UT Comment: Kyrgyzstan and the “commentariat” By Peter Lavelle Published on March 27, 2005
The “commentariat” sure is out in force. One particular article that demonstrates the gross unprofessional journalistic coverage of Russia can be found in the Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2005, “Russia Fumbles, and Former Sphere of Influence Deflates - Moscow has all but lost a hold on ex-Soviet states by underestimating the populace, analysts say” by Kim Murphy. It is worth deconstructing this piece of propaganda pretending to be honest journalism.
Let’s take the whole article apart, paragraph by paragraph.
1. “The revolt in Kyrgyzstan that toppled Russia's strongest ally in Central Asia was the result of the latest in what analysts say is an astonishing and painful series of diplomatic missteps by Moscow.”
The first thing the new regime in Kyrgyzstan did was to re-affirm strong relations with Russia. The Kremlin has responded with positive gestures of help and support. What is called a “misstep” may be a windfall for the Kremlin. This first sentence is nothing more than uninformed prejudice.
2. "Three largely nonviolent revolutions over the last 16 months have all but eliminated Moscow's attempt to dominate the former Soviet states that were once part of its unquestioned empire."
What has happened and may happen in Kyrgyzstan is anything but approaching “nonviolent.” Nights of looting and a “counter-coup” of supporters approaching the capital are anything but pleased with events on the ground.
The use of the word “empire” also is used with prejudice. The regimes of Central Asia have always looked to the Kremlin for support. The relationship is far more one-sided than this article suggests. Murphy makes it sound like that Central Asian regimes are appointed from Moscow – this is completely untrue.
3. "The sudden collapse of Kyrgyz President Askar A. Akayev's regime, after the overthrow of governments in Georgia and Ukraine, highlights the fundamental frailty of corrupt, unpopular post-Soviet regimes across the region most seriously, potentially, in Russia itself."
Good! Let’s see these regimes find themselves on the dustbin of history. But, let’s step back a bit! Russia didn’t make any of these regimes corrupt! Has Russia supported corrupt regimes? Of course, just like the U.S. supports corrupt and undemocratic regimes around the world. Murphy’s sophomoric hope for some kind of revolution in Russia is not only prejudiced, but also misinformed.
4. "As a result, the once-formidable power wielded by the Kremlin in the three former Soviet capitals has given way to an increasingly influential diplomatic role for the United States and Europe in part, analysts say, because of Russia's failure to successfully manage foreign policy in a region it has declared vital to its own strategic interests."
Subtext: Russia should have been able to manage its “children.” Again, there is the assumption that the Kremlin has always appointed post-Soviet leaders in the Central Asia. Murphy misleads her readers. The Kremlin indeed very much desires to work with and have good relations with Central Asian governments – whoever the leaders maybe. The Kremlin’s public support of the new leadership in Kyrgyzstan demonstrates this.
http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?cat=3&type=3&art=1531
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail