Ближний Восток и его соседи

g 55 h A Russian Post-Imperial Policy Paper on the Imperial Political Logic Concerning... It concludes with a bibliography (p. 110–112) comprising 34 entries in Russian of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs publications and books on Afghanistan mainly by Russian and British military officers. Though the paper was compiled under duress by an imprisoned author who was desperately fighting for a proper judicial process there are no signs of his attempts to please his Soviet captors by paying at least some lip service to Communist ideology. Vvedenskiy’s report is remarkably devoid of Soviet terminology and political references; on the contrary his contempt for the new overlords is hardly disguised with his refusal to comprehend what he calls “the nationalisation of foreign trade” and failure to grasp “the principles of foreign policy of the new Socialist government” vis-à-vis the Middle East and Cen- tral Asia. However, his vehemently anti-British position may have touched the chord with the Soviets. It is striking to observe his disdain for the British policies in the Middle East and Central Asia developing from page to page with the starting point of describing Anglo-Russian relations as “the friendly ones” 5 to a clear-cut prediction of an imminent Anglo-Russian military confrontation in the region 6 . That notwithstanding, Vvedenskiy’s emphasis on equilibrium ( ravnovesie ) reminds of the very British foreign policy concept of the balance of power and his fear of the British incitement of anti-Russian sentiments in Central Asia mirrors those on the British side; while his pride in reigning in tribal chaos and lawlessness will look familiar to all other European colonisers of the time. There are remarkable similarities between the two imperial rivals in and around Central Asia and Afghanistan, i. e. the British and the Russian Empires, in their attitudes, opportunistic instrumentalization of political concepts and promotion of self-interest 7 . Vvedenskiy remarks that the enlargements of both British and Russian ter- ritorial possessions were “forced by circumstances” 8 . This acknowledgement of a mainly accidental nature of both British and Russian imperial expansions is reiterated by modern historical scholarship that sees no traces of grand im- perial designs in either London or St Petersburg with both Empires being in pain to find a rationale for their land grabs; often after the fait accompli . The previous assertions that both Empires were motivated by either economic 5 Vvedenskiy. P. 6, 9. 6 Vvedenskiy. P. 102. 7 For an analysis of the British attitude towards their overseas domains I would refer the reader to David Cannadine’s study while the Russian views of their empire still await their inquisitive student (Cannadine D. Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire. London: The Penguin Books, 2002). 8 Vvedenskiy. P. 1.