I grew
up in what was then called the Cold War and everything was simple: we, the West
– that was the U.S. Great Britain, France and the rest – were the Good Guys,
and the East – the USSR and its various satellite states, as well as those who
aligned themselves to it in return for financial support – were the Bad Guys.
Looking back, it is all very reminiscent of the ‘cowboy films’ at the time: the
Good Guys road white horses, wore the trousers over their boots and worse cool
hats, and the Bad Guys road black horses, tucked their trousers into their
boots and wore rather sillier hats. And just like the morality conveyed in
those cowboy films – Rin Tin Tin, Gene Autry, Annie Oakley, Roy Rogers, The
Cisco Kid et al – the Cold War – well, ‘narrative’ is the buzz word at present
(and although I don’t want to use it because I don’t like using buzz words, I can’t
deny that it has become a very useful word) – was equally as facile. What we
did was Good because we were the Good Guys: QED. And what they did was Bad
because they were the Bad Guys: again QED. But, oh were life really that
simple, as I have since discovered.
This is
not the place to retail the various iniquities of which the West is guilty, but
a short list of them over the years would include invading Iraq twice (‘because
it was there’ as we Brits like to justify many of our escapades) and
destabilising countries because it suited our interests (for example, getting
rid of the elected government of the Iran and installing the Shah to make sure
we could keep our hands on Persian oil). But before the East gets all
hoity-toity and self-righteously smug, their list of misdemeanours is equally
as unimpressive (invading Hungary and the then Czechoslovakia, and also
toppling governments, that kind of thing). Both sides were also not above
murder and assassination, although the West insists it never indulged in that kind
of thing (which makes taking out that nice Mr Bin Laden rather difficult to
explain).
So far,
so banal, and what is the chap on about? Well, this morning my brother alerted
me to the fact that the Voice of Russia is now available online. It also has a
website which you can find here. The Voice of Russia is Russia’s equivalent of
the U.S. Voice of America and, quite possibly, our very own BBC World Service
(although the Beeb – ‘Auntie’ to those who really can’t stand the
Corporation – vehemently denies any such thing and insists that the World
Service is solely there for the betterment of our coloured cousins with the
sole objective of saving their souls. Nothing like the – allegedly CIA-funded
Voice of America at all, old chap, and if you are inclined to believe such a
thing, well, it’s a pretty poor show, if one might be so blunt! I mean what
harm can there be in passing on to all and sundry the latest Test cricket
scores?) The thought occurred to me, as it increasingly does these days which
is admirably summed up by the French phrase ‘plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose’. It’s like going back in time.
. . .
I have no idea how Boris Berezovsky’s life ended, but
from what I have read the most likely explanation is that he hanged himself.
But there is also the poisoning by radiation (worthy of a modenr-day Agatha
Christie, that one) of one of his associates, the former KGB man Alexander
Litvinenko, which we Brits are blaming on his former employers, the continuing
crackdown on anyone who thinks Vladimir Putin is a bad egg and dares say so in
public, and a general sense that Russia is reverting to type. How, for example,
to explain its support of Syria’s Assad and apparent opposition to the West’s
promotion of the ‘rebels’ ?
Actually, that’s a very bad example, but I did introduce
it for that very reason. The current Janet and John thinking here in the West
is pretty much along the lines of our Cold War analysis and equally as
duplicitous. Assad was and is (he’s still alive and kicking) a nasty piece of
work. And who can blame his brave people from rising up and attmpting to overthrow
him ? First off, the ‘opposition’ in Syria is about as united as a family
of Irish topers at a late-night drinking session. None of us really knows who
is on whose side, and even if we knew that we still would not know why. But we
do know that, for its own reasons, Iran supports Assad and supplying him with
men and materiel, and that Saudi Arabia is supporting the ‘opposition’ and is
dong the same for them. So what at first blush would seem like a war of
liberation in Syria looks rather more like a proxy war between Iran and Saudi
Arabia for dominance in the area. The same thing is going on in Iraq whose
Sunnis and Shi’ites will not get a single night’s peace until Iran and Saudi
Arabia call it a day.
The West, which just loves to cover its intriguing with
the fig leaf of ‘bringing democracy to the world’ is also supporting the Syrian
‘opposition’ and so, as though by default, Russia has taken up Assad. It also
helps that with Assad in charge, Russia would have far more useful access to
the Mediterranean (which is also why they want to keep Cyprus in their ambit).
So it would seem it is also something of a proxy confrontation – I’ll use that
word rather than ‘war’ – between the West and Russia. As I said, ‘plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose’.
. . .
I would dearly like to visit Russia, and meet its people.
I would dearly like to spend more than a tourist week there. I should like to
live among them, learn their language and get to know how they tick. As it
happens I would also like to do the same with many other nations, not least
with our Yankee cousins. My point is that so much of our ‘knowledge’ of
countries and their people is nothing of the kind. I can read the Economist and
the ‘serious’ newspapers as much as I like. I can listen to From Our Own
Correspondent till the cows come home, but nothing would beat going there and
making up my own mind.
I’m intrigued by Russia. I intrigued that – apparently –
a great many of its people are really not that bothered about whether or not
their system is ‘democratic’. As long as things wend their way, as long as they
have work and can keep warm, can socialise with as much vodka as is necessary
and as long as official life keeps out of their hair, the system is fine by
them. Is that true ? I really don’t know and don’t have any way of
knowing, but it would be interesting to meet ordinary Russians for myself and
find out for myself. There were the days, of course, under the Soviet regime
when people such as me were regarded as potential ‘useful idiots’ who could be
invited over, wined and dined, shown the sites, perhaps if that was our bag, be
introduced to a very pretty Russian woman or two, then returned to our country
of origin to spread that word that things aren’t all that bad, if only we could
get to understand each other. (The small ads of the New Statesman used to carry
adverts for two-week coach trips to Poland which were ridiculously cheap, and I
was sometimes tempted to go merely because they cost so little, but was put off
buy the thought of spending almost 24 hours stuck in an uncomfortablte seat
next to some comrade eulogising about ‘all them corn fields and ballet in the
evening’)
I don’t doubt that ordinary Russians have just as
skew-whiff a picture of Britain and its people as we do of Russia and her
people. Judging from today’s Voice of Russia web front page things aren’t
looking too good in Britain at all. Funny that. Especially when we play the
same game.
Finally, this is another chance for me to plug one of my
You Tube videos. Oddly enough, it is rather pertinent.
