sick grandmother coming in from Narofominsk?

KOZLOVSKY: Then that will be decided in court. Until the court decides that there is actually some legal basis for evicting us, we will stay here. We have fulfilled all our obligations, and we continue to fulfill them. We have always paid our rent on time. So there is not going to be any backing down on our side.

GANAPOLSKY: A lot of our radio listeners probably do not know about your movement. What are your aims, your goals?

KOZLOVSKY: On the one hand our aims are enormous, on the other hand they are nothing less than absolutely necessary. These are, foremost, the establishment in Russia of a political system which will allow regular citizens to have an influence on events in the country, on who they elect, on what these elected representatives do; a system that will provide a return channel of communication between the government and the people. Right now there is nothing like that. I don't think anyone right now entertains any illusions about the influence we can have on any of the country's decisions.

GANAPOLSKY: So what are you going to do about it? Where's the struggle?

KOZLOVSKY: First of all, this is, of course, about working with people, with society. Because the root of the problem is always buried there: In the fact that our people usually either do not know their rights, or are afraid to defend them; in how our people often take it as normal that the government is allowed to treat them like dirt - at best, as nothing more than tax-providers. So we work through the Internet, carry out protests, try and reach people through the mass media. We also go out and distribute leaflets, newspapers and bumper stickers to young people, students, and those who have finished, let's say, college. And in this way we make contact with a fairly large number of people in Russia. Probably tens of thousands of people every year.

GANAPOLSKY: And how many of you are there?

KOZLOVSKY: There are about one thousand of us in Russia.

GANAPOLSKY: Do you ever get the sense that this campaign of repression that is underway is not directed against your movement, against your one-thousand people, but against you personally? I'm thinking of your story with the army. And now with your apartment.

KOZLOVSKY: The story with the army recently came to a complete close. Exactly two weeks ago I told you here how it went. In December I was illegally inducted into the army for two and a half months. I was released just two days after the end of the elections, when it became clear, in their opinion, that I no longer presented any particular threat.

MAYERS: But as you can see, you do present a threat. Especially with your logo.

KOZLOVSKY: I don't think this is just about me. I may be a sort of additional irritant, but one soldier does not make a battle. I don't think that as just Oleg Kozlovsky I have the power to irritate anyone. More likely, it is the activities of the organization itself, its various members, who continued the organization's activities in my absence and continue them now after my return. And, to be sure, this complicates the lives of the authorities.

GANAPOLSKY: Who are your role models? Or is it to each his own?

KOZLOVSKY: I would not call any of the current crop of politicians our role model, hero or leader, either formally or informally. That's because we are made up of a lot of different types of people, with different sympathies and interests. Our people have many different points of view. There are liberals, those of a leftist point of view, and patriots. But I think that in our methods or perhaps in the way we view our work, we are closest to Mahatma Gandhi - with whom Putin never would have had anything to say, by the way. But if for Putin this was just a joke, we regard Gandhi's activities with absolute seriousness. These were the sort of people who, resolutely without the use of force, and guided by their ideals, fought for their ideals.

GANAPOLSKY: Let's take a vote. Sitting here with us is Oleg Kozlovsky, and I want to ask everyone: What do you think, should Mr. Kozlovsky, along with his comrades and his magazines, and his singing of revolutionary hymns - not too loud, mind you, so that now one should hear what they are doing - should he be forced to leave this apartment.

MAYERS: A bad one.

KOZLOVSKY: Yes. And the further away the better. Because God only knows what they are doing in there. He says one thing, but maybe they are doing something completely different.

(Break for instructions on voting by telephone.)

GANAPOLSKY: I would like to hear from just those listeners who believe that the demands made of Kozlovsky are justified. You need to call and say: "Oh, you poor young man, sitting in this apartment out of love for liberalism. Then some monsters come and throw grenades in it, but that's entirely understandable." Those of you who think that Kozlovsky and people like him, who generally, to be honest...

KOZLOVSKY: Need to move at least 101 kilometers outside Moscow.

GANAPOLSKY: I didn't say it, he himself said it! Call and you can tell Mr. Kozlovsky himself what a bad guy he is. Because there is a certain percentage of our listeners, and not just the young ones, who think that he and his friends should get out. Hello.

LISTENER: Good afternoon. Mikhail. City of Moscow. I think these young people should leave the apartment. Stop all their private activities. Residential buildings are for living in, whereas these sorts of meetings...

GANAPOLSKY: Understood. This is not an office. It's an apartment, not an office.

KOZLOVSKY: Right. Let me explain why we have the right to be there. The "Oborona" movement is not registered, so there is no violation of the law. It is not required to register by law. Accordingly, it has no legal identity, and therefore cannot rent an office, apartment, hall, or anything.

GANAPOLSKY: There you have it.

KOZLOVSKY: But we have the constitutional right to assemble.

GANAPOLSKY: Next caller.

CALLER: Hello, this is Semyon. These kids are doing what they can, and I think what they are doing is completely normal and good. The authorities think we are all just so much trash...

GANAPOLSKY: I asked that only those who think that he should leave should call! Anyway, whatever the authorities may think of someone, whatever you allow yourself to be called, and that's what you become. The authorities do not consider me, for example, trash, because I don't allow them to. And apparently you don't allow them to either.

MAYERS: And Oleg Kozlovsky so far is not allowing them to evict him from his apartment to somewhere 101 kilometers outside Moscow.

GANAPOLSKY: They haven't tried to yet.

MAYERS: What do you mean, of course they have.

GANAPOLSKY: Hello. Greetings.

