Haaretz.
The Russian leader would appeal to a country whose democracy is unstable, whose leadership views democratic values and human rights as a dangerous threat.
Nitzan Horowitz
When he left the university, the macho young man from Leningrad in the Soviet Union chose a promising career with the Committee for State Security, better known by its Russian initials, the KGB. Vladimir Putin rose through the ranks of this organization of oppression and espionage, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel. His last significant post was in East Germany, assisting the East German secret police, the Stasi, which hunted down opponents of the regime and pro-democracy activists.
One wonders whether this erstwhile KGB representative, now Russia’s president, investigated/tortured/assaulted them with his own muscular arms that he shows off in his meticulously-posed photos from his presidential hunting trips, or whether he simply ordered the imprisonment, expulsion or forced hospitalization of East German citizens.
“Sometimes I wonder if Putin is in fact human or maybe just a kind of frozen metal statue. If he is human, it’s not apparent,” wrote Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist who was later murdered. I had the privilege of adding a sad postscript to her last book, “Putin’s Russia.” The book cost her her life. There are some among Israel’s leadership who flirt with Vladimir Putin. Many others here admire him. What a man! In their view, the United States is no longer the automatic option, because they have baseless issues to settle with Barack Obama and also because democracy annoys them.
It’s a dangerous game. More than reflecting on Putin’s power, it reflects on Israel’s weakness. A democratic country shouldn’t have any dilemma here: Putin is not an option for it, but Putin would appeal to a country whose democracy is unstable, whose leadership views democratic values and human rights as a dangerous threat.
Putinism, that oppressive rule that persecutes its political rivals and anyone who dares tweet in the media, culture and the business world, is particularly tempting. But who admires Putinism? Those whose democratic backbone is bent, who view freedom of expression and creativity as signs of laxity and atrophy. Extreme right-wing parties such as the National Front in France worship him.
Our communications minister (and prime minister) Benjamin Netanyahu surely envies him. Why tend to the quality of life of the common citizen? Why address huge social disparities when the most important thing is to maintain national pride, and silence criticism, of course, since it constitutes ammunition in the hands of the enemy.
Opposition? Civil rights groups? They’re a bunch of traitors. The declared goal is cultivating national honor, and along the way, in some small way, keeping the government in the right hands. That’s a Putinist conceptual world.
“But Putin is the only one dealing with Islamic terrorism,” the defense types will say. So that’s final. But it’s not. It is the primarily the United States and the U.S.-led Western coalition that is bombing Islamic State targets. Only a small portion of the Russian assaults have been against ISIS targets. By chance? By accident? No. And no. Putin is mainly attacking the moderate pro-Western Syrian opposition groups. That’s his expertise from his time back in Leningrad and East Germany.
Putin, who is facing economic collapse at home, is trying to save Assad’s regime and ensure Russian arms contracts and military bases in the Middle East, mainly as leverage against the West, which imposed sanctions on Russia following its aggression in Ukraine. He’s not a master chess player. Instead he’s a compulsive gambler who is just raising the stakes in the hopes of hitting a jackpot that will never come.
When Putin invaded Crimea, Israel did not participate in the emergency session at the United Nations on the matter. When the United States fumed over its absence, Israel came up with the excuse that the Foreign Ministry staff were on strike. No one serious bought the argument. Israel simply didn’t want to take sides. That’s not smart diplomacy. Its foolishness bordering on a total loss of direction. It’s evidence of a faulty foreign-relations compass, and mainly of a burnt-out conscience.