By Pavel Kollar
I do not agree with the statement that the cause of the situation is completely the bad advice obtained from West(equally ‘Zionists’ or no) and bad criterions of IMF. Russian politicians failed to adapt the market system to their concrete circumstances. In the frame of basic political strategies there were political alternatives whose implementation would probably save the country from the undesired effects which are manifest today and these decisions were completely in the hands of their politicians. Specifically I mean of the way how the privatization of state property was accomplished. They have chosen a way of privatization(similar as other postcommunist countries) which opened the way to corruption, financial manipulation and economic destabilization. The personal interests of some politicians were set before the public interests. And these politicians that time were neither Zionists nor pro-westerns but ex-communists or very near to the communist leadership. Those who are today declared as Zionists came later.
What Russia received from IMF and another financial institutions is already an equivalent of what Europe received from Marshall Plan. Who is to be blamed that this money has not produced effects equivalent to those which were produced in Europe? Zionists who are Russian citizens, or Western Zionists or somebody else?
Serbia is a different case. They were a privileged child among the Slavic communist countries regarding the financial help and technology they received from the West during Tito’s era. And the Serbs were the main supporters and benefitars of communism in Yugoslavia. But the effect of this capital was small in spite of the fact that there were no ‘Zionist oligarches’ in the country. One part of communist oligarchy became rich, the majority was poor and that there was not some social revolution this was to be thanked the fact that Western Europe accepted about 20% of their active work force. Now they lost some of these privileges and they are angry on West but they are so proud that they would risk a WWIII in order to keep their faces in front of their own people, because they consider this is the only honorably way to give over the power to some democratic government.
Their history is so zigzag that they have sometimes trouble by themselves to interpret it. They are Slavs today, but in the recent past they were just opposite. They are proud that they fought against Ottomans, but soon after defeat they already fought on the side of Ottomans against (among others also Slavic part ) of Europe. They need Russia today to have a tool in their hands to threaten those against whom they are angry, tomorrow they will mock them as they mocked them during the Cold War. There are some politicians in Russia that would possibly accept this role in the false image that this will contribute to their power. But all this is a self-deception, not a constructive problem solving. They will expose Russia to ridicule.
Pan-Slavism was proposed by some Slav intellectuals in the 19-th century and it was possible on line with European policy of that time which was nationalistic(or such in early development). The experience of 20-th century brought some changes which made national policies irrelevant and unproductive. If today somebody plays on this card then this is for reason of lacking capacity to think another way or a pure ill will, disregarding completely the real needs of own nation. Serbia today needs an Ataturk to make end with their Ottoman-type of policy and so open the gate to Europe. To compensate internal weakness with geopolitical domination is not on line with Pan-European thinking today.
Instead of pouring money in these countries, similar as it was with Marshall Plan after the WWII, I propose a political confrontation with open discussion of the problem. Under present governments these countries can be only a ‘bag without bottom’ for a money poured into it. Without really democracy, this money will not produce any effect. The ex-Yugoslavia is the best example for this. In this sense, the situation is not completely identical with that which was created after WWI.