LISTENER: Where is this Kozlov registered, anyway?

GANAPOLSKY: First, you need to start with the phrase, "Good afternoon."

LISTENER: Good afternoon.

GANAPOLSKY: Secondly, you need to introduce yourself.

LISTENER: Moscow. Konstantin.

GANAPOLSKY: And third, it's not Kozlov, it's Kozlovsky.

LISTENER: Where is he registered?

KOZLOVSKY: I am registered at the apartment where my parents live, in Moscow.

LISTENER: Then go to your parents' apartment and hold your meetings there.

GANAPOLSKY: Why?

LISTENER: Well, who needs him here anyway?

GANAPOLSKY: Who do you mean by "who"?

MAYERS: And where is here?

LISTENER: Well, in this building.

GANAPOLSKY: Well, who needs you on this radio program?

LISTENER: F--k you.

GANAPOLSKY: You heard him, right?

MAYERS: I had nothing to cover my ears with.

GANAPOLSKY: Yeah, they're out there.

MAYERS: And I so adore them.

GANAPOLSKY: Go get your prostrate gland massaged, Konstantin - believe me, it will help. Next question.

LISTENER: Good afternoon. Aleksandr, in Ivanteevka. I think the authorities are proceeding absolutely correctly, even if it is by an illegal route. Because all of Russian history shows that from meetings like this both the "will of the people" and the Bolsheviks can gather together and pick away at the authorities. So of course they have to nip it in the bud.

GANAPOLSKY: You really think that?

LISTENER: Yes.

GANAPOLSKY: Well let's talk about this. Maybe you have a point.

KOZLOVSKY: This is a very good commentary. The caller exceptionally well, in my view, reflects the official position: "So what if it is illegal, it's still the right thing to do." And here lies our problem. For us, the law was not written for the government to abide by. The law applies only to individuals. And it can be used against them.

LISTENER: That's absolutely right. Because in this country, we live under a practically totalitarian government. So what's surprising is...

GANAPOLSKY: Wait a minute. You're being ironic. You're telling a joke.

LISTENER: No, I'm not joking.

GANAPOLSKY: Which side did you vote on?

KOZLOVSKY: That he should be evicted.

GANAPOLSKY: Explain why that is so. Kozlovsky has said that there is no real legal basis for this. So?

MAYERS: But you are saying maybe not under the law, but by an understanding.

LISTENER: Why by an understanding?

MAYERS: You said: "It's not legal, but it's right."

LISTENER: Because every government has to defend itself. That's what it was created for.

MAYERS: It was created for that?

KOZLOVSKY: I thought the government was supposed to be used to defend us, its citizens.

LISTENER: We are talking about Russia. Let's not make references to the western experience...

MAYERS: Any person should be defended from other people.

GANAPOLSKY: There are listeners who play this game. He's say, sure, if we were in America, then of course they should fire this policeman. But since we live in Russia, it's completely understandable. And that explains why you should be kicked out of your apartment. In other words, he's generally a liberal, but in this case he will explain why you need to be kicked out. This is very elaborate. You won't be able to grasp this, Kozlovsky. You're out there with your Oborona, working with the people, but we have such a unique group of people here on the air.

KOZLOVSKY: All our people are unique.

MAYERS: Sending Lenin into exile was great. But they should have sent the Decembrists out
too, for example, well before 14 December - many kilometers out.

GANAPOLSKY: Okay. We need to finish up. You are gradually going to become a regular on "Echo Moscow" radio programs. Because first they haul you off somewhere, then they try to kick you out of somewhere else. First into the army - instead of kicking you out, they hauled you off. And now you’re back in your apartment, and instead of just leaving you alone, they try to kick you out. What's a guy to do?

MAYERS: The vote is finished. By 82% to 18%, listeners do not support the position of the authorities.

GANAPOLSKY: Thanks for coming. As you know, we can't draw any conclusions from this program. And we also can neither support nor condemn you. This is just civil society, such as it is. And you see what it is.

MAYERS: How civil it is.

KOZLOVSKY: Thank you.

GANAPOLSKY: But we gave you some airtime so you could tell us about the moral values of this great land, which is getting up off its knees in such an unusual way.

A Conversation Between True Russian Heroes

2008-03-17T20:51:08Z

Robert Amsterdam, the attorney for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, has published a lengthy interview by the heroic Russian journalist Grigiori Pasko, previously imprisoned for his path-breaking reporting, and Oleg Kozlovsky, heroic leader of the "Oborona" ("Defense") opposition group, recently illegally inducted (as we reported, first in the English-speaking world) into the armed forces in an attempt to silence him. We report it in full:

INTRODUCTION: The leader of "Oborona", Oleg Kozlovsky, definitely creates the impression of a thinking, daring person, interested in the fate of his country. Oleg is an active participant in and organizer of the "Dissenters' Marches" -- public protest actions by citizens of Russia against the arbitrariness of the powers. To these actions, the power responds with even greater arbitrariness -- arrests of the activists, the filing of fabricated criminal charges, beatings. Oleg has already spent five days in a cell at a "special receiver" (that's what they call the place where they hold persons who have been temporarily arrested; previously, these establishments were used exclusively for holding alcoholics and street vagrants. The Putinite power has come up with the idea of holding political prisoners and all manner of dissenters in them) for participating in an allegedly unsanctioned rally (the fact is that under the Constitution of the Russian Federation, permission is not required to hold a rally -- the organizers simply have to notify the power of the place and time such a rally will be held). Then it turned out that Oleg Kozlovsky is so disliked by the Putinite power that they had decided to isolate him for a long time. But here, let him tell us in his own words how this took place.

