Registered user login:

Not so quiet on the eastern front

Roger Boyes

Published 21 May 2007

In the frontier lands of the EU, tension is growing as a resurgent Russia is using its restive minorities to increase its influence.

Reuters

It was a long, dusty summer. Three years ago, I embarked on a car journey down the eastern border of the European Union, the Wild East. I was travelling with Piotr, a garrulous Polish reporter, and our mission was to understand how EU enlargement was transforming the relationship with Russia. Frontier lands have always been a neuralgic zone; right on the border is where you have to fight for and define your national identity.

We rattled our way from Estonia and Lithuania - from where we crossed illegally into Russia to relieve ourselves in an under-patrolled forest - through the toytown dictatorship of Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, through Ukraine, Romania and Moldova, into the straggling Balkans. At each pit stop the locals had a view - usually sombre - of Russia. True, the Bulgarians and Serbians remained sentimentally attached to the Russians. And for one Latvian intellectual, pouring out tea from a Thermos in the scruffy garden of his dacha, serving as an interpreter in the Red Army had been the most exciting time of his life. For most, however, the Russians meant nothing but trouble.

Each time we picked up a hitch-hiker, Piotr would hammer on about Poland's holy mis- sion to the borderlands, the so-called Kresy Wschodnie. We lost a lot of hitch-hikers that way. When we came to write the inevitable book, we were tugged between Piotr's Polono-centric understanding of the EU - that it should project western values eastwards and roll back Russian influence - and my pigeon-chested liberalism - feebly arguing that all would be well if it opened up, let trade flourish and handed out visas like bus tickets; the borderlanders would prosper and decide they, too, were westerners. Russia would eventually accept the inevitable: that it cannot hope to keep its influence in societies such as Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia.

Now I am not so sure. A great belt of insecurity sweeps from the north-eastern EU frontier to the south. Russia is at the gates, grimacing and up to no good. The Russian minority in the Baltic republics is a serious problem that could become even more volatile if there is a cack-handed transfer of power in the Kremlin when Vladimir Putin steps down next year. A recent row between Estonia and Russia focused on a bronze monument to the Soviet army, nicknamed "the Unknown Rapist" by Estonians. Only days before a Second World War anniversary, Estonia's government decided to move the statue in Tallinn to the outskirts of the capital - a way of signalling its hurt at the decades of Soviet occupation. The effect was to anger the Kremlin, stir some nasty Russian-inspired rioting and raise a threat of a fuel blockade. Whatever one thinks of Estonia's political judgement, Moscow's hostile response against a sovereign EU state should have drawn a tougher response from fellow members.

To the south, both Ukraine and Romania have been waging a battle for power at the top, with two popular presidents - Viktor Yushchenko and Traian Băsescu - growing frustrated with scheming prime ministers and foot-dragging parliaments. Ukraine seems to have reached a compromise in the past few days that allows for early elections, but the mood is still tense. Romania may not be able to end its stalemate until October at the earliest. Both presidents believe that lax rules on party financing are creating a mediocre political class, easily manipulated by oligarchs with strong business links to Russia.

Neither society can modernise successfully without a concentration of authority, democratically legitimised. This follows a pattern across the region of Moscow involving itself, discreetly or otherwise, in domestic politics. Will Russia - as some intelligence analysts believe - create and sponsor a pro-Moscow opposition candidate to topple Lukashenko in Belarus when he becomes simply too absurd? Will Russia permit an independent Kosovo and a humiliated Serbia?

Russia is a bigger challenge than the EU cares to recognise. And so I have come around to accepting Piotr's line: the EU should intervene more directly in the affairs of its border states, because, when pitted against Moscow, it is better to have even a half-baked policy than none at all. If you have no programme, no EU-defined goal for the neighbourhood, you lose any interest in what is happening; Moldovans and Ukrainians become little more than immigration statistics and whole societies are allowed to drift.

Constitutional meltdown

We cannot afford to be mere spectators: two of the countries in trouble, Estonia and Romania, are EU members. Oil and gas from Russia to the EU cross the borderland states, most of which are heavily indebted to Moscow. It is not good enough to lie supine whenever Putin threatens a new cold war. We are allowing Russia to dictate the EU agenda on too many issues.

