Certainly, my investigation of the subject made me believe, that the regime of the contemporary Russia is truly fascist. During this investigation I also checked studies of Roger Griffin, who is a well-known specialist in fascism. Thus, I was astonished, how his term palingenetic ultranationalism precisely explains, why the fascism rose in Russia. According to Griffin, the palingenesis is what differentiates the true fascism from para-fascism. And, it was exactly what convinced me, that the ruscism is a true fascism (i.e., not para-fascism). But, later I found comments of Roger on this subject, in which he stated, that Russia does not seem to be fascist…
But, I don’t want to claim, that Roger Griffin is wrong (while, personally, I doubt, that he’s right)… Reading this article you should remember, that Roger is a scientist specializing in fascism, while I… just read a couple of scientific articles about fascism. So, obviously, you have many more reasons to trust Roger, than me! But… In this article I’m going to share my thoughts regarding Roger’s comments on the Russian fascism (or whatever it is). And, these thoughts can also be considered to be requests for comments to Mr. Griffin…
So, let’s start. Roger Griffin says:
From a technical point of view (on paper) Russia is not a single party state using mass organizations to create a New Russian and seeking to forge an alternative modernity in the spirit of political modernism. Thus technically it is not fascist and it does not help discussions to get bogged down on whether this word should be used or not. There are many ways human rights and democracy can be undermined and assaulted, not just by fascism. It seems to me that it is an immature parliamentary democracy corrupted by the forces of oligarchy and plutocracy, populist prejudices against non-Russian ethnic minorities and homosexuals, the influence of the church, and pursuing geopolitical ambitions to unite all ‘ethnic’ Russians shaped by a mixture of nostalgia for the Soviet empire, populist hypernationalism, and geopolitical ambitions fed by dangerous Eurasian fantasies fuelled by a curiously Russian form of New Right culturalism which does have affinities with fascism. So can we just leave fascism out of the discussion and concentrate on the uniqueness of the contemporary Russian state’s corruption of democracy and the dangers it poses to world peace with its expansionism and alliances, and not waste time on neo-scholastic disputes about terminology.
The fact, that Roger started the sentence with words “from a technical point of view”, I guess, means, that he was not sure (at least, “non-technically”). Also, the truly fascism Italy (what is a fact, without a doubt) also was not a single party state (technically) until 1928, when the National Fascist Party of Benito Mussolini became the only legally permitted party in the country. Or… Italy became truly fascist only in 1928?.. And, regarding “an alternative modernity”: Russia believes, that there was a fascist coup in Ukraine, while the rest of the world knows, that this was a people’s revolution. Russians believe, that they fight ISIS in Syria, while the rest of the world knows, that they destroy the opposition to their ally Assad. Russians claim, that they don’t violate borders of other countries, while the rest of the world, especially Russian neighbors, knows exactly, that they do this very often (and, that’s why Turkey had to shoot down their jet). And so on… What is it, if not “an alternative modernity”?.. So, the only thing, that I’m going to agree with Roger, is that Russia does not seem to strive for creating a New Russian (more likely, it wants to revive Old Soviet). Yet, I have some more thoughts about this tenet of fascism, that I will share later.
Afterwards, Roger shows irritation about the use of the term fascism in the context of contemporary Russia. Actually, I can understand him here, as the term is really overused nowadays (not only in regards to Russia) and it’s a well known issue. And, I guess, Mr. Griffin suffers from this issue a lot, as he is the first person to ask about fascism. But, I’m affraid, “we can’t just leave fascism out of the discussion”, as, in my opinion, it’s not just a term, that describes something solely in the past, but a next step of development of a post-imperial state. This means, that the fascism is going to rise again and again until there are powerful people, who miss the power of an Empire, they used to live in. In fact, it does not matter, how do you call this – a fascism, a neo-fascism, a proto-fascism or a ur-fascism – but it’s really important to be able to recognize it until it’s too late. And, I wonder, if this is what Mr. Griffin works on…
Also, I’m not sure, why Roger calls Russia a “parliamentary democracy”… Officially, it’s a semi-presidential democracy! But, obviously, it is ruled by one person – Vladimir Putin.
Afterwards, Roger Griffin continues his thoughts about why we should forget the word “fascism”:
If he is a pragmatist without a utopian totalitarian vision of a new type of modern state based on an anthropological and temporal revolution Putin IS NOT A FASCIST. But why this mindless obsession with whether he is a fascist or his state is fascist: ENGAGE WITH REALITY AND NOT CONCEPTS and the debate will move on: question: what is unique about Putin’s Russia? Is it a threat to international peace and internal democracy? TALK ABOUT REALITY NOT CONCEPTS.
Once again, “if he is” means, that Roger is unsure, as I understand. Certainly, only Putin can tell, who is he, and describe own vision, but he unlikely will (and I doubt he would tell the truth), so we can judge only by his actions.
Many scholars, not only Mr. Griffin, claim, that the true fascism is about some revolution, that should produce a new and a better state. It looks like this is what Roger speaks about here as well. And, I have to agree, that Russia does not seem to strive for creating a really new state. But, is this an essential tenet of fascism?.. I’m not sure. And still, Putin strives for recreating an old state in a different form – it wants USSR, but without communism. So, it can be said, that he does have “a utopian totalitarian vision of a new type of modern state”, but without any revolution.
Also, I can tell Roger, why is it important to talk about the fascism as a concept, if it applies to the contemporary Russia: Before the World War II, was it well known, that fascism is dangerous?.. Obviously, it was not. Some fascist ideas looked to be reasonable and that’s why it became so popular in Europe. In the very same way, it’s not obvious for many Europeans, that ruscism is dangerous. For the moment, I can say, that only such countries as Georgia, Ukraine and Turkey knows this for sure. And, these are the countries, that have already suffered from ruscism. So, does every country in the world need to gain similar experience to understand the danger?.. Also, you know, why Russians call Ukraine fascist (while it’s obviously not)?.. Because, it’s a perfect association, that makes people be biased against the country! As usually people do not learn the subject to check, whether it’s true. So, if Russia is a truly fascist state or is close to be, the appropriate recognition would help Europeans to understand better, who they deal with. That’s why, I believe, we should speak about the concept!
However, if Russia is not fascist and not even close to (I doubt, but…), I’m against recognizing the opposite officially. This would mean, that Europe will have to learn, what is the contemporary Russia and why ruscism is dangerous, like Georgia and Ukraine have learned, but still I’m against lies…
At the end of his article Anton Shekhovtsov – the man, who spoke to Roger – asks, what Russia should do to become a truly fascist state. And, here is what Roger Griffin answers:
To abolish the structures of separation of powers, civil freedoms, and plurality of parties and drench state rhetoric in the promise of creating a new order inhabited by new men in the name of a national destiny and supremacy.
Officially, Russia is a semi-presidential republic, but in practice it’s obvious, that everything is controlled by a single power. Thus, the parliament is always on the side of the president – and, if any deputy is not, he/she can even be arrested (on false accusations). Mass media never criticize the president – and, if they do, their reputation is tarnished, they are often labeled as “foreign agents” or even closed. The Prosecutor General’s Office, the Investigative Committee and courts help the regime and never touch its authorities (such as Chaika). Yes, officially, these powers are separate, but they are definitely not in practice! Why so?.. Because the Putin’s regime is trying to hide its nature (I personally believe, that the hypocrisy is one of the unique tenets of the Russian fascism). Did Mr. Griffin consider this?..
Regarding civil freedoms, it’s also obvious, that they are being abolished! There are many cases and new Russian laws, that prove this, but, maybe Roger’s comment was taken before this became so obvious…
I have already regarded the plurality of parties, but I’ll repeat again: First, the truly fascist Italy was multi-party at the beginning as well, so I doubt, that this indicates, that Russia is not fascist. Second, are main Russian political parties really independent (if so, why the leader of LDPR suggested to make Putin an Emperor?)?.. And, finally, Russia is considered to be the de-facto single party state.
I wonder, how come, that Roger Griffin does not know, that the new order is exactly what Russians struggle for. Thus, this is why Russian people are so glad, that Russia started bombing Syria – for them it indicates the change of the world order, where not only USA may advance their interests. Russian people are even ready to suffer (e.g., from sanctions and isolation) for some time as they believe, that this is “in the name of the national destiny and supremacy”! So, they think, that Russia is becoming a new world super power, that is going to replace USA! And, no, this is not due to their fantasies, but due to the “state rhetoric”, that is also repeated by pro-government (i.e., all trusted) Russian mass media!