GRIGORI PASKO: Oleg, how did it happen that almost immediately after the "vagrants' cell" at the "special receiver" section, they forcibly "shaved you into a soldier"? [This Russian idiom, zabrit' v soldaty, refers to the fact that one of the first things done to a young man to turn him from a civilian into a conscript is to completely shave his head (this is also done with new prisoners) -- Trans.]

OLEG KOZLOVSKY: Everything happened unexpectedly. After getting out of the "special receiver," section, police officers came to the address of my certificate of domicile in Moscow and started asking the neighbors about me, supposedly because someone suspected of extremism had come to me. When I was leaving for a while to Ukraine, police officers stopped me at the railroad station and said that I was an extremist. I felt that something was afoot. On the Day of the Chekist, 20 December of last year, I went out of the house in the morning. Suddenly I was stopped by policemen and two in civilian clothing [colloquial Russian for plainclothes officers working for "the organs" --Trans.] (later, at the military commissariat, they told me that they were from the FSB). The policemen said that they have a paper from the military commissariat and that I need to go there.

I thought that this wasn't serious: they'd hold me a few hours, find out that I had completed the military department and am studying at another university [these being two irrefutable reasons for a person not to be called for conscription by the military commissariat -- Trans.] and would let me go. At the military commissariat it became clear that they had decided to play this game seriously. In the course of half an hour they had me see several doctors -- they supposedly conducted a medical commission. The quickly found me fit for service in the army, completely ignoring my declarations about how I can not serve by medical indicators as well. Naturally, I showed them the student ID of the university where I'm studying, and said that I had already completed a university with a military department. They told me that the student ID could be fake, while documents on the awarding to me of a military rank [he would be a reserve officer after completing the military department at his university-- Trans.] were lost by them.

Soon an order was written on my conscription for service in the ranks of the army. It is noteworthy that the order itself they did not give me in my hands, so there would not be an opportunity to appeal it in judicial procedure. Then in a police care with a siren -- real VIP treatment -- they drove me off to an intake center. That too is where relatives brought medical documents, but they did not accept them from them, apparently so as not to spoil the intended plan. From the intake center, where they quickly took care of all the formalities of conscription, they drove me to near Dmitrov of Moscow Oblast. There I announced a hunger strike as a sign of protest against unlawful conscription. Soon they sent me off to Ryazan in the accompaniment of FSB officers, and from there -- to a desolate military unit in a forest.

To get to the village of Dubrovichi near Ryazan, where "my" military unit was found, is very difficult. They were confident that I have no communication, I'm isolated, the story will die down, and everything will be good for them. But at this time in Moscow there were already actions taking place in my support. And in general, everything went not according to the FSB's script. First, I was able to get in touch with comrades-in-arms, we've got the experience. Second, I filed a complaint with the military procuracy of the Ryazan garrison for unlawful conscription. Third, I demanded an independent military certification. As a result of all this, they sent me off for a medical examination and started to check the circumstances of my conscription. (By the way, I should add that these results are not known to me to this day).

After the examination at the Ryazan military hospital, they found me unfit for service in peacetime. Apparently, this decision of the Ryazan health care professionals did not fit into the FSB's plans. Therefore, the central military-medical commission of the ministry of defense in Moscow noted this decision and directed me for a second examination to Krasnogorsk. I was there a long time, then they once again drove me to near Ryazan. In an ambulance. Good thing it's still not in railroad cars for arrestees -- "Stolypins" -- and not in an autozak. From the military unit they let me out after the dissenters' march, which took place in Moscow and St. Petersburg on 3 March, after the elections. It is noteworthy that they had the decision on demobilization already on 28 February. That is, they obviously didn't want me to be able to take part in the march.

PASKO: Oleg, it is known that this is already not the only case when an undesirable person is drafted into the army. Recently, such a thing took place with an opposition activist in Kirov, Denis Shadrin. Why all this? A trying out of methods? Is the power looking for and trying out new ways of intimidating and isolating those who actively speak out against it?

KOZLOVSKY: It should be noted that even back in tsarist Russia this method -- "shaving into a soldier" -- was used against undesirables. Apparently, they've decided to resurrect it. The developers of such a method of isolation figured: there are lots and lots of violations in the military commissariats; one violation more, one less. And they also figure that people in society will think this isn't political arbitrariness, but rather shortcomings in the work of the military commissariats. The method has justified itself to a certain extent: they succeeded in isolating me. Without opening a criminal case, without planting narcotics and weapons. I think that in such a situation, it's very important to get the military to be held liable -- so that henceforth they would think twice about whether to commit these dirty deeds on the orders of the FSB or to refuse.

PASKO:You say "without opening a criminal case." But they approve of this method too -- the leader of the St. Petersburg "Yabloko", Maxim Reznik, has been arrested, and in relation to him a criminal case has been opened, under which he faces deprivation of liberty for a term of five years.

KOZLOVSKY: It is obvious that the provocation in relation to Maxim was being prepared for a long time and meticulously. He can't be conscripted into the army -- he's got a non-conscriptional age. But it's easy to entrap him in a fight: Maxim is an emotional person, everybody knows this. There are many in today's Russia who dream of beating up a policeman who is exceeding his authority. No doubt they were counting on the public believing the policemen and their fairy tale about how Maxim had beat up several of the guardians of order. The precedent with Rezink is alarming. By the way, there already was such a case, and also with a representative of "Yabloko" -- when they opened a criminal case against Ivan Bolshakov. That time the case fell apart.

