The Thames Star. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1894. THE GUILELBSSNBSS OF RUSSIA.

Thames Star, Volume XXV, Issue 4668, 23 February 1894, Page 2

The Thames Star. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1894. THE GUILELBSSNBSS OF RUSSIA.

In a recent issue the Sydney Daily Telegraph reprints selections from an interesting interview between a representative of the. Melbourne Age and Mr Alexis Poritiata, the recently arrived Russian Consul at the sister capital, who has come straight from St. Petersburg, and has had long experience ia the diplomatic service or Bussia. Space will not permit us to republiah the interview, as it is of considerable length, but an excellent idea its tone will be t obtained from the Telegraph's criticism of it. Our conjwaporary saye;->" Part of Mr IW

tiata's mission to Australia, it appears, is to' explain away' the absurd idea that Russia is our natural enemy, and he begins by the assurance that the cable messages as to the likelihood of a war between England and Russia struck him as 'incredible an

amzing.' In Russia, he says, 'no one ■ speaks of war.' Yet, the only influential class in Russia is notoriously the most fire-eating Chauvinist party in the universe. With its own money it built the ' Volunteer* fleet of warships, whose raison d'etre is war, and war purely and wholly aggressive. This warlike influence is the greatest social force in the empire of the Czar, and no sophistry at Mr Pontiata's command can conceal that war is its constant aim and chief theme of discussion, year in and year out. The manacled Press voices, on permission, the warlike aspirations of this class, and in language of unbridled insolence, as it suits the official purpose at the moment, jibes at the country, usually Britain, which presumes to thwart its aggressive projects ; while the history of Russia in Asia during the last 20 years is an almost unbroken record of aggression, spoliation, and ruthless bloodshed.

Mr Pontiata states thai; he comes to Australia primarily with the object of opening up • commercial relations' between Australia and Russia, and it is curious to observe in this connection that this was precisely the message which his country's emissaries carried to the Turkomans when Russia started on her gigantic scheme of conquest onwards from her Caspian base, and which was followed by a succession of sanguinary campaigns and a continuous aggressive march that has brought her base, at a huge cost of blood and treasure, coterminous with the Afghan frontier. Mr Pontiata says that ' India is not our aim ;' that there is a ' great felling' in Russia that 'it is necessary to take measures for self-defence, but there is no aggressive spirit.' If India is not Russia's aim, and aggression and spoliation its object, why those prolonged and costly campaigns of conquest in Asia, and the construction of a railway through the long Turcoman wastes to within striking distance of our Indian frontier? If her purpose is self-defence, what country threatens Russia or covets her colossal plunderings in that region ? Russia, according to Mr Pontiata, does not even ' object' to the Triple Alliance, but ' only takes exception to the purpose,' for which Germany, Austria, and Italy have combined. The purpose of these Powers in uniting their forces was admittedly one of pure self-defence, and their union has up to now succeeded in its object. In what particular has this alliance threatened the integrity of Russia, in Europe, or elsewhere ? The union, as a matter of fact, was largely due to the known aggressive designs of Russia, which aimed at a disturbance of the established equilibrium perilous to the interests of each of those countries. The reaourse to measures of selfdefence was, therefore, imposed upon them by the machinations of Russia, and even now that they have taken steps to defend, themselves against attack, in what region and in what manner does the alliance menace Russia ? If Russia has no aggressive ambitions, why did she despoil China of vast stretches of her Manchurian territory, and .thus grab a coastline and a seaport in the North Pacific, where she has not one halfpenny worth of interest ? Why, again, is she at the present moment laying down a strategic line of railway r through 5000 miles fof this and the contiguous Siberian country, thus connecting this seaport with her European railway system, and at the prodigious outlay of forty-two and a-half millions sterling? If there is no aggressive aim in this stupendous and costly undertaking, then what interest, commercial or otherwise, does Russia possess in the Pacific that she is making such giant off >rts to defend ? Russia confesses to be seeking from Greece a seaport iv the Mediterranean, and if there is no aggressive ac'ion in this desire, what interest of hers is menaced in a sea where she owns no territory, and where she has no commerce or shipsto defend ? Mr Pontiata has a useful future before him as a diplomatist; if he will satisfactorily 'explain away' these awkward historical facts."