Russia can't accept a defeat and now wants revenge. Info-Prim Neo interview with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky

[ - Mr. Bukovsky, what chance brings you to Moldova, is it professional interest or are you just visiting friends? Is it your first visit to our country?] - It is the first visit; I came here without any agenda. I just came to see some friends. I happened to be in Crimea for a symposium and I saw that from Crimea is probably the shortest way for me to ever be here, because otherwise I would never had the chance of visiting your country. [ - What are your impressions about Moldova and its people?] - My stay was too quick to tell you much, only as much I could see from the car in the city (Chisinau). And then we went to see this wine cellar (Cricova)... very impressive one! But impressions are like from all East European countries, it's not very much different, except that it's very hot. I also paid attention to all these new houses. It means that in the last few years here was a boom in constructions... Yet, very typical of almost any East European country, wherever you go... [ - You are a well-known human rights activist. You must know something about the observance of human rights in Moldova, about the state of democracy. What is your opinion?] - It doesn't differ very much from any other East European country, in all respects. I mean, you have more or less the same level of corruption, the same abuses as in Romania, Hungary or any other country in the region. But the problem is the post-Communist society, which has mostly people who were in nomenclature remaining in positions of power or influence. Typical of many post-Communist countries. [- Now, maybe you can tell some of the main similarities and differences between the Moldovan society and the Russian society] - Well, that would be much different, much more deeply different, because in Russia things unfortunately went backwards. It came to a certain stage, it could have developed further, but it didn't, rolling all the way down. So, in this respect, the direction of development in Russia is completely opposite to any other East European country. And of course, now in Russia it is a period of dismantling of democracy, of institutions of free press, of independence of the judiciary. They're trying to restore some semblance of the Soviet system, both inside of the country and now outside of it, that's the simplest way to explain what's happening. You know, in other East European countries there are progresses, at least they are trying to develop further. Even in the countries where the Communists came back to power, like it was in Romania with Iliescu, or... [ ... or like in Moldova] ... Yes. Or like in Hungary, the government is still Communist, probably not for long... The same happened in Poland; there were periods when Communists came back. But. Even when they came back, they didn't try to restore the former system, they knew there was no way back. [ - What would be your advice to Moldova: to stay with Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States or should it be the West and the European Union? Or, is it possible to choose both?] - No, you can't choose both. Not at the moment, I mean at the time when Russia develops backwards. Well, the future is of course for you, as for anyone, in developing democracy and you should be more close to Western models rather than to any Soviet past. The Soviet past is a dead-end, it doesn't develop anywhere else. So, of course it's the West. But the question is when and how. It doesn't entirely depend on your decision. [ - From what you've seen during your brief stay, is Moldova an European country?] - Of course it is European. Even Russia is European... I mean, we are part of the European civilization and we can't change that. The most important thing now is to restore a certain normality, when democracy is democracy, when the media is the media, and not some kind of PR for someone. It will take some time, but we'll reach there. The biggest question was, in the beginning, in early nineties, whether Moldova would join Romania or not. And that could have happened at that time. According to the documents I've seen, it came very close. Simply Gorbachev didn't want to discuss the issue, as he already had a lot of problems with other republics. So he became apprehensive and asked Romania not to raise this question. And Iliescu said, OK, I wouldn't. If he pressed the point at that time – it was our territory, it was occupied by Stalin, and so on – Gorbachev would have probably agreed, he didn't have much of a choice, the country was falling apart. But Romania didn't press the point, and that's it. [ - Mr. Bukovsky, let's pass on to another issue: the recent developments in Georgia. It echoes some past wars involving Russia. Now, is Russia able to repeat some kind of invasion into Moldova, in the context of the Transnistrian issue, or maybe into Ukraine. If that happens, what would be Russia's reasons or pretexts?] - Technically they can. Would they decide to do it from the political perspective, is a big question. But, as far as Georgia is concerned, it was a plan, a provocation for a very long time, and as I imagine, they were preparing it for several months at least; the idea being, as I told you, the restoration of the Soviet Union in essence. What they are trying to do now is to restore their former sphere of influence. That is why they are making more pressure on the Baltic countries, on Poland. They can't accept a defeat, which happened at the beginning of nineties, and now they want a revanche. And that is the root of the problem in Georgia. The Russians now fear the countries which want to join NATO, because they feel it as the development of a defeat. It was relatively easy for them in Georgia, because Georgia has a very small army. And the Americans, well, the Americans have never guaranteed them anything. They could never seriously guarantee the security of Georgia, because they do not have any army here, they are very far away, they are already engaged in two wars... and they have never encouraged Georgia to become more assertive... [ - Russia is no doubt a very powerful country, especially in this region, and during the onset of the war in Georgia the Moldovan government wasn't able to formulate an official statement to either denounce or praise Russia for its actions. Is Moldova doomed to remain silent and meek whenever Russia says or does something?] - Moldova was not the only country which couldn't formulate what to say on that. Even Belarus didn't formulate its position. The Chinese also chose to stay out. Most of the countries just couldn't. The definition is very simple: what they did in Georgia was aggression, under the Charter of the United Nations it's definitely aggression, because legally it's still Georgian territory. And defining it as an aggression is a very strong move on the part of the West. That means that the country which committed aggression must