PASKO: Behind all of these cases -- when they first are opened, then fall apart, then are maniacally opened once again, only now already in relation to other people -- behind all of this I clearly see the signature of the FSB. What do you think on this account?

KOZLOVSKY: I am confident that behind all these cases stands the FSB. Moreover, when they drove me to the assembly center in Moscow, they stuck a person in the car who congratulated everybody with the Day of the Chekist and everybody congratulated him. They didn't even hide their affiliation with this organization. After all, what's important for them is to kiss up to the power, to demonstrate that it's not for naught that they're getting high salaries, that they're fighting "against extremism." True, they fight with the hands of others: those of the military, the police.

PASKO: There is an opinion that they're still afraid of an orange revolution in the halls of the Kremlin.

KOZLOVSKY: I think that they truly are afraid. The spectre of Maidan [the square in Kiev that was the focal point of Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" -- Trans.] is wandering around the Kremlin offices. And that's why the methods of the struggle with other-thinking are getting harsher -- as a manifestation of the power's fear that it may one day be deprived of its power.

PASKO: Maybe the power is in this way getting stronger, perfecting repressive methods?

KOZLOVSKY: I don't know about the strengthening of the power, but there's no question that the activeness and the counter-efforts of the opposition after such methods increase. The incident with me unconditionally strengthened "Oborona."

PASKO: They say that the power is afraid of the opposition. But it actively suppresses the dissenters' marches, locks people up in special receivers, opens criminal cases. That doesn't look too much like a manifestation of fear before the opposition.

KOZLOVSKY: Repressions are effective when they are few. Violence and force everywhere becomes civil war. But now they want to get rid of the spectre of Maidan with relatively little blood. And to barricade themselves off against the coming of a new power, a democratic one. Because such a power will demand answers for all the crimes that are being committed by today's power.

PASKO: Did they intimidate you -- with the army, the "special receiver"?

KOZLOVSKY: Me, no. But this did make an impression on some. After all, people are used to feeling themselves comfortable.

PASKO: By the way, we've forgotten to discuss yet another method of influencing those who think differently -- putting them in psychiatric hospitals.

KOZLOVSKY: Yes, that's yet another old-new method -- a dirty method, but effective in its own way. Here they're counting on the psychology of the average person, on the fact that an unknown person is always suspicious. Maybe he really is crazy? And in the opposition, just like in the power, there are people who aren't quite "normal." Then, apparently the special services have still got the task of creating an image for an unwanted person, so that everyone would think that he's, you know, "not quite all there." They're still not letting Vladimir Bukovsky forget that he's supposedly crazy. That is, you need to smear a person, to attach the stigma of a madman on him. These methods need to be fought against; this is mocking and belittling a person and his human dignity.

PASKO: Your assessment of the current state of our opposition?

KOZLOVSKY: This state can not be called "inspiring optimism." We did not succeed in radically turning Russia from Putin's course. Therefore, this task still lies ahead and it is getting more complicated. The power is putting up concrete walls all around itself, and it's getting harder and harder to break through them. On the other hand, the power is helping us by taking its actions to the point of absurdity: everybody, for example, could see for themselves that the elections -- this is sheer unadulterated profanation. And everybody can see how the OMON disperse and beat completely harmless people. Everybody sees that there is a semi-military regime in the country. And all this they call "stability." Such stability is characteristic of prisons and concentration camps. Support for the opposition is growing. We need to continue to put pressure on the power directly -- to litigate with it, to participate in actions, marches, to try to express our point of view wherever possible. To interact directly with people. It needs to be clarified to people that democracy -- this is not at all what we've got now in the country. Nor is it chaos. People need to be shown in what way they can protect their rights and have an influence on the power.

PASKO: After the designation of the heir Medvedev, some people for some reason started talking about a thaw, liberalization in the country.

KOZLOVSKY: I don't see a single reason for such talk. On what grounds do they call him a liberal? Just what has he done, or even said, that distinguishes him from Putin? Putin also always talked about democracy and freedom of the mass media, but did everything just the opposite. They say: Medvedev -- is a lawyer. But Putin's supposedly a lawyer too! In my opinion, hopes for a better future with the coming of Medvedev into the Kremlin office -- are illusory. He's just as illegitimate as the recently appointed parliament. An illegitimate president and parliament ought to resign from office.

PASKO: Thanks for the conversation. Best of luck!

Illarionov on the Russian "Elections"

2008-03-02T11:30:12Z

Once again, Publius Pundit is proud to offer an original translation from the Russian press by former Kremlin insider Andrei Illarionov, through the good offices of the professional linguistic experts who support my Russia blog La Russophobe. LR has already published a manifesto of criticism of the Putin years and their impact on Russia's future from one Kremlin insider, former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, and now Mr. Illarionov continues the discussion.

February Theses for the Citizens of Russia

Andrey Illarionov

Yezhednevniy Zhurnal

February 28, 2008

Recent events - the October-November Bacchanalia of an "election campaign", the special operation called "02 December 2007", the military-"Nashisti" occupation of Moscow on 2-6 December, and the special operation now underway known as "02 March 2008" - represent a qualitative break in the situation with Russian society and government. This new situation allows the formulation of a number of key theses.

On the Legitimacy of the Regime

The illegitimate character of the "elections" of December 2, 2007 and March 2, 2008 make claims by their "victors" to have won government office in Russia illegal. That means that not only the elected "State Duma" and its deputies, not only the "president" now being elected, but now also the lower officials being appointed by this Duma and this "president" - all are illegitimate.