There are two clusters of problems with the potential to turn into crises. The first is this: the EU, following its enlargement in 2004, has a large and unhappy Russian minority of more than 1.2 million people, most of them wedged into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Despite concessions made to speed accession, the Baltic states are treating their indigent Russians as second-class citizens. Most find it difficult to get a job; all have to take language exams to qualify as citizens. Those who fail are classified as "resident aliens".

Soon Russia will face parliamentary and presidential elections and the question of protecting minorities abroad is certain to become an issue. It was naive of the west to believe that the era of disgruntled, politically explosive minorities had somehow passed, a relic of decaying empires such as the Habsburg, or the dark central European manoeuvring of the 1930s. The Russian minority in the EU is descended from the army and security service presence there; it has powerful allies in Moscow. The Russian army, humiliated by its withdrawal from empire and by underfunding - but bolstered by the political re-emergence of the old KGB apparatus - is beginning to make its presence felt again.

All of Putin's recent cold war rhetoric, his simulated anger at the US anti-missile defence systems planned for eastern Europe and his threat to withdraw from conventional force agreements with the west suggest that the army is being offered Valium. Any pressure on former Russian service families living in the Baltic republics (famously "liberated" by the Red Army) is destined to stir anger in the officers' mess. That makes the northern EU borderlands vulnerable terrain. There is only one possible response: to make sure that the Balts are indeed respecting EU standards of tolerance for minorities, and to defend the Balts loudly and credibly if Moscow tries to meddle with their politics.

The second potential flashpoint must be ob vious to even the most provincial of western politicians: that dependency on Russian energy is extremely high in the EU borderlands. These economies are growing fast - overheating, even - and guzzling up oil and gas from the east. Popular expectations are also rising; there is a surge of impatience across the region and acute frustration with the political class. That is a heady mix: galloping growth that is creating a potentially dangerous gulf between the urban rich and the rural poor, disconnected from the world in a way unknown since the end of the 19th century. Add to that the swagger of Gazprom, an increasingly corrupt political elite, and a professional middle class forced to migrate to realise its dreams, and you have all the makings of a con stitutional meltdown.

Some of the EU's new neighbours are truly failed states. Piotr and I visited a Moldovan village where every third male had sold a kidney to an unscrupulous woman working for a Turkish clinic; the girls, meanwhile, had been peddled to northern Italian brothels. Others, such as Belarus, are sad outposts run in the interests of crazed tinpot despots and their clans. And there are large, historically proud societies - Romania within the EU, Ukraine outside - that are sen sibly modernising but which find themselves politically paralysed.

We cannot, of course, develop a one-size-fits-all policy for such a motley assortment of neighbours. But if we ignore these countries, their problems will become ours, making a nonsense of our most cherished projects. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, really believes that the answer is a strategic partnership with Russia, a contract that commits Moscow to uninterrupted energy supplies and decent behaviour long after Putin has exchanged his gumshoes for slippers. But she should know better - after all, she grew up in the German Democratic Republic - than to believe in the inhibiting value of a treaty. The Kremlin sees the borderlands as its natural sphere of influence, its security cushion. If it has to turn off the gas tap to enforce discipline, it surely will.

Romania's woes

I am writing the last part of this article at the campaign headquarters of Traian Băsescu, the suspended Romanian president. In a few days he faces a referendum that will decide whether his countrymen impeach him. Apart from Spain, which has a large Romanian minority, no one in the EU has taken a blind bit of notice. The borderlands, we seem to think, are historically programmed for turbulence. Why should we bother? What has it got to do with us? Such dismissiveness is not being shown in Moscow. The only television crews I have seen in Bucharest on this trip are from Russia. The Kremlin sniffs chaos and weakness in its neighbours as surely as a truffling pig; as usual, it is profiting from our lack of concentration, our sheer indifference to foreign cultures. Aides never seen before greet me like a long-lost friend, apparently mistaking me for an emissary from Tony Blair - the last of the messenger boys.

"We don't see many English faces round here nowadays," said one official, adding: "Perhaps that will change soon?"

"Perhaps," I muttered. Outside, although we were on Vasile Lascar Street in the middle of the city, I was sure that I heard a cock crow.

Roger Boyes is Berlin correspondent of the Times

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

16 comments from readers

Igor
17 May 2007 at 22:09

Very disgusting article. Red Army was liberating Europe, while Americans and British where waiting over the Channel. We lost 28 million lives. And now Baltic American puppets try to rewrite the history. No treaties will force Russia to supply gas to EU.