The only thing, that I agree here, is the miss of the New Man concept in Russia.. And, it looks like Mr. Griffin believes, that the true fascism cannot exist without it. However, it should be noted, that the New Man was present in USSR and Putin strives for returning the era of this mighty country, so partially this also means the return of the New Soviet Man. In fact, it’s not just treated as something new, because many Russians believe, that they already are better than other nations – as they are Soviet people and members of the Russian world. Maybe other fascist regimes did not have this concept in their past, so they needed it?.. Maybe the contemporary (fascist?) Russia does not need it, as this concept was in the Empire, it strives for returning to? I’m not sure. I guess, Roger Griffin could help to clarify this…
]]>
But, first let’s learn, what is “ruscism”… This term was created by combining words “Russian” and “fascism”. It was first mentioned (as “russism”) by Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first President of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, during the First Chechen War (1994 – 1996). Then this term became popular in Georgia after the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. And now it’s widely used (as “ruscism”) by Ukrainians, some Russians and Belarusians.
The term ruscism is also very close in its meaning to the term putinism, which is well-known in the world.
Having learned deeply, what is fascism, I figured out, that the current regime in the Russian federation resembles it much. The regime in Ukraine, on the contrary, has a little to do with the real fascism. As a source of information about this ideology I used this page on Wikipedia (including all the related pages, e.g., about Nationalism). So, let me show you, what I discovered…
It must be noticed, that the concept of fascism is still very obscure. What, certainly, makes it possible for the term to be misused.
I assigned some score of each fascism tenet in modern Russia and Ukraine. You can see these scores in the picture to the right.
The Wikipedia page about fascism contains the list of “core tenets” to the right (hidden by default). However, this is not a strict list of tenets, that every fascist ideology should adhere to, but rather a list of tenets, that are common for many fascist regimes. So, let’s start with checking it.
Nationalism is quite popular in Ukraine – that’s true. Russian propaganda uses this fact along with presenting some Nazi individuals, who can be found in (almost) every country, to “prove”, that the Ukrainian government is a fascist one. However, there are plenty of types of nationalism and the one, that the Russian propaganda fits in with the fascism, is actually an ethnic nationalism – i.e. not exactly what the fascism is usually accompanied by…
Russians are convinced, that the nationalism has to be based on a particular ethnicity and, therefore, no nationalism can exist in Russia, because it’s multi-national – but, that’s not true. State or civic nationalism – the one, which is believed to be a component of fascism – can be based on a nation as people of the country. Thus, the Spanish Falange (a fascist regime) was multi-national too. In a radical form of the state nationalism people are asked to support, what is believed to be good for the state, even if it’s bad for them, and that’s what we can see in the Russian federation now. Thus, Russian people do support the Crimea annexation and Russia’s food counter-sanctions, while they have a huge negative affect on people’s life and even on the state’s economy, but are still believed to be generally good for the state somehow. Also, according to Peter Alter and David Brown the Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were examples of the integral nationalism. This type of nationalism usually thrives in countries, that have established the state after a struggle for unification. During such struggle the nation can produce the Risorgimento (resurgence) nationalism, which can later develop into the integral one, what happened in the Fascist Italy. The Risorgimento nationalism is characterized by the desire to consolidate nation’s territories – does not this sound like what we currently see in Russia, that attempts to consolidate all former USSR states?.. To do this the Russian Federation even used military forces in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea. The successful Crimea annexation caused another rise of nationalism in Russia, what, perhaps, made it even closer to the intergral one – the same nationalism, that was in the Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
There is no totalitarianism nor even authoritarianism in Ukraine. Russia calls the current Ukrainian government a “junta”, what could indicate a totalitarian regime, if it was true… But there is no junta in Ukraine as well. Junta is a group of militaries, and neither Oleksandr Turchynov (former acting President), nor Arseniy Yatsenyuk (prime minister), nor Petro Poroshenko (President) are militaries. Besides, the real junta does not come into government through elections.
The Russian regime does not look like a really totalitarian one, but it does resemble such regime… The leading italian theorist of fascism Giovanni Gentile described totalitarianism as “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals”. This sounds very much like what the Putin’s regime is trying to implement in Russia. Yet it does not completely fit into the popular concept of totalitarianism… Officially, Russians call their current government a “sovereign democracy“, but many experts (including some Russian ones) describe it as a “guided democracy” instead. The guided (or managed) democracy is a democratic government with increased autocracy. In practice, this type of government is often used by authoritarian regimes to imitate democracy. That’s exactly what the Putin’s regime does, according to many experts. And authoritarianism is very close to totalitarianism, actually. Thus, Giovanni Gentile described the government of the Fascist Italy as “authoritarian democracy“.
Do not take this term too literally – this tenet does not require all other parties to be outlawed. Thus, at first other parties were allowed even in the (really) fascist Italy. Instead, this concept describes the system, in which there is a dominant party (or a permanent coalition of parties) – the only one, that has the right to form the government. Such state is also called the “de facto single-party state“. And Russia is officially recognized as a state with a dominant party! Thus, the pro-presidential party United Russia currently has 238 out of 450 (53%) seats in the State Duma, the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the prime minister Dmitry Medvedev – both are associated with it, and no other parties have own members in the Cabinet. Besides, other popular Russian parties seem to be in coalition with United Russia. Thus, the leader of LDPR Vladimir Zhirinovsky proposed to make Putin an emperor – does it really look like this party is independent?..
Personality cult is exactly what can be seen in the Russian federation in regard to the President Vladimir Putin – Russian mass media created an idealized image of the Russian leader. It’s common to praise Putin, and not to criticize him. Certainly, this made Russian people believe, that their state is not going to stand without him. In general, the cult of Putin is recognized by many researchers around the world.
If the totalitarianism is about total control over society and politics, the dictatorship is about who has the absolute authority in the country. Dictators are above the law, they can decide, what is legitimate and what is not. The judiciary and legislature of dictatorship countries are under the control of dictators while usually still imitate independence. This can be seen in Russia, where the State Duma is a Putin’s strong ally and courts make decisions, that are beneficial for Putin. Dictators also strive to neutralize any opposition – and this can be seen in Russia as well. Dictatorship is considered as the opposite of democracy, therefore probable dictatorship countries can be seen in democracy indices like the Economist Intelligence Unit‘s one, the Freedom in the World of the Freedom House, the Polity IV data series and the Democracies-Dictatorships (DD) index. And according to all of them the Russian government does resemble the dictatorship form (the Economist Intelligence Unit gave it the status of an authoritarian regime in 2014, the Freedom House concludes that it’s “not free” in 2015, the Polity IV claimed that it was an anocracy (partially a democracy and partially a dictatorship) in 2013 and the DD index listed it as a civillian dictatorship in 2008).
Militarism does exist in Ukraine – that’s true. But, it’s absolutely normal for the country, that is in the state of war! However, the militarism, as a tenet of the fascism, is about the state of peace – when the country does not participate in any armed conflict. And, if we recall Ukraine before the war, it becomes clear, that it was closer to the pacifism, than to the militarism (thus, the Ukrainian army was, in fact, ruined). Moreover, Ukraine did not enter into armed conflict, even when Russian forces had blocked Ukrainian military units in Crimea during the annexation.
There is no doubt, that militarism is popular in Russia. One of the most glaring evidences of this is the love of Russians for military parades. In particular, the Russian federation is almost the only country, that celebrates the Victory in the World War II by demonstrating its military might (instead of just commemorating the dead). But, the militarism is also characterized by tendency to defend or promote national interests in a military way inside the country or abroad. The usage of armed forces by Russia in Crimea and in Georgia in 2008 without making any attempt to “defend its national interests” in a political way clearly shows, that this can be said about the Russian federation as well. Additionally, there are only two countries (as far as I know), that have threatened to use nuclear weapons against their opponents during the last decade – and Russia is one of them (the other one is North Korea). And, of course, all above is said about Russia in the state of peace.
Some Russians can argue, that their country is under permanent threat of invasion by the West. However, it’s not the real threat, but just a conspiracy theory. All fascist regimes used similar theories to give a reason for improving their military power, by the way.