On the Risks to Russia

The illegitimacy of the regime is leading it to an even larger-scale use of falsifications, bribery and violence against the citizens of Russia. The creation of absolute power by this illegitimate regime - along with destroying the fundamental institutions of government and society and monopolizing all political, economic and information resources in the hands of the regime's representatives - enormously increases the level of risk for the country and its people. The main threats today are not so much threats to the economy or people's well-being as direct threats to people's security and lives.

On Our Aims -- Long-Term and Short-Term

The main objectives for those who consider themselves citizens of Russia will be the prevention of a national catastrophe, ensuring the security of the people, and preserving for Russian society the basic norms of human morality in more difficult less agreeable circumstances. In the final analysis, it will be impossible to achieve these objectives without the replacement of the current regime. There should be no place on Russian soil for the regime of a political and criminal thug.

On the Possibility of a Gradual Evolution of the Regime

The hopes of many that the regime might be changed by nurturing, education and persuasion have been proven baseless. All efforts at changing the regime by cooperating with its leaders have ended in failure. Those who were changed were not the chekisti - siloviki [TN: political slang for former intelligence officers in positions of authority in the government]; it was not the siloviki who adopted the norms of civil society, but the representatives of the civil bureaucracy who took up the craft and habits of the siloviki. The current regime in Russia has proven itself to be incapable of internal evolution.

On Cooperation with the Regime

There should be no doubt about it: cooperation with this regime by law-abiding, civil professionals does not weaken the regime, it strengthens it. Attempts to influence officials of the regime through knowledge, argument and logic simply arm the regime intellectually and further strengthen it in the war it is waging against the citizens of Russia.

On Expectations for a Political Thaw

Expectations of a political "thaw", a possible liberalization and democratization of the current regime in connection with a rotation of personnel in the position of president, have lost all bases. There is nothing in the personal characteristics of tomorrow's "president" - neither in his education, world view, professional resume, past experience, degree of independence, nor amount of real authority; no sort of new demand for democratic change from the regime's political base (intelligence officers and bureaucrats, Russian monopolists and the Western political and business leaders); and nothing in the key conditions of modern Russian society - neither in the monopoly on information, repression against opponents, nor the price of oil; there is nothing at all providing any reason to expect genuine - not just stylistic - change for the better. More likely the opposite.

On Ways to Change the Regime

In democratic societies the changeover from one political regime to another occurs as a result of elections - parliamentary or presidential. There is no point in feeding any illusions here: for the Russia of today, this path is closed. Under authoritarian systems of government, the political regime can be overthrown only by revolution, coup, or external occupation. Under conditions in which the regime has a monopoly on the law enforcement and intelligence structures, and taking into consideration the regime's willingness to use them against peaceful citizens, any call for forcibly changing the regime is tantamount to a call for suicide.

On Violence

A call for violence would be extremely undesirable. Nonetheless, it cannot be entirely ruled out. The law-abiding citizen who is attacked by bandits has the right to self-defense. The presence or absence of uniforms on the bandits at the time of the attack does not make them guardians of order.

On Term Lengths

The terms of the current regime may turn out to be longer than they seem to be or one might hope they are today.

On Unification of the People

Attempts at survival by separate parties, organizations or groups are, in the current situation, doomed. Those few victories the people have enjoyed over the regime in the past few years have been possible only when the people were able to unite: against the monetization of allowances [TN: lgoty, generally given to pensioners or the disabled, consisting of discounted or free food, transportation, utilities, etc.], for the defense of Shcherbinskiy, in the defense of Lake Baikal. Without unity, the people cannot defend their rights in an even limited way.

On a Platform for Unification

Unification of the people of Russia is not possible on either an ideological or political basis. The people of Russia support a wide variety of viewpoints, world views, ideologies and political currents. Formation of a massive political party would be possible only with the help of a totalitarian ideology and military-like discipline, or on the basis of bureaucratic loyalty. Unification of the people can be created only on the basis of moral principles that distinguish the democratic opposition from the authoritarian regime. But unification of the people cannot be constructed solely to oppose the regime; it must have a positive aim as well.

On the Aims of Unification

In Russia today there is no goal more important and no national platform broader than the restoration of civil rights and freedoms, ensuring the primacy of law and independence of mass media, and creating a democratic political system in the country. So a working title for the unification movement might be "Civil Movement" or "Civil Coalition."

On the Principles of a Civil Movement

The guiding principles of the Civil Movement are for democratic principles in the organization of society and governmental authority: for legal equality of all citizens in Russia, regardless of their situation in life, status, political views, nationality, creed or gender; for tolerance toward the views of others as long as they do not violate the Russian Constitution; for freedom of speech; and for honest political competition. In interactions between the people and the regime's representatives, the guiding principles remain the rules for existence worked out by the prisoners of the Gulag: "Don't believe (the regime). Don't be afraid (of the regime). Don't ask for anything (from the regime)." It would be worthwhile to add to these a fourth principle: "Don't cooperate with the regime or participate in its dealings."

On the Participants in a Civil Movement

Supporters of liberal, conservative, patriotic and socialist points of view could all, within the framework of a Civil Movement, cooperate with each other in the project of creating a free Russia, as long as their joint program for action does not contradict the principles of the inviolability of the individual, legal equality for all citizens, and honest, fair and democratic elections. Advancing various political agendas by participants in the coalition would be possible to the extent that they do not contradict basic civil freedoms and democratic principles for the organization of society and government.