Vholub
17 May 2007 at 22:53

Igor message is typical of Russian chauvanism and extreme nationalism. Igor you have been brain washed by years of Russian(Soviet ) propaganda. What about all of the millions of innocent people that the Russians killed, exiled and raped for simply speaking their own native language or jusy having a different view that the Russian/Soviet version of events. These countries are now free and independent, if they want to leave Moscow's grip then it is their decision, not Moscow's

V

IgorBiryukov
18 May 2007 at 00:06

Any clear-eyed observer could predict as early as 1997 that the treatment of Russian minorities in Estonia was a time bomb. Many Estonians of Russian ethnic origin (a substantial minority) were unhappy since dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. This is because the newly independent Estonian government made their lives difficult by enacting a discriminating legislation, leaving them to face a choice to either leave the country or go through the painful process of naturalization. This is despite the fact that many ethnic Russians were born in Estonia. Can you believe it?

The bloody trail of Holocaust (I can not find another word) of Russians in Europe left 28 million of them dead from the hands of true ‘Nordic’ nations. Estonians took a part among other ‘Nordic’ nations in the SS ‘Jutland’ division fighting Slavic ‘vermin’ (as Nazi propaganda called the Russians) during WW2. Now, not only the current Estonian government permits marches of former SS volunteers (and present sympathizers), they are beginning to dismantle the Soviet war memorial and digging soldiers graves. Is it normal? How do they expect Russians react?

What do they think their business opportunities in Russia (huge market for them) will be?

I disagree with the tone the article. His anti-Russian rhetoric “Russia is at the gates, grimacing and up to no good” - is just that. It adds nothing to the explanation of the real issues at hand.

Igor Biryukov

Connecticut USA

Andre Bez
18 May 2007 at 02:36

In reply to Igor:-

28 million 'Russian' war dead? Even the war dead are monopolised by Russia. Were there not Estonians, latvians, Lithuanians, Belurusians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, Chechens, Tartars, Kazakhs etc etc 'war dead' on the 'Russian side' many having to choose between two evils, others with no choice.

"Yet it was not till I went on a sobering journey into this twilight of war that I fully realized the price which 40,000,000 Ukrainians paid for Soviet--and Allied--victory. The whole titanic struggle, which some are apt to dismiss as "the Russian glory," was first of all a Ukrainian war. No fewer than 10,000,000 people had been 'lost' to... Ukraine since 1941, I was told by a high Ukrainian official. That excluded men and women mobilized for the armed forces.

A relatively small part of the Russian Soviet Republic itself was actually invaded, but the whole Ukraine, whose people were economically the most advanced and numerically the second largest in the Soviet Union, was devastated from the Carpathian frontier to the Donets and Don rivers, where Russia proper begins. No single European country suffered deeper wounds to its cities, its industry, its farmland and its humanity."

Edgar Snow

The Pattern of Soviet Power

New York: Random House, 1945. p. 73.

Were there no Russians in SS formations and other German military units fighting alongside the 'nordic' units you single out for mention.

Ask why do neighbouring countries have this view of the Muscovite state. Empathise with them for a short while. You may learn something. You may feel less of a martyr.

IgorBiryukov
18 May 2007 at 02:59

I am not a martyr but 3 out of 4 my grandparents perished in the war.

I am arguing that Russia-hating is Okay if it makes you feel good (obviously it does) but enacting is bad for national unity and business in FSU. It is not pragmatic.

Igor

Julian
18 May 2007 at 19:24

The comments so far just go to show how little concern people in the West (or elsewhere in the East) have about the situation in Romania. Powerful former communists with links to Russian oligarchs are trying to remove a sensible, intelligent president - Traian Basescu. This has to stop. These powerful figures have little in common with ordinary Romanians or Russians. Speaking as a British national who has worked full time in Romania for a number of years, Romanian people often feel powerless against these forces of deep greed and corruption, and need the West to step in and support real democracy. When will the EU step in and support one of its newest members? Or do people in the EU think that they did enough fifteen years ago when they sent all those secondhand clothes and life-expired medicines for the orphans?

Friend
22 May 2007 at 12:29

This ugly article lies in the same stream of Americano-British campaign of brining pressure to Russia for the purpose of receiving the range of concessions of economical and military character. Artificially in European press is pumping the anti-Russian hysteria literally regarding every event, to create among Europeans negative appearance of Russia and to interrupt the integration process.

Author described enough punctually the picture, but without comment that exactly like this will always be looking the countries of Eastern Europe when economic and political system in these countries will be maintained only at the level when population will be possible to keep as NATO maintenance staff against Russia.

US together with Britain, the prime minister of which some of American newspaper openly call “our British poodle”, as hard as they can are trying to hammer in a stake between Europe and Russia, because such union will move aside US to background.

US do not want any of strengthening of Europe together with Russia, because such strengthening at the first time since WW2 will add the certainty to Europe, which will try to break free from US control, for to find so desirable freedom. US don’t want freedom for Europe, they need it to be just an appendage of US economy.

xpatjock
22 May 2007 at 12:43

IGOR and all the other apologists for Soviet dictat should be reminded that The Red Army INVADED the baltics in 1939-40. From 1939 tilll 1941 Nazi Germany and Soviet Union had a non-agression pact. During that period, when the UK was standing ALONE against the Nazis, Joe Stalin was providing fuel and steel to nazi industry.

As for the success of Nazi armies against the Soviets. Since the Nazis had trained on the Russian & Ukrainian steppe in the 1930s the new every square inch of ground, so thee Soviets only have themselves to blame.

And the REd Army had it easy. It only had to cross land barriers, and it leadres didn't give a DAMN about its people. Hence the high death toll in Soviet armies. Send unarmed troops against heavy machine guns and you will lose them. Blame your commisars

xpatjock
22 May 2007 at 12:48

I forgot to add. What about the "holocausts" in Ukraine and Kazkahstan implemented by Stalin. As many people were starved to death in the 1930s by him and his gang enforcing there rule on the Soviets as dies in NAzi death camps. Thats why its difficult for ex-soviets to love Russians. Could the Soviets 'love' the Nazis who invaded??

Friend
22 May 2007 at 13:04

2 xpatjock

UK together with France, my friend, did the same with Czechoslovakia in 1938. British Prime Minister Chamberlin gave up them to Hitler and said that he brought a peace to Britain.

Stalin understood clearly that the war with Germany unavoidable but in the same time he realized that USSR is not ready for the war. So, he did everything to postpone the beginning of it as far as it possible. By signing a pact he in some way followed the British example.

xpatjock
22 May 2007 at 13:39

2 "Friend".

However we were never allied with Hitler. (Just ask the Poles)...

ANd For the rcord.I don't dislike Rusia or the Riussians. I just get sick and tired of all this Victim status that gets called up anytime someone criticies Putin or points out failings. If you can't deal iwth that, face up to the problems within Russia then Russia faces a dark future with Neo-nazis rising unopposed within Russian borders.

And finally, Liberation, means kicking out the nasties and allowing the locals to take back control of their country. None of the eastern European countries were truly 'liberated'. They just had Nazi dictatorship replaced by soviet dictatorship.

Just ask the Czechs or The Hungarians

Friend
22 May 2007 at 14:48

2 xpatjock

For the record. Poland has received a part of Czechoslovakia together with Hungary, when Hitler invaded to Czechoslovakia.

Probably you will be surprised to know that many people in Eastern Europe shared communistic ideology that time, and they didn’t see any problem in communistic form of society for their countries. In fact despite that you think that USSR forced them to accept communism, it is not really so. USSR helped them of cause, but the rest they did with their own hands, because at that time winning communism looked very attractive, like right now winning capitalism. And only when communistic system didn’t fulfill their hopes they started to refuse from it blaming exUSSR in all of their trouble. If capitalism will not bring them happiness they soon will be blaming you instead.

Plus no matter that what kind of hard soviet system was, at least, thank to it, those people kept their nations and their countries. Under Hitler they would lose all, those who would survive right now would speck in German and lived in 3d Reich. So that is why they were liberated despite all the odds.

The thing is that the hardest critic of Putin is inside of Russia. The name of this critic is Russian people. They are not as silent as you think. But what I read in some British articles this is not a critic. Mostly concerning Russia this is an ugly propaganda made to divide people in Europe from people in Russia. To make European think that what is going on there is the same SU politic. These articles purposely turning the facts, replacing comprehension and crudely playing of your incomprehension of situation, because the reality in Russia is complex. Sometimes much more complex to understand from the TV news. But behind this propaganda lies very specific interests of some West energy companies together with American military industry. Their interest got nothing to do with freedom or democracy. If tomorrow by the president of Russia will become Adolf Hitler itself, but he will open free access of British petrol company to Russian oil and gas, will agree to destroy all Russian army, will be making politic when the population of Russia will be decreasing fast, the British and American press will call him the most democratic leader of Russia of all the times.

