Byzantine Blog

Dumping on Russia and Serbia

By Michael Averko

A recent International Herald Tribune article by Nicholas Wood entitled "Serbs use words of Western leaders to support their stand" (Dec. 16) has the following commonly unchallenged cliché: "For all their ties with Russia - including a shared Christian Orthodox faith and military alliances dating back two centuries - Serbs today appear to have far more in common with the West. Serbia borders the European Union to the north and east and does not border Russia, Bokan noted. And Serbs, he said, play in the National Basketball Association in the United States and in soccer clubs throughout Europe."

I submitted a reply to the International Herald Tribune expressing these thoughts:

Many Russians play in the North American based National Hockey League. At least two (to my knowledge) Russians play in the National Basketball Association. There are a good number of Americans, Serbs and other non-Russians (Greeks, Croats and Lithuanians primarily among them) playing in the Russian Basketball Super League. The coach of the European champion Russian national men's basketball team is American Israeli David Blatt. The top three Russian basketball teams are coached by non-Russians. Italian Ettore Messina coaches the defending European basketball club champion CSKA Moscow. Dynamo Moscow is coached by Serb Svetislav Pesic. Khimki Moscow Region is coached by Lithuanian Kestutis Kemzura, with American Russell Bergman assisting him.

Wood's article is another example of the preferred spin found in English language mass media. Russia versus the West, as if the West is so monolithic and Russia very distant from it. In support of the article's view, an agreeable Serb is quoted. In English language mass media, it often appears that some otherwise minority Russian and Serb views are disproportionately propped. The piece is written in a way that pleases those most responsible for enhancing the division between Russia, Serbia and the West. Fortunately, there are people in the West seeking to override policies running contrary to Western interests. Russia and Serbia are not so much anti-West as they are against some core neoconservative and neoliberal views. It is inaccurate to have the Sorosians and neocons depicted as reflecting the West's best interests.

Wood's article ends with retired American diplomat William Montgomery psychoanalyzing the Serbs. In comparison, the not always so free American mass media is not as willing to psychoanalyze the likes of Montgomery.

Frostier U.S.-Russia Relations: Who is Responsible?

To further diffuse Wood's slant, note that the Russians and Serbs were allies of the West during two world wars. The underlying point being that the historically suggested Russia-Serbia versus West or Russia versus West with Serbia on the fence depictions are not clear realities to casually accept.

A less refined version of my submitted International Herald Tribune letter was emailed to a list of Russia watchers. For others besides myself, the internet is a candy store of information, inclusive of establishing contact with a politically diverse range of people interested in the same subject matter. A few of them suggest I am overreacting (in their view) to the honest oversight of a journalist, who was lax in a non-calculated way. Based on numerous prior instances, I cannot fully accept this explanation. The possibility of laxness does not negate the political direction of Wood's article and many others.

American mass media has its fault lines in the way it tends to cover certain topics. The examples are numerous enough to firmly validate this view. There is Ashleigh Banfield's experience with NBC cable television. I recall a New York Times article describing Vojislav Kostunica as legally condescending without writing negatively of Carla Del Ponte, who was also mentioned in that piece. When the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (abbreviated as ICTY) is referenced, there is little criticism of its otherwise circumspect manner. One is more prone to finding valid critiques of it at some lesser known sources. As per my prior commentary: at American mass media venues, Russia has been accused of "hypocrisy" on the issue of former Communist bloc territories (more on this point in a bit). Also previously noted by yours truly: in that particular media, it is not as easy to find articles noting how Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) has a much better case for independence than Kosovo, vis-à-vis historical and human rights issues.

Several individuals respectfully suggested to me that Russian actions over the past few years have prompted English language mass media journalists to take an understandably (in their opinion) more critical stance towards Russia. On who is most responsible for the frostier aspects of the Russo-American relationship, consider the following:

- The first wave of NATO expansion led to some blatant expressions of anti-Russian biases. Like the one suggesting that Russia is inherently evil and must be punished for the Soviet period and NATO should always exclude Russia. These comments were made after Russia expressed an interest in joining NATO.

