Things That Make You Go Hmmm: Crimea River

Interesting to read this 2008 interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian who exposed the horror of the Soviet prison labor camps and gave new meaning to the word “gulag.” A lot of history here that helps to explain part of Russia’s motivations now.

8/05/2008

Alexander Solzhenitsyn On The New Russia

The world has been paying its last respects to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian who exposed the horror of the Soviet prison labor camps and gave new meaning to the word “gulag.”

Solzhenitsyn, who died Aug. 3 of heart failure at age 89 in Moscow, spent eight years in those camps. That experience was the basis of his novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was published in 1962 during the brief post-Stalin thaw.

Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 and three years later published his historical masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, which led to his expulsion and 20 years in exile. He returned to his beloved Russia only in 1994, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Forbes magazine spoke to the reclusive Solzhenitsyn in his Vermont home shortly before returning. We republish the interview, conducted by the late Paul Klebnikov, and Klebnikov’s assessment of Solzhenitsyn’s work in memory of one of the 20th century’s towering literary figures, whom many Russians regard as the conscience of their country.

The home of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Cavendish, Vt., is strewn with packing trunks. After 20 years, the reclusive Russian sage is preparing to go home, thus ending the involuntary exile imposed upon him by a now vanished communist government. But before returning to his homeland, the author of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich agreed to give Forbes one of his rare interviews.

For Americans, many of whom still tend to regard Russia through a Cold War-distorting lens, Solzhenitsyn’s passionate defense of Russia makes moving reading.

He ends the interview on a somewhat cryptic note, saying that one day the U.S. will have serious need of Russia as an ally against a threat he refused to name. What threat? On other occasions, Solzhenitsyn has warned of an expansionist China, about resurgent Islam and other dangers from the so-called Third World.

Forbes: Tension is mounting between Russia and the now independent Ukraine, with the West strongly backing Ukrainian territorial integrity. Henry Kissinger argues that Russia will always threaten the interests of the West, no matter what kind of government it has.

Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [historian] Richard Pipes and many other American politicians and publicists are frozen in a mode of thought they developed a long time ago. With unchanging blindness and stubbornness they keep repeating and repeating this theory about the supposed age-old aggressiveness of Russia, without taking into consideration today’s reality.

F: Well, what about Ukraine? Hasn’t Russia made threats toward several of the former U.S.S.R. member states?

S: Imagine that one not very fine day two or three of your states in the Southwest, in the space of 24 hours, declare themselves independent of the U.S. They declare themselves a fully sovereign nation, decreeing that Spanish will be the only language. All English-speaking residents, even if their ancestors have lived there for 200 years, have to take a test in the Spanish language within one or two years and swear allegiance to the new nation. Otherwise they will not receive citizenship and be deprived of civic, property and employment rights.

F: What would be the reaction of the United States? I have no doubt that it would be immediate military intervention.

S: But today Russia faces precisely this scenario. In 24 hours she lost eight to 10 purely Russian provinces, 25 million ethnic Russians who have ended up in this very way–as “undesirable aliens.” In places where their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers have lived since way back–even from the 17th century–they face persecution in their jobs and the suppression of their culture, education and language.

Meanwhile, in Central Asia, those wishing to leave are not permitted to take even their personal property. The authorities tell them, “There is no such concept as ‘personal property’!”

And in this situation “imperialist Russia” has not made a single forceful move to rectify this monstrous mess. Without a murmur she has given away 25 million of her compatriots–the largest diaspora in the world!

F: You see Russia as the victim of aggression, not as the aggressor.

S: Who can find in world history another such example of peaceful conduct? And if Russia keeps the peace in the single most vital question that concerns her, why should one expect her to be aggressive in secondary issues?

F: With Russia in chaos, it does sound a bit far-fetched to see her as an aggressor.

S: Russia today is terribly sick. Her people are sick to the point of total exhaustion. But even so, have a conscience and don’t demand that–just to please America–Russia throw away the last vestiges of her concern for her security and her unprecedented collapse. After all, this concern in no way threatens the United States.

F: Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski disagrees. He argues that the U.S. must defend the independence of Ukraine.

S: In 1919, when he imposed his regime on Ukraine, Lenin gave her several Russian provinces to assuage her feelings. These provinces have never historically belonged to Ukraine. I am talking about the eastern and southern territories of today’s Ukraine.

Then, in 1954, Khrushchev, with the arbitrary capriciousness of a satrap, made a “gift” of the Crimea to Ukraine. But even he did not manage to make Ukraine a “gift” of Sevastopol, which remained a separate city under the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R. central government. This was accomplished by the American State Department, first verbally through Ambassador Popadiuk in Kiev and later in a more official manner.

Why does the State Department decide who should get Sevastopol? If one recalls the tactless declaration of President Bush about supporting Ukrainian sovereignty even before the referendum on that matter, one must conclude that all this stems from a common aim: to use all means possible, no matter what the consequences, to weaken Russia.

F: Why does independence for Ukraine weaken Russia?

S: As a result of the sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled Slavic peoples, the borders have torn apart millions of ties of family and friendship. Is this acceptable? The recent elections in Ukraine, for instance, clearly show the [Russian] sympathies of the Crimean and Donets populations. And a democracy must respect this.

I myself am nearly half Ukrainian. I grew up with the sounds of Ukrainian speech. I love her culture and genuinely wish all kinds of success for Ukraine–but only within her real ethnic boundaries, without grabbing Russian provinces. And not in the form of a “great power,” the concept on which Ukrainian nationalists have placed their bets. They are acting out and trumpeting a cult of force, persistently inflating Russia into the image of an “enemy.” Militant slogans are proclaimed. And the Ukrainian army is being indoctrinated with the propaganda that war with Russia is inevitable.

For every country, great power status deforms and harms the national character. I have never wished great power status for Russia, and do not wish it for the United States. I don’t wish it for Ukraine. She would not be able to perform even the cultural task required to achieve great power status: In her current borders, 63% of the population consider Russian to be their native language, a number three times larger than the number of ethnic Russians. And all these people will have to be re-educated in the Ukrainian language, while the language itself will have to be raised to international standards and usage. This is a task that would require over 100 years.

F: At the heart of all this is a central question: What about Russia and the U.S.? Are we historic rivals?

S: Before the [Russian] revolution, they were natural allies. You know that during the American Civil War, Russia supported Lincoln and the North [in contrast to Britain and France, which supported the Confederacy]. Then, we were effectively allies in the First World War. But beginning with communism, Russia ceased to exist. What is there to talk about? The confrontation was not at all with Russia but with the communist U.S.S.R.

F: A lot of people in the West think it wasn’t communism but traditional Russian imperialism that drove Stalin to grab Eastern Europe.

S: Absolutely not! This was not Russian imperialism, which in the past only expanded its borders somewhat. This was communist imperialism, which aimed to take over the whole world.

Yet an official U.S. document from 1959, the Law 86-90, does not include Russia in the list of nations oppressed by communism. On the contrary, “Russian imperialism,” not communism, is held responsible for the conquest of some 20 countries–even China, Tibet and some made-up place called “Kazakia.” One is amazed that this silly law is still on the books, even today.

This is complete delirium! When was Russia ever in Africa? When did Russia ever want to snatch Angola or Cuba? When was she ever in Latin America? The historical Russia has never tried to take over the world, whereas the communists had precisely this aim.

Much more here: http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/05/solzhenitsyn-forbes-interview-oped-cx_pm_0804russia.html