The Euromaidan is actually a great example of the direct action – this term means, that people, usually led by an individual or a group, attempt to influence opponents directly, i.e., without any intermediary like a court or a deputy. But, if talking about the fascism, the direct action is when the fascist regime forms voluntary group(s) of people intended to struggle against its opponents. Unfortunately, it can be said, that the current Ukrainian government seems to have such groups… For example, voluntary battalions, like the “Azov“, look to be much like such groups (while they were not created by the government initially). In addition, the “trash bucket lustration” looks much like an action of such group. However, I believe, this is caused by the post-revolutionary state and the related political instability in Ukraine – i.e., not by the fascism. It should also be stated, that the direct action does not always indicate the fascism – sometimes it indicates just the people’s frustration. Besides, in the real fascism all such groups are associated with and backed by the ruling regime officially.
The Putin’s regime does everything possible not to allow any direct action… by its opponents. For this it even uses the direct action by itself! The great example is the Anti-Maidan movement, that has been formed in Russia by a Putin’s close ally Alexander “The Surgeon” Zaldostanov (and others) to defend the regime from anti-government protesters. 20 thousand of Chechen “volunteers”, led by the head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov, who vowed to perform any special task for Putin (not for an abstract president, but literally for Putin) inside or outside the country, is another good example. But these are not all of them! There is also the Young Guard, that positions itself as a youth wing of the pro-presidential United Russia party. There was also Nashi – another youth movement, that recently split into smaller groups. But, perhaps, the most interesting example of a direct action group is the All-Russia People’s Front (ONF). This front is intended to be a coalition between the ruling United Russia party and non-governmental organizations, which meant to be independent from the government (formed of the same party’s members, by the way). Also, this coalition is led by… the President Vladimir Putin!
Government intervention in economy can also happen, when a country experiences an economic crisis. So, yes, Ukraine’s economy seems to be mixed now. However, a more important question is: what does Ukraine strive for? And it strives to integrate the western economy (this is, actually, what the European integration means) and to make own economy as free as possible.
Fascist regimes treat the economy as a possible target for intervention by enemies. Therefore, they strive to make economies of their states self-sufficient (also known as autarky). And this is exactly what Putin aims to do in Russia! One can conclude, that this is caused by the western sanctions – partially, it’s true, but, in fact, Putin always wanted the Russian economy to be self-sufficient (he just have not succeeded in this much yet). As I’m not an economist, I can’t judge, what is the actual intensity of the state economic intervention in Russia, but, luckily, there are indices of economic freedom, which are made by experts and which we can refer here. And according to them the Russian economy looks much like a mixed one. Thus, the Index of Economic Freedom by the Wall Street Journal claims, that the Russian economy is “mostly unfree” in 2015 (and that it was same in 2012/2013). The Economic Freedom of the World in 2011 gave Russian economy the score 6.55 out of 10 of economic freedom, what can be treated as “mostly unfree” as well.
The theory of the class collaboration teaches, that people should accept their social class and do not try to struggle against other classes. Russian authorities claim, that people should not struggle against the ruling class (a similar fight of Ukrainians, i.e., Euromaidan, actually, caused the russian-ukrainian crisis). So, the class collaboration seems to be about Russia too.
The Third Position does not seem to apply neither to the Russian federation nor to Ukraine. Moreover, this tenet does not seem to apply even to the Nazism, which is considered to be a form of fascism.
The New Man is an idea of preparing a new better type of citizens. In the fascism this concept should be supported and propagated by the government, but this does not seem to be the case neither in Russia nor in Ukraine as well.
The Crimea annexation – the first and only annexation in Europe since the World War II – clearly shows, that the imperialism does exist in Russia. Certainly, Russians claim, that this was not an occupation, but rather a return of the territory. However, initially Russia gained the Crimea during the imperial expansion (when it was the Russian Empire), so it’s still about imperialism. Besides, don’t forget about Russia-backed pseudo-states like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria etc. The modern concept of imperialism also states, that it does not always mean the physical expansion – sometimes it’s about other forms of dominance over other states (like, e.g., economic). And, as we know, Russia strives for returning zones of influence and does not hesitate to demonstrate its dominance over some countries (e.g. by banning imported products from them). Another feature, which is common for Empires, is the rich center and poor periphery (as finances are seized for needs of the imperial center). And this can be seen in Russia, that has rich Moscow and poor provinces, as well. And, finally, there remain no doubts, that the imperialism is popular in Russia, when we recall that: Igor Strelkov (the Russian terrorist leader, who participated in the Crimea annexation and in the Donbass war) still treats his country as the Russian Empire, Vladimir Zhirinovsky (the leader of the pro-presidential LDPR party) proposed to make Putin an emperor, and so on.
The Wikipedia article about fascism also contains the “Tenets” section. Some of tenets described in that section are duplicated, but others are listed only there. So, let’s discuss (some of) those unique tenets here as well.
Fascism needs active followers, especially, young ones – e.g., to spread fascist ideas among young people and to be able to resist alternative ideas, that are popular among them. And there are the plenty of youth pro-presidential and pro-government organizations in Russia – e.g., already mentioned Young Guard and Nashi (-2.0). Also fascists do not recognize homosexuality, feminism etc and this is another issue, which is known to exist in Russia. Russians treat this as their “national specificity” (a similar “specificity” was in all nations, no?), but, I believe, it’s just a social doctrine, that is propagated by the regime.
According to the British political theorist Roger Griffin the polingenesis (or the polingenetic ultranationalism) is not just a tenet, but the “fascist minimum”, that differentiates fascism from para-fascism (i.e., not a true fascism). Polingenesis means “national rebirth”, that is a return to the state of a nation, when it was in some way better, to its “golden age”. And the Russian President, as well as the vast majority of Russian people, believe, that USSR was the greatest page in their history – they want the Russian federation to become as powerful as USSR, to gain the same influence in the world as USSR had and so on. In this context the Crimea annexation means a return of USSR territories – that’s why this makes Russians so happy (and the rating of the Russian President so huge). The Wikipedia page about the polingenetic ultranationalism also describes, what a fascist regime usually does to achieve this goal. Thus, it can make people believe, that the old order is decadent and alien to a common member of the nation. And Russians claim, that Western style of democracy and liberalism (that the former President Boris Yeltsin was trying to establish in Russia) is alien for them. Also, if the return to the “golden age” requires bringing back some ambiguous practices, fascists usually represent them as glorious and necessary. This reminds me current reasoning for returning some Soviet-era practices like reinstating the melody of Stalin’s anthem, the punitive psychiatry, foreign media restrictions, restrictions of foreign travels for own citizens, and more.
The ruscism (like any other form of fascism) has some distinctive features – for example, close ties with Orthodox Christianity. But, the most prominent such feature is:
The fascism became popular in Europe in the period between the two World Wars. The Second World War unveiled this ideology and showed, how dangerous it can be. Therefore, the Spanish Falange – the last fascist regime, that continued to exist after the WWII until 1975 – refused to recognize own fascist nature. Certainly, for the same reason any further similar regimes are going to camouflage own fascism as well.
Unlike the mid-World Wars era the contemporary world has a strong vision of what is good and what is not. Therefore, to avoid being isolated a fascism regime (as well as other authoritarian regimes) is better to imitate “good” tenets. For this reason the Putin’s regime is trying to resemble the democracy, a multi-party system, presidential elections, tolerance and so on. The same reason makes Russians obscure concepts of nationalism, fascism etc. Naturally, Putin is also trying to conceal his true aims. Thus, the occupation of the Crimea, that looks to be needed generally as a military base, was represented as care for people of the peninsula, the supply of weapons and militants to the Donbass, what ensures that the conflict lasts longer, is represented as an attempt to protect the locals, and so on. However, in Russia the hypocrisy is not just a tool for achieving goals, it’s now more a kind of the state ideology – it is present in both, external and internal affairs. For example, Russia was supplying gas to Ukraine for a high price (a fair price + around $100) and offered discount of about $100, that just made the price fair. However, the discount was represented (especially, to Russian people) as a good will and a help for Ukrainians. The same way the regime often represents Putin’s failures as successes – for example, it is well known, that Putin agreed to meet in Minsk in the Normandy format (the so called Minsk II) after long pressure from the international community, but in Russia the Minsk II is represented as a generally Putin’s initiative.
Certainly, the hypocrisy does its job and makes it complicated to see the true face of ruscism. Thus, only those countries, that had already become its victims – like Ukraine and Georgia – realized, that they dealt with a true fascist regime. Do the Europe and the rest of the world also need to suffer from the ruscism to understand the same?..
