THE WOOLWICH ATTACK AS A REASON TO TAKE STOCK

This article was supposed to begin with a story about a unique trial in the history of post-war Germany - the trial of the "Zwickau troika" - members of a neo-Nazi cell called "National Socialist Under-ground" (NSU), who killed 10 people in different cities of Germany from 2000 to 2007.

However, the news of the brutal murder of a soldier in the heart of London on 22 May shifted the focus and generated a number of questions. The latest developments: explosions during an annual marathon in Boston, the trial of a neo-Nazi group which began in Germany, riots in the suburbs of Stockholm, the brutal murder of a soldier in London ... Are all these different faces of the same phenomenon? Is it a chain of related events? Is it just a coincidence?

At first glance, the NSU story is pretty clear. The violence, committed by members of the group, had an arbitrary nature and was perpetrated on grounds of ethnic hatred - most of the victims were citizens of Turkish origin. In the dock is the main accused in this sensational case - 38-year-old Beate Zschaepe, who is charged with the direct planning and preparation of the killings, drawing attack and escape routes, preparation of shelters and participation in 15 bank robberies.

However, despite the seeming obviousness and enormity of the crimes committed, it is expected that this trial will last for several months. The defendants' lawyers have already expressed doubts about the impartiality of the judges. In addition, some observers believe that it will not be easy to prove the guilt of Zschaepe, since the investigation has no hard evidence. Maybe that's why, eyewitnesses say, the woman listened to the charges with a straight and even haughty face.

The trial of the "troika" stirred up the muddy, stagnant waters of reality and brought a lot of questions, rumours and speculation to the surface. First, many people did not quite understand why the court allocated only 50 seats to the press and why mainly German journalists got them, while reporters from the world media, including those from Turkey, were allowed into the courtroom after lengthy negotiations. Second, the German media started saying that Germany's system of internal security suffered a serious failure and urgently needs to be reformed. According to a number of journalists and experts, whom they quoted, only the weakness of the internal security system can explain the fact that members of the neo-Nazi group managed to commit their terrible deeds all these years with impunity.

However, not everyone was satisfied with the explanation about "the weakness of internal security". As a result, persistent rumours have spread that the "Zwickau troika" probably remained invulnerable for many years with the help of special services, or even some political parties such as the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) established in 1964. There is no direct evidence, of course, but there are already people who are convinced that Beate Zschaepe and her "colleagues" are just the tip of the iceberg and perpetrators, while the real culprits will never appear in the dock.

Of course, what happened in Germany and the very existence of an organization like the NSU generates quite legitimate questions about the cause of the appearance of far-right moods? What allows the neo-Nazi ideology to thrive in the 21st century? Of course, you might think that the proponents of neo-Nazi ideas and actions have some psychological problems. For example, according to eyewitnesses, Beate Zschaepe almost enjoyed the trial and the attention she was receiving, and this is despite the fact that she might face life in prison. She is either very self-confident, for which there must be a reason, or is really mentally unhealthy. Perhaps it is true. But to think that the disease of neo-Nazi ideas begins with the ceremonial hoisting of a portrait of Hitler over the bed and the memorization of "Mein Kampf" is self-deception. It's time to admit that extreme right sentiments generate such pressing problems as failed regulation of immigration, the failure of the policy of multiculturalism and economic crisis ... and, of course, the foreign policy decisions of a country. It turns into a combustible mixture of various terms, ideologies, interests and patterns. And it also has two sides.

An example of the first side is the brutal murders perpetrated by members of the NSU in Germany. An example of the second side is the loathsome brutal murder of a soldier in the UK.

It happened on one of the busiest streets of Woolwich in south-east London. The victim was 25-year-old Lee Rigby, who served in the unit of drummers in the second battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and had been on lengthy missions in Afghanistan twice. At the time of death, he was wearing a T-shirt with an inscription calling for donations in favour of military heroes. Actually, this is what he was killed for. He was an accidental, but natural victim. And members of the NSU acted with the same natural pattern.

On a video recording that fell into the hands of ITV News, one of the murderers of the soldier in London explains his action in the following way: "The only reason we killed that man is that Muslims are dying every day. We will never stop fighting if you do not leave us alone ... An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." At the end of his speech, the man calls for the overthrow of the government that "does not care" about common people and for the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan "so that we all live in peace".

At the same time, the criminal apologized to women, because they had to watch the crime, but added that "in his country women see the same thing". The man on the video does not mention what country he was talking about, however the British security services have already established that the criminals, at least one of whom grew up in London, had ties with Nigerian and Somali Islamist organizations.

The Muslim Council of Britain strongly condemned the crime, but that did not stop the British ultra-rightists. Activists of the far-right organization English Defence League - about 100 people - took to the streets of Woolwich, chanting racist slogans and protesting against immigration and the spread of Islam. They clashed with the police. Also, immediately after the news of the murder, there were two attacks on mosques - in the counties of Essex and Kent. Thus, the circle filled with that same aforementioned "combustible mixture" closed - it is foreign policy (London's participation in military operations in Afghanistan) and the failure of multiculturalism (the murderer grew up in the UK, but nothing links him with this country).

By an unfortunate coincidence, at the same time as the incident in London, immigrant suburbs of Stockholm were enveloped by many days of riots. The riots began in Husby district in the west of the Swedish capital, where a 69-year-old man was shot allegedly for brandishing a machete. 80 per cent of the population of Husby comes from Somalia, Turkey and the Middle East, and the area is gripped by poverty and unemployment. It suddenly turned out that in a country which consistently takes one of top places in the world by the level and quality of life in various rankings and reports, there are many serious problems among immigrants. According to various reports, the unemployment rate among immigrants is much higher than among ethnic Swedes, and the housing problem is acute. In addition, immigrants are dissatisfied with the way the police treat them - they call it degrading and biased and riddled with xenophobic statements. Politicians, in their opinion, tend to gloss over problems. And all this is described with an interesting term - institutional racism. As a result, the "combustible mixture" is becoming even more explosive.

Fuel to the fire was added by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called the killing of the soldier in London a terrorist attack. And, in principle, he is right. In short, a terrorist attack is any act that could lead to the death of a person or other serious consequences and is based on the desire to influence decision-making by a government or an international organization. The killers of Lee Rigby put forward quite clear demands. But it is not so logical why the explosion during the marathon in Boston in the United States was described as a terrorist act - after all, it is still not clear what its perpetrators sought and wanted to say.

Nevertheless, those who committed the explosion in Boston and those who stabbed a soldier in London have actually been put in the same row and combined with a new term - "homegrown terrorists". These are the ones that are not members of known terrorist networks and act unpredictably and alone...

Thus, there is no clear analysis of the situation. And it could not happen anyway. There is a shift of concepts and terms (such as terrorism and mass murder or Nazism and xenophobia), the cause and the effect are being confused (do foreign policy decisions help to combat terrorist threats or create them?), and a terrorist attack with clear political objectives creates an upsurge in ultra-right sentiment and makes one mull the immigration policy.

It is hardly worth reassuring ourselves that these problems have a one-off nature. Murder in broad daylight in the heart of London with a knife for cutting meat is no less terrible in its consequences than the bombings of buses and metro stations. The British police have started heavily guarding areas of London populated by immigrants from Muslim countries. Also, it is recommended that British troops temporarily should not put on their uniform in public places. And when the military are afraid to wear a uniform in their own country, it is somewhat not too comfortable...