On the West

Any expectation of support -- even just moral support -- for a Russian civil movement from the political leaders and governments of the West is without basis. For many Western leaders, the current regime in Russia is more convenient, comfortable and pleasant than its opponents would be. Western leaders have accumulated considerable experience in cooperating with and supporting authoritarian regimes in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The restoration of civil freedooms, legal order and democracy are matters for the Russian people themselves.

On Oil

The increase in the price of oil in recent years was not the reason for the socio-political degradation of the country, and neither will a future drop in price guarantee the civil and political emancipation of Russia. The root of the problem lies not in the molecules of oil, but in the views, ideologies and outlooks on the world that prevail among representatives of the current regime and those parts of Russian society that consider inequality of people under the law, authoritarian organization of government, and use of violence against citizens as possible, tolerable, desirable, and normal.

On Participation in the Special Operation Called "02 March 2008"

Participation by the citizens of Russia in the special operation called "02 March 2008" is unacceptable. Non-participation by citizens in the so-called "presidential elections" as a form of boycott presents the regime with an additional means for falsifying the official results. For citizens concerned about the fate of their country, not trusting the current regime and not desiring to have their own small resource used against them, have one possible course of action remaining: take the ballot home with you.

On Counting the Removed Ballots

Ballots that have been taken home can and should be counted - outside of official voting places and outside the election commission. Counting of the removed ballots is necessary not in order to show the results to the regime, or to convince them of something or mock them. It is necessary for the citizens of Russia to conduct a different election, build a different system of government power, elect a different parliament, and create a different country. Removed ballots might be exchanged for "citizens's ballots" that could be used to elect members of a Civil Movement proto-parliament.

On the Proto-Parliament

The major project that might unify participants in the Civil Movement could be the formation of a proto-parliament through elections using "citizens' ballots" that would be received in exchange for unused ballots from the official "presidential election" of March 2. In doing this they could draw on their experience with free elections developed during the "Other Russia" primaries in the Summer-Fall 2007 period. The main objective of the Civil Movement should be the discussion of issues associated with ensuring the security of citizens, restoration of civil freedoms, establishment of legal order, and the creation of a democratic political system in Russia.

On the Basic Program of a Civil Movement

Working out a final program for the Civil Movement will demand time and cooperative work from its participants. But several key requirements for the basic program can be formulated as follows:

1. Immediate release of all political prisoners.

2. Immediate end to all political repression.

3. Immediate elimination of all limits on the activities of the mass media.

4. Elimination of limits and prohibitions on political activities.

5. Restoration of basic civil freedoms, including the sanctity of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and freedom of assembly and association.

6. Introduction of a criminal prohibition against interference by the executive branch of government in court decisions.

7. Restoration of election laws to what they were as of December 31, 1999.

8. Cancellation of the official results from the special operations of 02 December 2007 and 02 March 2008.

Estonia Counts her Blessings

2008-02-23T20:47:22Z

Estonia Counts her Blessings on the 90th Anniversary of Independence

by Juri Estam

(exclusive to Publius Pundit)

Small as she is, my home country of Estonia reminds me of those extremely premature babies who beat the odds and survive. While there are other cultures that have been tenacious enough to not disappear despite centuries of foreign domination, with the Welsh being one example, few have hung on by the skin of their teeth for as long as the Estonians. After the Estonian tribes had been vanquished by the Danes and the German Brothers of the Sword in the early 13th century, submission became the rule for hundreds of years, as Estonia was conquered in succession by one European power after another. Performing manual labor on plantations owned by German and Swedish barons, common Estonians eked out a living from one generation to the next.

War and pestilence threatened Estonians with extinction on several occasions. After the Livonian war at the end of the 16th century, their numbers had been reduced to a mere 85,000. An old traveler's account describes Estonia and Latvia after the passage of the troops of Peter the Great -- a landscape strangely devoid of human habitation, where no cock crowed, and no dog barked. It was not until the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution that prospects of better times arrived for the common people of Europe. As time passed, more and more peoples strove to create nations of their own.

Those who Have Known Slavery Savor Freedom Most

Given the choice, all living creatures prefer freedom to fetters. For purposes of illustration, the British military made a major miscalculation in Dublin in 1916, when they executed all seven signatories of the Irish declaration of independence. To this day, the General Post Office in Dublin where the proclamation was made public and the rising began holds a special place in the hearts of the Irish. The Easter Proclamation itself has the status of a revered national icon. The American public regards Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where 56 persons signed the US Declaration of Independence in 1776, as a shrine.

When Estonia declared her independence 90 years ago, it was under risky conditions. Profoundly affected by the Russian Revolution, the Russian garrison in Estonia was plunged into chaos, and retreated to Mother Russia once German troops landed on the Estonian coast. Taking advantage of the temporary power vacuum that ensued, the Estonian Diet took a “now or never” decision. It was on the stairs of the Endla Theater in the coastal city of Parnu that Estonian independence was proclaimed on February 23, 1918.

Estonians had been kept from occupying positions of prominence and power in their own country for a long time. Georg Hellat, who drew up the construction plans for the theater, was the first significant architect of native Estonian background to make good. The Endla theater -- a Jugendstil building designed by him -- was dedicated in 1911. During the independence period between the two World Wars, it would serve in free Estonia as a hub of local culture for Parnu, a resort city of tree-lined streets and hotels and spas that is famous thanks largely to its beaches.