]]>But, is the world really unicentric?.. And does USA really dominate the world?.. In fact, this is one of those conspiracy theories, that allow to explain complex global processes in a simple way. Thus, the world can hardly be called unicentric while China has economic control over USA (through debts). Actually, it’s more likely, that the world has at least three centers – USA (let’s suppose Europe is not independent), China and… Russia (that attempts to dominate former USSR republics, for now). Certainly, USA is suspected in domination for a reason – in particular due to (sometimes, quite aggressive) attempts to spread democracy around the world. However, this can indicate, that USA just took an active stand against authoritarian regimes. And this can be, in fact, understood, if we consider the Nazi regime in Germany and the imperialist regime in Japan. As the World War II clearly shows, each such regime can potentially bring danger and instability to the world. Then, is USA so wrong?.. I personally believe, that this should not be only USA’s objective! (And it is not, as Europe actually shares it. May be that’s why Russians claim, that Europe is America’s vassal?..) Some actions of USA were, of course, too aggressive (e.g. in Iraq), but still they were taken against authoritarian regimes. And all these happen, when two other world centers – China and Russia – which also have suffered from aggressive authoritarian regimes in the past, just don’t care. Maybe that’s because, they are authoritarian as well?.. Both these countries are also known to support other authoritarian regimes (like Syria and North Korea). So, it does not look like a unicentric world! Instead it does looks like a bicentric world with two major centers, that are opposed to each other – the democratic one (USA, Europe) and the authoritarian one (Russia, China).
Actually we already had this world order before. Remember, there was the communist center led by USSR and the democratic center led by USA?.. I can conclude, that the map, names and borders have changed, but not the gist. So, this means, that Russia does not seek for a polycentric world, but craves for returning its role of a world leader. That’s what Russia wanted for centuries, by the way – first as the Russian Empire, then as USSR and now as the Russian Federation. So, when you think, that Russia, maybe, should better get its “polycentric” world, you actually tolerate the return of USSR (with all the after-effects). Do you really want this?.. Even so I doubt that’s the real end purpose of Russians! And I do have reasons to doubt…
Did you know, that many Russians join the war on the Ukrainian East to fight against… Americans? Yes, they really kill Ukrainian soldiers, because they believe, the latter are led by USA and NATO! So, does it look like a battle for a polycentric world? Or does it look like a battle against USA?.. All the time, first the soviet propaganda and now the Russian one depicted Americans and the West as the primary enemies of Russians! (You don’t believe me? Ask your Russian friends, what do Russians think about USA!) Considering this, do you think, if they got their polycentric world, they would instantly become friends with USA and the West?.. If you checked Russian mass media, you would also notice, that quite often they predict the coming crash of USA and nominate Russia as the best candidate for the new world leader. So, I believe, that’s their real end purpose – Russians actually do not want a poly- or bicentric world, instead they want the unicentric world with the new leader (guess, who)! This can also be proven by the fact, that the Russian Federation always treated NATO as a threat, while it is actually just a collective defense alliance…
So, if you tolerate the “polycentric” world according to Russia, you should also consider pondering over Russia as the new world leader. But, what would be the new world order under the Russian leadership?.. Incidentally, as a Ukrainian – a citizen of the country, that used to be a “friend” of Russia – I can help you understand this…
You might think, that the Ukrainian crisis is perhaps not significant enough for some countries to quarrel with the Russian Federation and that, maybe, it’s a good chance for them to intensify their friendship with this country. This also makes sense as Russia is known to own rich resources, which have become partially freed due to the conflict with the West. This opened new opportunities, which such countries as Greece, India, Zimbabwe and North Korea are looking to address. Certainly, there will be profit of establishing closer relations with Russia right now, but one, who does this, should consider, what is the “right” friendship according to Russia… In the case, you did not know – we got the Ukrainian crisis, because we appeared to be a “not good enough friend” for this our neighbor. We were a very close “friend” for Russia – a “younger brother”, as they used to call us – and that meant, that we got many liabilities for them including the liability to obey. Of course, you can doubt or think, I just got it wrong, but let’s check other “brothers”, then?..
USA, which is depicted as the evil by the Russian propaganda, have great relations with their closest neighbors – Canada and Mexico. And, what relations with Russia do its closest “friends” – Belarus and Kazakhstan – have?.. Belarus, which is considered to be another “younger brother” of Russia, has… regular diplomatic tensions, energy disputes and trade wars with its “older brother”. Thus, in 2009 Belarus accused Russia of pressure to force the country to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Later that year Russia started the Milk war against Belarus. In 2010 Belarus and Russia demanded from each other to pay debts and threatened to cut gas (by Russia) and to halt transit of gas (by Belarus), if the other side would not. In 2014 Belarus accused Russia of violating the regulations of the Eurasian Customs Union by prohibiting food products of numerous Belarusian manufacturers. And so on… Nice friendship, isn’t it?.. Kazakhstan is more lucky, but it also has regular diplomatic tensions with Russia (e.g., related to the rental of Baikonur Cosmodrome, “infringements” of rights of the Russian population in Kazakhstan and cooperation between Kazakhstan and NATO through IPAP). Thus, in 2014 after Putin made an offensive declaration regarding Kazakh statehood the president Nazarbayev even threatened to loosen ties with Russia… By the way, both these countries are considered to be authoritarian, what can explain, why are they still with Russia (as Europe would ask for democratic reforms).
Still no believe?.. Let’s see what are relations of Belarus and Kazakhstan with the new Ukraine, then? No trade wars, no diplomatic tensions, no other conflicts – presidents of both these countries are trying to help Ukraine deescalate the crisis. Thus, Belarus suggested the Minsk format, which is actively used, and Kazakhstan tried to host talks in the Normandy format. But those are not all conclusions made by them… Thus, Belarus revised its military doctrine to be ready for invasion of the “little green men“, which were used by Russia in Crimea to annex the peninsula. And Kazakhstan carried out military exercises to fight foreign groups from extremist, terrorist and separatist organizations. So, when such countries as Greece and Turkey prepare to intensify their friendship with Russia, its “best friends” prepare to resist possible Russian invasion. Funny, isn’t it?..
But don’t think, that Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are the only countries, that suffer due to being neighbors of the Russian Federation. Almost all other neighbors have (or had) similar issues as well. Thus, relations between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia are strained due to different views on their history – these countries claim, that Russia (as USSR) occupied and annexed them, but Russia refuses to recognize that. Actually, much more countries believe, that Russia occupied them (e.g., Poland, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Japan), but only these three claim this officially (so far Russia has not recognized any fact of occupation and/or annexation of anything, as far as I know – it seriously claims, that it liberated them). Certainly, all the mentioned occupations were in the past, but Russia did not stop doing this actually (what proves, that it did not change), what can be seen on example of Crimea. Also not only Ukraine became its victim nowadays. Thus, in 2008 Russia occupied Georgia and declared its two provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries (not recognized by the world community). Doesn’t this remind you DPR/LPR?..
By the way, maybe that’s why Russians do not want NATO to get closer to their borders?.. They just would not be able to do things like that against NATO allies. Officially Russians claim, that they have doubts regarding intentions of NATO, but did NATO do anything, that could make them worry?.. I, personally, can’t recall such things. On the other side, Russia stages different military provocations against its neighbors and NATO allies quite often (e.g., Russian warships sailed too close to foreign waters, Russian warplanes flew too close to foreign airspace, Russian fleet located off Australia ahead of G20 summit, and so on). So maybe NATO should worry instead?.. At least now it does! Formerly all NATO’s actions were more defensive, but still they irritated Russia (and now it becomes clear, why). Thus, Russia even threatened a nuclear strike against Poland, if the country allows anti-missile shield to be placed in its territory. Just ponder over it – nuclear strike just not to let Europe defend itself!
Though, it should be admitted, that good relations between Russia and another country are possible… If such country does not impede Russia’s interests, does not own anything, that is of interest for Russia, or is just too strong (for the time). However, still such countries should be ready, that russians will buy their companies, mass media, resources and so on – all these things will be used against the country, if and when needed. Russia does not hesitate to use its companies in disputes, what can be seen on the example of Gazprom. At the moment, Russians own many strategic companies in many countries around the globe (e.g., in Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Serbia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Vietnam etc)…
But, perhaps, the worst thing for inhabitants of Russia’s “friends” is that such countries can get the liability to remain “friends” no matter what. Did you notice, that countries, that have good relations with Russia, are usually authoritarian?.. Thus, they are China, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Egypt, Cuba, Zimbabwe and so on. Certainly, the main reason, why they are friends, is the common anti-democratic (and anti-USA) position, but it’s not the only one. In a democracy, people may change the governing party and, therefore, the foreign relations policy – i.e., they may choose, for example, to go West instead of being dependent on Russia, what have happened in Ukraine. But for the Russian Federation this means the threat of losing influence on the country and, as it could be seen on examples of Ukraine and Georgia, Russians may decide, that they do not want this… It’s understandable, as it’s much easier to have good relations with one party and/or leader, e.g., through sponsoring them, than to establish new relations on fair conditions each time the party or leader changes. That’s the reason, why Russians support (including funding) far-right Hungarian Jobbik, French National Front, and so on. And that’s why Russians supported Yanukovych. That’s also the reason, why they were so against changing Yanukovych to someone else (while they would agree on some his successor)! They even started the war on the Ukrainian East for this reason! So, I wonder – If they find Greek Syriza friendly enough, would they let Greek people change the governing party, when the time comes?.. I would not be so sure.
By the way, did you ever see, that USA or EU intervened domestic affairs of a country, when its people were electing an anti-West party (e.g., in Greece or in Ukraine in 2010)?.. I personally did not! Russia accuses the West of setting up puppet regimes in countries around the world, but, if they really set them up, would not they also do everything possible to keep them?.. I think, they would! As I see no reason, why USA would not try to protect its “puppet” regimes, if they had spent resources to install them. Although, I’m not saying, that Russia is in any way participating in establishing its “friend” regimes, but at least it does really a lot to protect them (e.g., Belarus, Kazakhstan, Syria). Moreover, in fact, the Russian Federation espires to export the Russian-style government to other countries (as an alternative to “USA-style” democracy) and it have already succeeded in Belarus and Kazakhstan (and tried in Ukraine). Additionally, Russians claim, that the only legitimate way to change a regime is through elections. And that’s when they know for sure, that elections can be falsified. Thus, Ukrainians have reasons to believe, that election falsifications of the Yanukovych’s regime in Ukraine were inspired by Russians (have Russian political strategists already started to instruct Syriza on how to do this?)…
That’s why, I wonder, if people really want Russia to become new leader of the new unicentric world?.. I also wonder, if people of such countries as Greece are really ready to have the current governing party permanently without the right to change it?.. Because, this can be what the Russia as the new leader mean. Think again!
]]>Whatever they claim, actually we’ve had two crises in Ukraine – the first one was the Euromaidan and the second one is the Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war. Russians did a lot to stop and discredit the Euromaidan and launched the second crisis because they failed. Therefore, Russia is, in fact, a participant of both crises. Why do russians do this and how do they explain their motives, I shortly describe in indented paragraphs starting with “Russians believe”. It’s fine to skip such paragraphs though, if you want…
I believe it’s a mistake to think, that the crisis started on November 21, 2013. I do believe it started long before – at least in 2010, when Viktor Yanukovych got elected the president of Ukraine. On November 21, 2013 this crisis just turned into the different stage… Having gained the authority the newly made president “didn’t disillusion” – corruption schemes (old and new ones) got intensified, raider seizures of enterprises got started, mass media began to turn pro-government again, and so on. Besides, the country continued to decay in general. People’s dissatisfaction gradually began to take the form of rallies. There were several “maidans“, which I would name “heralds” of the Euromaidan – thus, there were protests against the police brutality (including the one, which is known as the Vradiivka) and the Tax Maidan. Months before November 21, 2013 the government of Viktor Yanukovych was imprudent to promise the long-awaited changes through the eurointegration (that was perceived by people as a possibility of major improvements). But, on November 21, 2013, just a week before signing the association agreement with EU on November 29, 2013 in Vilnius, Viktor Yanukovych flopped on everyone. Once again! But, the very last time…
Russians believe, that the Euromaidan was organized and sponsored by the West (mainly by USA) to replace the pro-russian Yanukovych’s regime with an own puppet one. In particular, they claim, that it was implemented through pro-West NGOs (especially, mass media), which, according to their beliefs, inspired dissatisfaction amongst ukrainian people.
The confrontation between the ukrainian East and the ukrainian West as well as the “infringement” of rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine also started long before the Euromaidan (not after it, for sure)… Thus, in distant 2006 according to the statement of the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation, it was venturesome to speak Russian in Ivano-Frankivsk (a city in the Western Ukraine). But, actually, it was “venturesome” only in this statement of the Russian MFA! In reality in Ivano-Frankivsk (the city I live and do speak Russian in) no one was persecuted for the Russian language.
The similar can be said regarding the fascists and Nazis – you were always able to find out, that there were many of them in Western Ukraine, only if you watched or read Russian mass media. In reality there are no popular truly Nazi organizations in Ukraine! For comparison, Russia has the plenty of such organizations (for example, RNU, NSS and Slavic Union). The only thing, which is close to the truth, is the popularity of nationalism in the Western Ukraine, but, in my opinion, this popularity was caused by doings of the Kremlin (and its henchmen)… Thus, western natives’ resentment and additional aspiration to protect the ukrainian nation were caused by the act of vandalism against the ukrainian national coat of arms on Mount Hoverla, popularization by russians of the “Ukraine project” theory (teaching, that Ukraine is an “artificial state” and ukrainians are “fake nation”), the statement of the Russian president Vladimir Putin claiming, that “Ukraine is not even a country”, and so on.
All these things did the job – western ukrainians started to loathe russians more, russians and eastern ukrainians, who trusted russian mass nedia, started to loathe western ukrainians more, and eventually western ukrainians having realized, how eastern ukrainians perceive them, started to loathe eastern ones as well…
Russians believe, that this was the West (mainly USA), who had been setting the ukrainian West at variance with the ukrainian East and Russia. To substantiate the popularity of fascism in the ukrainian West russians also often remind Stepan Bandera, who, they claim, was a Nazi ally (and he was not, actually).
Initially the Euromaidan intended to put pressure on Viktor Yanukovych to make him sign the agreement of association with EU in Vilnius on November 29, 2013… After the violent dispersal of the Euromaidan on the night of November 30, 2013 and after the failure to sign the agreement by the government (what was accompanied by lies) the Maidan also started to demand the resignation of the cabinet… After the “dictatorship laws“, that were adopted by the Verkhovna Rada (the parliament of Ukraine) with a number of procedural violations, the Euromaidan also started to demand the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada… Also, soon after the rally had started people began to realize, that the president Viktor Yanukovych is the source of all these problems. Therefore, eventually the Euromaidan started to demand the resignation of the president.
But, whatever the Euromaidan demanded of authorities, they were not even intended to comply with those demands! On the night of November 30 Viktor Yanukovych attempted to intimidate the Maidan (with the violent dispersal), but got the opposite effect… After that authorities attempted to ignore the Maidan. Then through laws and courts they attempted to make people “not to prevent them from doing their job”… Only when it became already too late, the prime minister Mykola Azarov finally decided to resign (I guess, he had realized, how was it going to end). In fact, this became the only demand, that was met, but at that moment the Maidan already demanded a full reset of power. Certainly, demands of protesters were getting bolder as the Yanukovych’s regime was actually ignoring them during months!
Almost during all the time the rally lasted the Euromaidan was supported by the opposition leaders (they actually joined the rally in a few days after the start): Vitali Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, Petro Poroshenko, and others. But their authority was never high!
Russians believe, that americans not only organized the Euromaidan but also led it.
On February 21, 2014 European Union representatives, the opposition leaders and Viktor Yanukovych (in the presence of Russian Federation’s representative) signed the peace deal aimed to settle the crisis. This deal stipulated the reelection of the president of Ukraine in… a half of year. Certainly, many protesters were not happy with the deal, as during just a couple of (preceding) months Viktor Yanukovych managed to spoil and take many lives! And now he was about to have another half of year! The opposition leaders, unlike ordinary protesters, were happy to find at least some resolution for the situation, but they did not have sufficient impact on protesters!