Re: Neo-nazis in Russia. Believe me, my friend, that this is exaggeration. Your press is using this fact to make you scare. In fact during the Putin president term there was made a serious job to prevent appearance of nationalistic and fascistic organizations, to eliminate the influence of extremists to society. Under neo-nazism your press is trying to present the will of Russia to follow its own interests, when these interests in eternal politic do not coincide with Western interest.

Lucy
22 May 2007 at 19:21

Jesus Christ, what an unadulterated sample of Russophobic propaganda in the best traditions of Cold War. Dear editors, please credit your readers with some intelligence! This is simply preposterous, some unscrupulous journalist accompanied by prejudiced and rather dubious Polish reporter made a quick *tour* in the East and as a result of this *quickie* produced something absolutely indescribable. Do you seriously call this a *journalism*? I call it defamation. The facts and their interpretation are questionable to say the least, the analysis of the situation in the region is laughable to put it mildly. The bias is so obvious that it is not even funny. The only thing that springs to mind after reading this piece is that Russia is guilty in everything, and I mean everything, by definition. All in all, under the very thin veneer of pretentious pseudo-literary style the only real thing about this article is its suffocating stupidity and unprofessionalism. Don't insult our intelligence by printing such a load of old rubbish please.

Bellona
23 May 2007 at 18:44

"Re: Neo-nazis in Russia. Believe me, my friend, that this is exaggeration. Your press is using this fact to make you scare. In fact during the Putin president term there was made a serious job to prevent appearance of nationalistic and fascistic organizations, to eliminate the influence of extremists to society."

I find this an interesting comment when my friends who attend school in Russia who are not fortunate enough to be Caucasian cannot step outside their rooms on certain days of the year.

Friend
24 May 2007 at 07:27

2 Bellona

It is has to be admitted that from the beginning of 90th emigrants from Caucasia created extremely bad reputation to themselves among native population of Russia. Using the weakness of local authorities they started capturing small business pushing away their local merchants by means of gangster’s clans that they brought from Caucasia, openly opposing their own culture to local populations and openly conflicting with them. Add to this two Chechen wars, when before this wars Russian population there were in fact slaughtered or banished, when every tenth women were raped, and in each Chechen village local population kept a slaves, people that Chechen mafia were stealing in Russia, carrying over the border hidden unconscious in car trunks, and forcing them to work till the death by unmercifully beating and torching them.

Too much of negative cannot just disappear from people minds. But please do not mix the social strain with government politic. As it was said Russian government is doing a lot to prevent any cases of nationalism concerning to emigrants. More than that Government is trying to attract working emigrants.

Plus please do not do far-reaching resumes from your case. When we will look at other countries we can also see different types of nationalism and racism. In France Arabic youth sack shops; in US if you are white you better do not go to Harlem during the night; in Latvia population is divided into two parts citizens (Letts) and “non- citizens” (Russian) which are restricted in their right to vote and etc, what in fact is a form of apartheid inside of EC.

Anglo-Bulgar
26 May 2007 at 20:53

The rise of President Putin was a natural reaction to neo-con lunacy which handed Russian state assets to a few men and led to the collapse of Russian society, signified by the fact that the life expectancy of the average Russian man declined to just over 50 years. No western government or people would tolerate this. Indeed, there is a specific law to stop this happening in the U.K. (The Rule against Perpetuities).

The Baltic States would do better to keep quiet about their roles in World War II. In some areas the Nazis didn’t have to kill the local Jews, as the locals had already done it for them, after Soviet forces withdrew.

The history of those forced to “stay on” in countries where they previously ruled is a very sad one. Look at Zimbabwe, for example, or the English landowners burnt out of Ireland in the 1920s. This problem needs to be addressed and not ignored.

The Russian minorities in the Baltic States need to be welcomed into the E.U. body politic or they will always be a “political football” in E.U./Russian Federation disputes.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Roger Boyes

Read More

Vote!

Will power sharing work in Zimbabwe?