Thursday, July 10, 2008

Fellow Travelers and Useful Idiots

Sometimes I wonder whether Mary Dejevsky is not actually in the pay of the Kremlin lie factory.

Pieces like her latest in The Independent leave me open mouthed. The idea that Britain is in some way responsible for Kremlin sanctioned murders in London, "because we give asylum to the Kremlin's enemies" is simply despicable. The special pleading she makes for the Kremlin is reminiscent of the most lick spittle Communist fellow traveller. The fact is that Russian agents were sent from Moscow to kill in broad daylight, and with scant regard for the well-being of any innocents who might have got in the way.

Then again, she actually supports authoritarianism- her piece in January was nothing short of disgraceful.


Anonymous said...


You do not support Authoritianism but is your position on Russia's past too different even if you reach different conclusions. You believe Russia has never had anything other than a tradition of absolutist autocracy until 15 years ago. As awful as Putin is in your eyes the handover from Yeltsin was the first non violent handover of power from one Russian ruler to the next in History never mind where the previous incumbent gets to spend the rest of his days peacefully.

I suggest you read the current Economist. It's clear some kind of transition is under way. I think it is the transition to Medvedev. True it's gradual and I'm sure you will rant Putin will stay as the real power and yet Cicero had he wanted he could have done anything third term life term whatever he didn't. So perhaps despite the arselikhan of Dejevsky you might reconsider Russia as well. Imperfect often extremely violent by Western standards but it still looks favourable next to Central Asia or China.


Andy Cooke said...

God, what an unpleasant article by Dejevsky. Is she really saying that a sovereign nation is justified in painfully murdering refugees from hiding in other nations?
As for that piece in January - someone should remind her that "Benevolent" and "authoritarianism" tend not to get along very well.
(And who's to define the merit in her "meritocracy"? Could it be merit that she'd approve of? In which case her argument simplifies to: "The best Government would be a Government made up of people I'd approve of, that the people can't throw out, with ultimate power over every aspect of their lives".
What a seriously unpleasant stance of hers.