Most likely, having realized, that he is not going to get “odds”, Viktor Yanukovych decided to… escape (and it looks like he decided this before signing the deal). So, the very next morning the building of the government, the presidential administration and even the private residence of Viktor Yanukovych all of a sudden appear to be unguarded! Having realized, that their “boss” has vanished into thin air, Yanukovych’s former fellows started to cooperate with the opposition. Having understood, that Yanukovych, who was about to ensure implementation of the peace deal, had in fact duped them and understanding, that now these are going to be them, who people will demand of, the opposition takes the initiative and discharges Viktor Yanukovych using the parliament. After that in accordance to the Constitution the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada (Oleksandr Turchynov at that moment) becomes the acting president. Later Rada also accepts members of the new crisis cabinet (headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk)…
Russians believe, that this was a coup d’etat, that the opposition usurped the power and that this was the opposition, who used weapon to kill peaceful protesters and policemen. After this, according to their beliefs, the opposition seized the parliament and forced deputies to change the Constitution and to appoint the speaker and the prime minister. That’s why russians call the current regime in Ukraine a “junta“. They also think, that Viktor Yanukovych did not escape, but just travelled to Kharkiv to attend the party conference and only there he realized, that he was in danger. Russians also claim, that this was the opposition, who frustrated the peace deal.
There have been given many reasons for the “return” of Crimea to Russia – first, it was the “threat” of persecution of Russian speakers (no one mentions this today, while it was called the main reason in due time), then it was the yearning to rectify the “historical injustice“, finally it was the threat of a NATO base establishment on the peninsula. In fact, all the reasons, except the threat of persecution, and the course of the annexation clearly indicate, that russians thought about the “return” of Crimea long before the Euromaidan! It’s quite possible, that the plan of annexation was scheduled for 2015 – next presidential election in Ukraine – or the similar date, but due to the Euromaidan russians decided to implement it sooner. Apparently the plan included not only the Crimea annexation but also the creation of a state from the southeast regions of Ukraine… Judge for yourselves:
During a short period a large amount of heavily-armed soldiers in the same uniform but without any identifying insignia appeared in Crimea. The very first thing, they did, was the seizure of the parliament building. In this way they ensured, that the right person was elected the prime minister of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. After that they didn’t seize local councils, administrations, buildings of SBU and MVS, as people of Maidan did, but blockaded Ukrainian military facilities, threatened the Ukrainian military and constantly gave them ultimatums to surrender… Being military men, they knew for sure, that ukrainian soldiers were not entitled to surrender without the corresponding order! The command of these “polite men” understood for sure, that no sane military man would give the order to surrender in such situation! Moreover, in such situation any self-respecting commander-in-chief would have to give the order to engage the “little green men” or to drive them from the territory! But Oleksandr Turchynov and the company, who just a few days ago were about to prepare an agitation compaign for the upcoming presidential reelection (according to the peace deal signed with Viktor Yanukovych) and who suddenly gained the state power, were not ready for such military conflicts! They did not yet realized, what had happened, and certainly suspected, that the escape of Viktor Yanukovych was some dirty trick…
All these indicates, that the Crimea annexation plan was developed not for the actual situation (but, for example, for a new president, who was going to be elected in 2015)! I believe, the idea was: The ukrainian military forces engage and attempt to drive the “polite men” out the peninsula. Meanwhile, it is “suddenly” revealed, that ukrainian troops “attacked” soldiers of the russian Black Sea Fleet, that is based in Crimea, and/or that many russian citizens (who “little green rebels” “suddenly appeared” to be) were killed due to their military operations. In this way Russia gains its “moral right” to quickly commit more troops to Ukraine. As the ukrainian army “luckily” appears to be ruined (accidentally?) and therefore cannot effectively resist the full invasion, russians reach Kyiv (the capital) or even further without any severe issues, like it was in Georgia in 2008. Then under the control of russian troops Crimea certainly goes to Russia and the Southeast forms the new state “Novorossiya“. This was to be a very quick war (like in Georgia in 2008), but fortunately the plan failed…
Russians believe, that crimean people chose to join the Russian Federation of their own free will, what, they claim, was proved by the “results” of the referendum. They also believe, that the referendum was organized and conducted by the legitimate authority of the peninsula and fully complied with the democratic standards. Russians think, that the decision to “return” the Crimea was made by Vladimir Putin off-the-cuff mainly to prevent oppression of Russian-speaking people on the peninsula. Thus, they treat the failed attempt by the Verkhovna Rada to repeal the faulty law on regional languages as the attempt to persecute the Russian language. Other russians ensure, that Vladimir Putin was obliged to annex Crimea due to the threat of establishing a NATO base on the peninsula. Generally, russians are sure, that crimean people are going to live better and more serenely under the Russian Federation. Regarding the “little green men” russians have no doubt, that their order was just to secure the people’s will. Other russians claim, that this was the plan to seize the peninsula without a single shot fired, what shows how cool are special forces of the Russian army.
Soon after the regime change in Ukraine and concurrently with the Crimea annexation there arose the “people’s unrest” in the Southeast. It looked to be much like protests in the ukrainian West, that took place during Euromaidan – generally unarmed people occupied administrative buildings and barricaded themselves there or resided on squares for a long time. However, all these processes began to subside with time… Until there came heavily-armed militants and started to capture buildings of regional police offices. Many people argued, that this was an attempt of Kremlin to repeat the “Crimean scenario” in the Southeast, but as for me the difference was obvious: If in Crimea these were definitely troops in same uniform, on the East these were some military men in different uniforms. If in Crimea the “little green men” focused on the ukrainian military and provoked them in every way, on the East “rebels” started to seize weapons (that’s why they occupied buildings of the police and SBU). It looked like “rebels” decided to play the “Crimean scenario” themselves. Nevertheless, Moscow backed them all the time (and continues to back them now)…
In other words, if in separative movements in Crimea I saw a planned, well thought-out special operation, doings on the Southeast looked to be far less thought-out! If we suppose, that the Crimean operation involves the creation of so called Novorossiya, it’s also logical to suppose, that a part of participants of that operation was very unhappy with the failure to complete it and strove to continue despite the obvious frustration of the plan. But similar military operations get developed thoroughly during a long time and not depending on the situation. That’s why apparently the russian leaders refused to continue it (in the form, it was planned)… Instead, I suppose, they allowed “hotheads” from among of participants of the operation to “attempt” to carry out something similar, having warned that Russia would not be able to help them openly. This can be seen from the participation of Igor Girkin and Alexander Borodai in separative doings in the Southeast – both also worked in Crimea before. It looks like organizers of the eastern “resistance” got mistaken by the inertia of the ukrainian army in Crimea and concluded, that there will be inertia in the Southeast as well…
Russians believe, that these are ordinary rebels in the Southeast, who do not consent to the change of the regime and to the rule of the “junta”. They also think, that initially rebels strove for the federalization, what, they believe, could help resolving many issues raised in the Southest. Russians also wonder, why everyone thinks, that Vladimir Putin wants the Southeast to become an independent state – they claim, that, if he wanted this, he would just help “rebels” do this. In their opinion, the fact, that Putin have not recognized “Novorossiya”, prooves, that he has nothing to do with the crisis…
]]>Like many other similar tactics and human behavior peculiarities this feature can be and is used for different kinds of manipulations. At the moment it’s complicated to determine, who was the first, but USSR like many other communist countries used this feature to control its citizens. After the USSR dissolution the corresponding management strategy was inherited by the Russian Federation, certainly, being improved a bit. And this is the management strategy, we will discuss in this article…
The communism arose approximately at the same time, when the (so-called) democracy did. But, unlike the latter the communism, in fact, ignored the human nature, assuming, that people live in some sort of ideal world. Therefore, being saner the democracy developed more intensively and produced better results. This way, having appeared in some kind of competition with the democracy the communism had to choose – either to recognize its mistakes or to attempt compromising the success of the democracy…
That’s why the powerful long-term campaign of lies, misinformation, fact distortion and garbling was started. Thus, such phenomena as poverty, vulgarity, serial maniacs, prostitution, homosexuality, cruelty, terrorism and everything else, that Soviet people did not like, was attributed to capitalist “peculiarities”. But, of course, this had not influenced the human nature and, therefore, with time due to the mass media progress these “capitalist peculiarities” appeared to be peculiar to Soviet people as well. This way the Soviet propaganda engine was forced to adopt to the reality and to be more careful, when choosing, what to distort and what just to conceal. Due to these circumstances the manipulation techniques used in USSR became only subtler and it became harder to recognize the truth.