It was quite remarkable that Estonia, supported by British naval guns, succeeded in expelling both German and Soviet Russian armies during a war of independence that went on for over a year. In the Tartu Peace Treaty of 1920 between The Russian Soviet Republic and the Republic of Estonia, the Kremlin relinquished all rights to the territory of Estonia for time eternal. Instead of remaining free forever, the three Baltic States -- Estonia included -- actually only experienced independence for twenty years.

When Western Europe was set free at the end of World War II, these three parliamentary democracies -- they had been members of the League of Nations -- had been "abducted" by the occupying Red Army and annexed to the USSR -- a step never recognized by a great many Western democracies. No longer would Baltic teams compete at the Olympic Games under their own flags. Three members of the European community, hijacked by the USSR, simply went missing for half a century. Although Estonia and her two neighbors to the south -- Latvia and Lithuania -- are often referred to nowadays as former Soviet Republics, they were not in fact secessionist parts of Russia that broke away from Moscow in 1991, but ought to be seen instead as "submerged nations", whose occupation finally came to an end as Boris Yeltsin took his seat in the Kremlin.

Nobody can Hear us

When I think of Estonia and her forcible incorporation into the USSR by the Soviet Union, I am often reminded of Kitty Genovese, the New York City woman who, in 1964, was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens section of Queens. The Genovese case became know for the psychological phenomenon called the "bystander effect", in which violence is perpetrated on someone within hearing of neighbors, but the cries are not noticed. Estonian President Konstantin Pats was forcibly taken away in 1940 by the secret police of the Soviet Union, and was held incommunicado in insane asylums until his death in Tver, Russia in 1956. Pats is shown below, before and after his persecution.

The fate of the Endla Theater -- the birthplace of Estonian independence -- was not any prettier.

The Endla Theater in its Glory

The golden era of Estonian independence had also been the heyday of the Endla, where up to 600 persons at a time gathered to enjoy performances of plays and operas by Ibsen, Shakespeare, Strauss, Verdi and many others. When Hitler's occupying army retreated and the Red Army reentered the country in 1944, staging a supposed "liberation" of Estonia, Parnu was caught between the fighting sides. 1944 was a bad year for Estonia in general. Bombs dropped by the Soviet Air Force totally gutted the baroque pearl that had been the city of Narva, and in the capital of Tallinn, 3,000 buildings were destroyed in one night, in a firestorm with heavy loss of lives that can only be described as a version of Dresden in miniature. In her memoirs, local resident Elsbet Parek described the situation in Parnu: "Down below, the Germans torched and destroyed, while the Russians bombed from above."

Despite the combat and the flames that did considerable harm to Parnu in the fall of 1944, the walls of the Endla Theater remained standing, and there is no doubt that the building could have been salvaged, had there been the will to do so. Only the roof of the building had burned during the war, but the supporting structures were of sturdy masonry and still serviceable, as contemporaries have written. A close acquaintance of mine who grew up in Parnu after the war once recounted that when he was a child in the fifties, it was common for drunks to use the ruins of the Endla theater as a public bathroom. In September, 1951, the Parnu city government proposed that the theater be restored, but the Soviet authorities replied that there was no way that the style of the theater could be made to harmonize with the requirements posed by "contemporary (Stalinist) architectural expectations."

The Endla in Ruins

After the war, the workers of the theater were relocated to another building. In an article that appeared in the Estonian SL Ohtuleht newspaper on May 4, 2006, Olaf Esna, the Director of the Parnu theater during the post-war years, states that the real issue for the Soviet authorities was that the ". . . veranda of the Endla Theater was the place that the Estonian Declaration of Independence had first been made public. . ." on February 23, 1918.

The Final Torment of the Endla Theater

The Soviet occupation regime felt it couldn't afford to allow this reminder of Estonian independence to remain. On March 6, 1961 at 2:30 pm in front of a crowd of people, demolition charges were set off. A dull thud was heard. The walls of the Endla quivered for a moment as if in doubt, but then collapsed to the ground. Several nearby windows were shattered, and for a while, the center of Parnu was enveloped in a cloud of smoke and dust. Later, a box-shaped Soviet style hotel was built on the same location. When I worked in Germany in the eighties, before Estonia regained her independence, one of my colleagues -- a person from one of the Western European countries who knew that I am Estonian -- brought a copy of a men's girly magazine from his country to work, and showed me an article with photos that had been surreptitiously been taken in this very Parnu hotel and smuggled out of occupied Estonia. Intended as men's guide to the underground bordellos of Estonia, the story featured a number of photos of prostitutes engaged in what it is that prostitutes do.

Every country in the world that has attained sovereignty in the face of adversity has its own saga in connection with the struggle for independence, but few have a tale to tell as rich with ironic symbolism as the story of the Endla Theater.

Estonia is Back Again

Lack of freedom and poor health are similar phenomena. Young people, with the exception of sick kids, generally don't regard heath as a very important topic, much as pensions are a topic they tend to avoid. You only hear old folks saying that "you don't appreciate being in good health until you develop ailments." Freedom is a lot like that too. The American people, even in their wildest dreams, could probably never imagine Independence Hall in Philadelphia -- jealously and proudly guarded by Park Police -- in ruins, being used as a public toilet or a house of prostitution. The point being that occupation powers can do incredible harm to the well-being, dignity, and even the very physical appearance of the territories of cultures that have been vanquished.

