The Guardian today carries yet another article by Jonathan Steele on how badly the Ukrainians have hurt Vladimir Putin’s feelings, here. Putin, at a “two-and-a-half hour meeting with academics and journalists in the Kremlin” apparently had this to say:
” One of the parties cannot be cornered by means of unconstitutional activities. Otherwise other people in the region can say ‘Why don’t we act against the constitution?'”
Indeed. But can someone please remind the man that there is nothing at all constitutional in rigging the elections, poisoning the opposition and murdering annoying journalists? It also stretches credibility that he seems to think he’s responsible for upholding the constitutions of states in “the region” (which is presumably a rebranded variant of “the near abroad”), or rather, upholding their governments against their constitutions. If that wasn’t enough, though, what about his next line?
“He said corruption was blooming there and people around the next president have started to enrich themselves. We said this before and no-one wanted to listen to us.”
Ye gods, Russia as the stalwart defender of probity in public office. I think that probably qualifies him for this week’s Orwell nomination back on my own blog. But can anyone make sense of this paragraph?
He spoke with repeated anger about what has been happening in the former Soviet republics. “We cannot go back to the Russian empire. Only an idiot can imagine we’re striving for that.”
Well, those two lines are entirely mutually incompatible, no? The point of all this is, of course, that first of all he doesn’t care at all about anybody’s constitution, and secondly he still sees himself as being in a position to lecture his ex-colonies, although he has learned to deny it. After all, what does all this stuff about other countries’ constitutions mean practically? What does he think would have happened if “we” had listened to him?
Either that “we” would have pressed the OFF switch and all the people on the Kiev Maidan would have gone away, or, I suppose, that we would have supported a Tiananmen solution. Fantastic, and more evidence that the EU’s Nachbarschaftspolitik needs very great care. (Don’t forget, either, that Steele has previous for being feted at the Kremlin.)
To be fair murders, poisonings and election rigging are not constitutional matters at all (they’re criminal), whereas re-running the election was. Putin has picked his fight quite carefully and its very likely that Yuschenko isn’t the white knight paragon of virtue that the Western Press often portrayed him as.
That doesn’t mean The Ukraine would have been better off with Yanukovich, just that the matter wasn’t and isn’t quite as simple as Yushenko good, Yanukovich bad.
I’m not an expert on the Russian constitution but I doubt Putin or his old mate Yeltsin are particularly guiltless in that regard.
“Only an idiot can imagine we’re striving for that.””
Obviously a direct reference to Zhirinovsky :).