- Between America and Russia, the post-Soviet era score of attacking other countries is two to nothing in favor of the US. The reasons for attacking Yugoslavia (in 1999) and Iraq (in 2003) are arguably questionable (put mildly). The Clinton administration led NATO bombing of historically Russia friendly Serbia & Montenegro (which at the time constituted "rump" Yugoslavia) struck a noticeable chord among a good number of Russians. Regarding that action, Noam Chomsky is not off base for saying that Turkey and Israel could have been bombed on the same claimed principle of supporting a militarily weaker side against a greater force (refer to Turkey's past actions against the Kurds and Israel's response to some Arab acts). On this point, the more conservative minded Pat Buchanan, Doug Bandow and Justin Raimondo share Chomsky's view. Concerning post-Soviet Russian military actions: the vulgar aspects of the two post-Soviet Chechen wars (fought inside Russia) stem from Russia having a weakened and not always so well disciplined armed forces, combined with the brutish manner of some of the Chechen insurgents. Russia's need to have a relatively strong conventional armed forces has been acknowledged by some Western analysts. Russia waited at least a couple of years from when it had a reasonable basis (as far as reasons for waging war go) to wage its first war in Chechnya. The second Chechen war came after Chechen terrorists attacked the Russian republic of Dagestan.

- The Western economic advice accepted by Boris Yeltsin's presidency was harsh for many Russians. Russia should share some of the blame on this matter. At the same time, the West was in a position to advise in a more sensible way. In retrospect, Jeffrey Sachs acknowledges this point. Along with Anders Aslund, Sachs was one of the Western economic advisers to Yeltsin's administration.

- The willingness of some formidable Western circles to take the side of of dissident Russian oligarchs (the Edward Lozansky stated "KGB") against the Russian government.

- The Western slant on the so called "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine had unnecessarily provocative aspects to it. There is sufficient evidence showing that Russian intervention on the Blue side came AFTER Western Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) started backing the Orange side, which had Russia unfriendly elements. Although not directly affiliated with Western governments, some of the NGOs have had close ties with them. A good number of these NGOs receive generous government grants. During the so called "Orange Revolution", there were credible enough accounts indicating that Orange and Western NGO claims of Blue fraud were circumspect. The Blue side was not without fault. This was also true of the Orange side and the English language mass media coverage of the so called "Orange Revolution". The latter tilted in a subjective pro-Orange/anti-Blue direction.

- Western NGO involvement with the government changes in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan prompted some influential Western politicos to say that such advocacy should be tried in Russia. Many Russians saw this brazenly stated desire as an attempt to interfere in their country. Like it or not, most Russians are satisfied with Putin's presidency. In recent times, the popularity of "revolution" has waned in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. Putin is more popular in Ukraine when compared to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's popularity in Russia.

- The previously mentioned (in this article) hypocrisy of supporting a not so Russia friendly secessionist movement in Kosovo over more Russia friendly ones elsewhere. Whereas the official US position eggs on Kosovo independence, Russia supports an across the board negotiated settlement route, without a pre-stated advocacy of supporting independence for any of the disputed lands (Kosovo, Pridnestrovie, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh).

In the West, there is an increased unhappiness with the domestic Russian political scene. Russia's loyal friends should not be completely happy with the overall situation in Russia. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that there is no utopia to be found anywhere. The Russian domestic political front is an internal matter which does not threaten the West. A balanced perspective acknowledges that Russia's political situation is not finalized. Its educated population maintains numerous freedoms, unlikely to be taken away in the future.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. In addition to Serbianna, his commentary has appeared in the Action Ukraine Report, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson's Russia List, Reuters, Russia Blog, Siberian Light, The New York Times and The Tiraspol Times.