get some sanctions. But the West didn't want to go into it because relations are very fragile with Russia and lots of things depend on more balanced relations. Now, if big powers didn't know how to formulate definitions, then what can you expect from Moldova or the Baltic countries? They are in some sort of a limbo because their geopolitical interests are connected to the West, and if the West doesn't formulate anything... [ - Is Moldova going to stay for long under Russia's influence?] - It's very difficult to say. The Russian situation is not stable. It's very unstable, contrary to what the world says about the Russian stability. It's no stability. Russia is temporarily successful because of the high prices of oil, and everyone understands that once prices go down Russia will go into a very profound crisis. They just haven't developed anything, it's some kind of a Gulf state, they just accumulate dollars from pumping oil. No industry, no investment into infrastructure. So, once golden bananas stop, they will be back to square one. And that might happen pretty soon. So when we are talking about Russian influence, we should remember that they themselves are very unstable and are not likely to stay in the way they are right now. But again, you have problems that you didn't solve yourselves – what to do with Transnistria, should we be independent or should we join Romania? [ - In 2007 you decided to run for Russia's President. Why? Didn't you know you were going to lose?] It's not a question of losing, it's a question of not being registered. I knew they would never register me as a candidate. They have some legal provisions that they would use as excuses to disqualify anyone. It was part of a game we agreed between ourselves, I mean most of the people who were playing at that time from the oppositional side: Yabloko, SPS (Soyuz Pravyh Sil/The Union of the Right Forces), Gary Kasparov, Kassianov. It was kind of a joint agreement, because we knew the Kremlin will try to prevent any candidate from the democratic side. And then we decided to diversify: different people with different backgrounds, whom you couldn't disqualify on the same reason. It was a pact – whatever happens, we stick together, we are the same team. If several people get registered, then we will decide among us who has the biggest chance, and we will be the team supporting him. We never broke that agreement, we did exactly as we said. My part of the plan was to bring some excitement into those rather dull elections. Everyone knew that whoever the Kremlin appoints for president will be the next president, because all is in their hands. In fact, it's not elections, it's appointment. People would not be allowed to campaign either, they will be threatened, kicked out of the job or university. So, I had to bring certain excitement. We clearly defined opposition, which was supposed to be an alternative to what suggested by the Kremlin. And second, my feeling was that people became a bit scared. In the situation when the country is scared again, all you can do is just to come and say “I'm not scared!”, and encourage people a bit. [ - But from what we've seen here from Russian television and radio, people didn't seem scared at all, on the contrary.] - No, they were. When I first came they were scared. There were so many repressions, there were murders, and people were kind of apprehensive. One thing I noticed, rather funny thing, speaking in public people prefer not to name Putin by name, it was “him”, “they”, “the Kremlin”, but never pronouncing his name. It was almost like in Middle Ages, they would not name the devil because the devil might turn up. That's an indication of how scared they were. I noticed that journalists became very cautious, when formulating a question they try to be very neutral. And of course the main media couldn't even approach anyone of us, they knew they would not be allowed. So, there was a certain scare in the country, which we managed to overcome. And the final purpose of the game was to try to unite the democratic opposition, which is split in so many ways, and as a result, doesn't have much of influence. I had a unique position, because I'm not a member of any party, I'm not committed in this sense, so I can speak to anyone. And I did. We slowly worked out some points on which we can be united and work together. That continues now. They will hold what they call the national assembly of the democratic forces, elected from across Russia, which will work out the platform, how we proceed, and so on. This process started in the campaign. It was one of our tasks. [ - What are your current occupations?] - This year I've already been once to St. Petersburg. It was the beginning of this process of uniting the opposition. I might go there again when they decide to hold that assembly. Otherwise, I'm fully booked for trips in different countries... It's a very busy life... You know, once Russia becomes aggressive again, our unique experience is important, people want advice. We used to fight against the Soviet Union when it was very aggressive and we found ways to play down with it. [ - You are still living in London...] ... In Cambridge [ - ... Yes, near London. Do you think you belong there? Are you considering moving back to your motherland, Russia?] Well, it so happened that I spent half of my life in Russia and half of my life abroad – 34 years in the Soviet Union and 32 years in the West. So it doesn't matter for me, I have as many commitments in the West as I have in Russia, probably more in the West. I'm involved in a campaign against the European Union becoming very bureaucratic and neglecting democratic procedures. It's a big movement across Europe, which I'm a part of, and it's plenty of work there, as well. Russia stopped being my single interest very early, somewhere in mid eighties when we understood that Communism was a world phenomenon and we have to fight it everywhere. And we created an organization called Resistance International (Интернационал сопротивления), uniting 49 anticommunist movements from all over the world. And therefore I was never narrowly targeting Russia, it was just a part of a big problem. [Vladimir Bukovsky, biographical data:] *Former Soviet dissident, renowned human rights activist and author; *Spent a total of 12 years in prisons and mental hospitals for activities deemed anti-Soviet; *In 1976 manages to leave the Soviet Union and settles in Cambridge, England, where he writes and co-authors multiple books and political essays, including “A Manual on Psychiatry for Dissidents” ("Пособие по психиатрии для инакомыслящих") and “Soviet Hypocrisy and Western Gullibility”; *Co-founder of an anticommunist world organization called Resistance International; *After the collapse of the URSS, participates in a legal case to condemn the CPUS, during which he acquires access to secret Soviet documents; *In 2007 he submits files to run for Russia's president, but the Central Election Commission disqualifies him.