Soon, ceremonies will take place in the city of Parnu on the Baltic Sea in Estonia at the place where the Endla Theater -- the birthplace of Estonian independence -- was blown up by a hostile power in 1961. 90 years ago on February 23, Estonians proclaimed to the world in Parnu their desire to be free. Although actual memories of the Endla Theater now live on only in the elderly, Estonians of all ages give thanks that the only soldiers they will see in Parnu on Independence Day, other than the ones accompanying invited dignitaries, are their own. The message to everyone in the world who enjoys freedom is that one really does need to remember to give thanks in a conscious manner for liberty - something that can all too easily be replaced by a life in the absence of freedom.

Take it from the Estonians, we know what we're talking about.

Juri Estam is a communications consultant who lives in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. He was a member of the Congress of Estonia, one of the predecessors to the current Parliament of Estonia. Prior to that, he covered human rights and other topics for the Estonian Language Service of Radio Free Europe while based in Munich and Scandinavia. Among other things, he has hosted a live prime time current affairs program on Estonian National Television, been the Managing Director of the largest chain of commercial radio stations in the country, and produced a dozen documentary films.

In Neo-Soviet Russia, a New Iron Curtain

2008-02-17T12:42:45Z

Europe Will Not Help Us
by Aleksandr Podrabinek*
Yezhednevniy Zhurnal
February 7, 2008

Translated from the Russian by La Russophobe

The scandal was inescapable. The Kremlin's reasons for not allowing international election observers from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) was one thing. But the excuse they came up with for this was so ridiculous it can hardly be mentioned in serious conversation.

What did the observers want to do? They wanted to come as a group of 75 people sometime before the day candidates would be registered for the presidential elections. They wanted to come and see how we do this. That was their mandate: to observe the elections and then share their observations and conclusions with the broader European society. The Soviet Union agreed with this mandate in Copenhagen in 1990, and a few years later it was reaffirmed in Russia. Regarding the number of observers and the time of their arrival, these were as normally required for the work of the ODIHR. Unlike [Russian Central Elections Committee (CEC) Chairman] Vladimir Churov and his comrades in the Kremlin, European legal experts understand elections consist not only of voting, but also of election campaigns, freedom of speech and mass media, freedom of political party activities, effective legal adjudication, equal access to television, and many other attributes of a democratic form of government. In order for the observers to give a favorable evaluation of the elections, they need to do their work carefully. Their work differs from the work of our people the way a renovation done to European standards differs from the typical Russian remont [TN: repair job] - in the quality of workmanship and the absence of crap. Work like theirs takes time, whereas haste results in the opposite.

Until recently, this carefulness invited indignation only from the “little father” Lukashenko - for obvious reasons - while in Russia it was viewed with equanimity. However, as elections in our Fatherland have steadily become more a parody and obvious crap, European standards have for the Kremlin become increasingly intolerable and even insulting.

The CEC expressed the Kremlin's mood. There would be no 75 people -- only 70. And no arriving ahead of time -- only on February 28 or 29, two or three days before the voting. After thinking about it for awhile and realizing that these demands looked a little silly, the CEC offered a new set of conditions: 75 people could come on February 20. The CEC even gave some attention to the matter and sent invitations to the observers - true, not to 75, but only 30 people. But the ODIHR stood its ground: the entire group of 75, and no later than February 15.

The Kremlin was insulted. "Our country is a sovereign state, and we will not allow the course of our election campaign to be corrected by anyone from outside," announced President Putin to his colleagues at the FSB. "A country with self respect does not accept ultimatums," echoed Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov.

Could any of the insulted government officials explain what harm Russia would suffer from an extra five, 45, or even 10,000 observers, coming for two weeks, a month, or even a year? How in general could the sovereignty of a state suffer from the presence of election observers?

The question is rhetorical. Everyone in the Kremlin knows the answer, but no one can say it. The issue is not in the sovereignty of the government, but in the legitimacy of the elections and, related to that, the legitimacy of the new president. In the absence of observers from ODIHR (and after them observers from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly also declined to come), the elections would not be viewed as definitely illegitimate, but only very questionable. At international forums people would snigger and whisper behind the Russian president's back: "Ah, there he is, the one who was elected without observers." Not nice. Not fatal, and not ruinous to the country's sovereignty - but not nice.

But what could they do? The Kremlin was in a dilemma: either allow the observers to come in and see everything, after which they would declare the elections unfair and the Kremlin would have a scandal on its hands; or else keep them out them and get a scandal anyway. They chose the second. They decided to minimize the damage that falsified elections would bring to the country's prestige. Better to have them not see and guess, than have them see and expose.

Who do Kremlin officials think they're fooling with these childish deceptions? Especially against the background of elections now taking place in other countries. In the U.S., the presidential Election Day is still nine months away, but pre-election passions are already at a full boil: the competition of candidates, the primary elections, the public debates, the lining up of supporters behind their favorites - not a bunch of functionaries with stone faces, listless movements and eyes glazed over from their own vaporous rhetoric. A vibrant political life, animated emotions, living people.

In Serbia the new president was selected only after the second round of elections. People poured into the streets to celebrate the victory of their candidate; it was obvious that their joy was genuine, not dictated or bought with campaign money.

In Russia we get corpses, doubt and despair. It's like what David Samoylov said: "We don't share your belief in miracles, and because of that they don't happen to us." We don't believe in the power of freedom and democracy, and for that reason we have none. And with this, Europe can offer us no help - neither by having their observers attend our presidential elections, nor by their demonstrative absence.

-----------------

*Aleksandr Prodrabinek was a Soviet dissident in the 1970s & 1980s, during which time he served two terms in Siberia for his human rights work. Since 1987 he has edited of number of human rights-oriented journals, and is currently a correspondent for Novaya Gazeta.