It should be mentioned in palliation of the Russian Federation government, that in result of the USSR dissolution the government got not only the well-adjusted propaganda engine, represented by appropriate experts, but also the inhabitants, that had been deceived during many generations. In such situation it would be, perhaps, too dangerous to expose the truth, so authorities were forced to keep the propaganda. Certainly, it was not efficient to oppose the communism with the capitalism any longer, so the accent was changed, but still main theses were kept. In this article we are going to discuss these theses and what the Russian propaganda did evolve to now…
There is no doubt, that the communist propaganda is an integral part of communism, as a form of government (like the Nazi propaganda was an integral part of Nazism). Without such propaganda USSR would not be able to exist so long. Modified and improved communist propaganda became the basis for the political management system of modern Russia. As it became an integral part of the government, that now has nothing to do with communism, and as the government of modern Russia has a little to do with the democracy, there arose a need to give a separate name to this form of government. I, personally, like to name it as “echthrocracy” – from “echthro” (Greek εχθρός), what means “enemy”, and “cracy” (Greek κράτος), what means “power”. Now, let’s talk, why did I choose this name…
Echthrocracy is so accomplished form of government, that it is attempted to be exported to neighbor countries nowadays. Thus, similar “democratic” form of government is also used in Belarus. During the Eurorevolution the Yanukovych‘s government attempted to establish this form in Ukraine as well.
Any democratic country has: a) the government, which is formed from members and/or sympathizers of one or several parties, b) part of the population supporting this government and c) the rest population, that does not agree with some or many its decisions. In other words, in a country there are the government supporters and the opposition. Success of the government depends on satisfaction not only of its supporters but also of the opposition!
Sometimes a government attempts, e.g., to improve life conditions, to amend health care, to struggle against corruption and so on, but it’s much easier to attempt resolving a fictitious problem. Especially when such problem was inherited with the USSR dissolution. This problem is the “enemy” of any Soviet man, that now became the enemy of any russian – the “insidious”, “malicious” and totally “putrid” West. The West, which (also according to communists’ beliefs) is just looking forward an opportunity to enslave russians. This problem made it possible to unite the majority of Russian people in their hate to USA and Europe. So, even those, who do not agree with the government, do adhere and support it “temporarily” for the higher purpose – the safety of the Motherland. All they want Russia to be a strong and independent country and are much scared to be placed under the authority of the West, which values only money…
Certainly, many “peculiarities” of the West (like poverty) were discarded, as it became much easier to travel abroad and see things first-hand (while the myth about the terrible poverty in some European countries, e.g., Poland, is still propagated). But, the Russian government already found new ones to replace such discarded “peculiarities” of the West. Thus, recently there is widely propagated the myth about terrible homophily on the West, which is believed to be aggressively popularized even among children.
But existence of a common enemy is favorable not only because this can unite people of different views, but also because many things can be attributed to this enemy… Thus, if people’s dissatisfaction about the government is getting higher – these people are manipulated by pro-West mass media; if a non-governmental organization is calling people to rally – this organization is financed by countries of the West, which ordered it to organize the rally; if a troublesome story was leaked to mass media – these mass media faked this story up on USA order; if someone is writing convincing and well-grounded anti-government articles – this someone is an american agent specially trained to be convincing; if in Internet there are many people dissatisfied with the government – these are a little of individuals, who write under different accounts and work on CIA; and so on. Actually, absolutely any activity can be attributed to americans – good imagination is all needed to do this as believable as possible! Having gotten used to omnipotence of the West people no more notice, that virtually everything, what is not liked by the government, eventually in some way gets attributed to actions of the West. At the same time such people do not get confused with the fact, that in this case the third party – i.e., mere people dissatisfied on their own – do not seem to exist at all.
In Russia the belief in omnipresence of the West is so strong, that during Russian protests in 2012 mere people, when leaving for streets, used to emphasize, that they are going just to stand for a while to show their civil position and are not going to do anything more to “avoid playing into hands of the West”…
A common enemy is not only uniting people but is also cultivating an extreme intolerance to representatives of the “enemy”! Such intolerance is accompanied by the panic fear and undisguised hate, what certainly influence the objectivity and adequacy of haters. As a result this leads to discrimination by nationality, location, and so on (e.g., the anti-Georgian campaign in Russia). In many cases you as an “enemy” will be refused even to be listened…
This way such enemy becomes a significant element of the form of government, for which human rights begin to have secondary importance. The very primary importance is given to the struggle against the enemy and to the neutralization of the “enemy propaganda”, which can appear to be just an alternative point of view. So, the secondary importance goes to the freedom of speech, the right to express own view, the right for peaceful protests and other very basic elements of the democracy, without which the latter just can’t exist!
Of course, the West and USA, in particular, are not perfect (there does not exist a perfect country at all)! Some bad things are really done by american special services – for example, well-known falsification of reasons for the Iraq invasion, interception of many foreign country leaders, and so on. In particular for this reason USA are a perfect candidate for the antagonist, which can be used for government. Nevertheless, if there were no USA, this “position” could be occupied, e.g., by China. But, every sober-minded person should comprehend, that the West is not almighty and that besides the West there are other parties like the nation. In other words, if the nation has impartial reasons to be dissatisfied, the West does not have to be involved in this!
A mighty enemy is able to mobilize and unite different categories of people. But, in addition to this the existence of such enemy creates a critical need for heroes.
A person, who has saved or just helped you, often instantly gains your confidence and respect – that’s how the human nature works. At the same time such confidence does not usually depend on who actually this person is (only one or several his/her deeds are taken into account). Moreover, usually people are ready to forgive many things to their saviors! A lot of fraudulent schemes, including religious sects, are built considering this peculiarity of human.
Of course, it’s easy to be a savior, when your antagonist is mostly fictitious – for your “firmness” and courageous “struggle” against non-existent enemy you gain real confidence and respect. This scheme is well comprehended and used by the president of Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.
But, it’s also important to conform to the prototype of the hero. Thus, the “hero” can show his valor with shooting, motorcycle driving, martial arts, winter swimming, and so on. Also, pilots are considered to be the example of valor in society, so a fighter flying can make the figure of the hero-savior richer. But, it’s also important to avoid going to extremes – too cocky hero is going to start bothering one day. The true hero must be modest, not too verbose, intelligent and fair.
Heroes are always on their own, that’s why Putin keeps himself away from other representatives of the government. All the dirty work, all the bombastic and provocative statements are first done by someone else. Putin plays the role of a supervisor and a fair sovereign. Often he makes people wait until he shares his opinion on certain issue. All this is done on purpose – if people do not like the work of his subordinates, he undertakes appropriate actions (as a savior)! That’s why he suddenly appeared not to be a member of the “United Russia” party, just when russians began to lose sympathy for it. The rating of the party goes down, and the rating of Putin does not. While, actually, this president and this party represent the same regime!..
It seems like the president-savior is a Putin’s own idea, a brilliant way to become a dictator and to remain a favorite!
Sometimes, when I watch news about some events and then listen to comments on them of, e.g., head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I think: “My Lord! Are they from some parallel universe?”. That’s how huge is sometimes the difference between, what actually happens, and, what is told by Russian officials! At first it may seem odd – how can people tell such nonsense to their foreign colleagues (and that’s the purpose of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), if it’s obvious, that the latter know quite a lot about discussed events? All right, they do can deceive russians, but not foreigners, who even do not watch the Russian TV! The explanation is fairly simple – whatever Russian officials (including the president) tell they do this for Russian people mainly. Even, if this is a statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which normally should be intended for foreigners…
Considering that the West is the antagonist the Russian government should behave accordingly. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for reacting on any event in the World its official statements certainly must consider the conception of the antagonist as well. But, as not all bad things in the World are actually done by the West and as not everything, that should be presented as a bad thing accordingly to the conception, is actually a bad thing, work on statements of the Ministry turns into a quite creative and complicated process… It’s also especially complicated because no one ever knows for sure, how events can turn out, and therefore there is a real threat, that they turn the way, the lie will be discovered. Therefore, just to consider less “variables” during speech writing the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not care much, how the speech will be interpreted by the world community. After all the major purpose of such speech is to confirm the conception of the antagonist for own people (and Russian “admirers” abroad).
Now, after the USSR dissolution it became obvious, that communist mass media and communist government were telling a lot of lies! Even the Russian television recognizes this (despite this, for some reason, the omnipresence of the West, that was first thought out by communists, is not questioned). Also the Russian media do recognize the fact of censorship in USSR. So, it would be logically correct to assume, that, having inherited the state management strategy, the Russian government also inherited the censorship. The purpose of the censorship in modern Russia is the same – to limit the information, that people can get, for not letting people know the truth and/or for controlling the opinion of the community.
Certainly, the rough restriction of the information (the “classic” censorship, which was used in USSR) does not quite suit the modern information world and the modern Russia, which aims at being reputed as a democratic country. As a result the government of the Russian Federation had to resort to a subtle form of the censorship, that tells you, who to trust and who not to trust. Once again the conception of the omnipresent and almighty antagonist appeared to be very handy…
Any lie can be discovered, if you have an unhindered access to information sources from both sides – from the slanderer and from the slandered one. And such access is quite possible in the world of advanced information technologies! That’s why the goal was not just to hide the information, but to discredit the alternative points of view. Thanks to the same information technologies it’s also possible to question any materials nowadays (so what, that you have a video – it could be generated using computer graphics, and so on)! In other words, you can never be sure, what did actually happen, without being a first-hand eye-witness of the event. So, when Russian people ask the natural question “Who then can we trust?”, their government gives the unambiguous answer “Trust only us!”. At the same time the Russian government labels all other mass media with “foreign agent“, what implies, that they should not be trusted.
]]>They say, that people on the Euromaidan stand for a faster integration with the European Union… But, it’s not so simple! No one officially refused the integration, actually – it was just postponed. And even if the integration was started right away, it would take years to give the real effect… So, what’s the point?
EU set multiple preconditions for the Agreement to be signed. All they were related to reforms, that EU believed were needed to be made in Ukraine. Mostly these were laws, which should have been passed before the Agreement can be signed. These laws were aimed, mostly, to improve the democracy in the country. And most of them were passed long before the Euromaidan started. One of the preconditions was about the selective justice. No law was required for this one – EU just wanted political prisoners to be released (yes, we have political prisoners in Ukraine)! And one of these prisoners – former Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko – was actually released. But not the other one…
Yulia Tymoshenko was one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution (which is often named Maidan), that took place in 2004. After that she served as a Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Back in 2009, at the beginning of the year, while she was the Prime Minister, the gas for Europe got cut off by the Russian company Gazprom. The official reason for the cut-off was declared, that Ukraine was stealing gas, which was intended for Europe and which passed through the Ukrainian gas transportation system. In fact, this happened because Ukraine had not yet negotiated the price for the gas with Gazprom and the latter stopped supplying gas for Ukraine. Yet still Ukraine needed to withdraw a part of the gas (so called “technical gas”) to be able to pass the European gas through the transportation system (i.e., Ukraine had no other choice)…
Anyway it became a huge political scandal. The problem was especially complicated because Gazprom requested a groundlessly high price for Ukraine (the highest for Europe, actually, while Ukraine is the closest country of the Europe). It was clear, that this was a political price – the answer of Russia to the Orange Revolution, which did not let the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych (yes, the Viktor Yanukovych) to become the president. So, under the high pressure from both sides – from EU and Russia – Tymoshenko was trying to negotiate the price for several weeks and, finally, gave up by accepting the price, Gazprom wanted. Certainly, probably, due to the pressure, she did this with some minor infringement of the procedure (what just happens sometimes to everyone). And this infringement was later used to file suit against her.
I, personally, don’t believe, that Yulia Tymoshenko is a good opposition politician. I also don’t believe, that she did nothing, that worth taking her into prison! But this particular case is definitely political. So, naturally EU requested to release her for the Agreement to happen.
But, she has not been released… No, this did not become the reason for the Agreement signing to be postponed! But this witnesses, that people, who controlled the process of Tymoshenko release, most likely, did knew, that the Agreement could be postponed. At least, this would explain the theatricality of the release process.
From the very beginning EU wanted Tymoshenko to be amnestied, but Ukrainian statesmen were finding many reasons, why they could not do this. Thus, Viktor Yanukovych (the president) claimed, that his electorate would not forgive this to him. So, for a long time Ukraine was looking for the “best” way to do this…
Being in prison Tymoshenko got a severe disease. She was receiving treatment in the Ukrainian health care system for more than a year with no (or not enough) result… Having understood, that Tymoshenko would unlikely be amnestied, EU decided to ask just to let Tymoshenko get treatment abroad – somewhere, where she can recover (e.g., in Germany). It was, in fact, much more easy to achieve and Yanukovych as well as many other Ukrainian statesmen promised to do this. This required passing an additional law, that would allow prisoners to take treatments abroad. Simple as that! But it appeared to be impossible too…
The majority of deputies in the Ukrainian Parliament (named Verkhovna Rada) belongs to the Party of Regions – the party of Viktor Yanukovych. During weeks till 21 December 2013 this party refused to accept any such law! The opposition suggested up to 10 different revisions – the Party of Regions was always finding “something wrong” while they had not suggested a single own revision.
The “work” on the Tymoshenko law attracted the attention of many Ukrainian people, which were eager about signing the historical Agreement with EU. All of them got the feeling, that Yanukovych and his party did not actually want to sign the Agreement. But till the last day many of them hoped, that this was just a game to release Tymoshenko in the very last moment. Finally, on November 21 the government made the decision to postpone the signing and the “work” on the Tymoshenko law got stopped right away…
The prospects of signing the Agreement with EU produced a negative reaction from Russia. Ukraine is historically within the interests of this country. Thus, the Russian president Vladimir Putin is believed to plan reuniting former USSR countries into a new union. So, Russia did not want to let Ukraine go for EU. Therefore, as the signing became closer Russia decided to limit the export of Ukrainian products to it, explaining this by preparations for protecting their market against EU products (they claimed to believe, that EU companies would try to sell their products as Ukrainian ones to Russia). Certainly, this struck the Ukrainian economy. The commodity circulation between our countries went down dramatically causing severe financial issues…
Also, long before Ukraine decided to postpone the signing of the Agreement, Russian mass media started to allege, that Ukraine is going for a severe economic crisis by joining the EU market (as Ukrainian manufacturers would not be able to compete with European ones). Naturally, the Ukrainian government refuted this… It was also known, that Ukraine was negotiating with IMF about receiving a financial aid. The Ukrainian government claimed, that they don’t expect the EU Agreement to help them receive this aid…
Finally, on 21st November 2013 plans to sign the Association Agreement with EU in Vilnius were postponed by the Ukrainian government due to severe economic issues experienced by Ukraine at the moment. Officially, Ukraine took a pause to improve the economy! Among the reasons for the pause the Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Azarov named: a) trade issues with Russia (which were made by Russia) and b) inability to receive the financial aid from IMF!
This way it was suddenly revealed, that Ukraine is about to enter the economic crisis and Ukrainian people had no idea about this till November 21!
Having read the above do you still believe, that Euromaidan stands just for a faster integration with EU?.. To some extent people of the Euromaidan do stand for this!.. They do this despite the statement of the government claiming, that this will cause severe issues to the Ukrainian economy! Isn’t it odd?.. But, on the other side, what are reasons to trust the government?!. Remember, some time ago the government assured, that the economy is ready for EU? Later, they say it is not! Some time ago they assured, that they did not expect the Agreement to help them gain the IMF aid! Now they claim, that inability to get the aid is one of the main reasons for the pause! They promised to let Tymoshenko get the treatment abroad… But they did not!
In fact, the Tymoshenko story indicates, that far before November 21 Ukrainian statesmen were aware, that they could refuse to sign the Agreement in Vilnius! This means, that they just did not want Tymoshenko to be released while they are unsure. This story also proves, that the government and the president were “playing” with people and EU. It demonstrates, that neither the government nor the president can be trusted! And that’s the thing, which made Euromaidan!
People on the Euromaidan just want to be sure about the future of Ukraine! They want to be able to trust the government and the president of their country! They want to be sure, that Ukraine is going for EU! And at the moment no one in Ukraine can be sure about this… So, the real reason of Euromaidan is the loss of confidence!
]]>First, I have peculiar opinions on many things (like many other people do, actually). Certainly, such opinions may help others understand the things better. And, certainly, I can be wrong and in such cases I would like to know, if I am – so, I’m looking for discussions!
Second, any idea can change the world – either it’s someone’s world, or it’s a group’s world, or it’s the World. Brand new pioneering opinions are able to change a lot! While I unlikely will be able to find such idea – still I can try!
Third, many my ideas are too peculiar and, therefore, do not get much support from others. But this does not mean, that they are wrong – remember once people did not want to trust Pythagoras, that the Earth is round? So, by sharing such ideas I’m also looking for like-minded persons.
]]>