Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 30 – Russia’s kvas
patriots are spending so much time congratulating themselves about what they
see as Moscow’s victory in the information war that they are ignoring not only
shortcomings in that struggle but the danger that Putin could be succeeded by
“a new Khrushchev” because he hasn’t created a self-sustaining system.
That is the judgment of Yury
Baranchik, a commentator for the Regnum news agency, and both his suggestions –
that Russia is not doing as well in the information war as many believe and
that Putin has not managed to put in place a system that will outlast him –
merit attention (regnum.ru/news/polit/1959331.html).
The Regnum commentator focuses on
what he suggests are the delusions of the kvas patriots that “we (Russia,
Putin, the Kremlin, Russians, etc.) have already defeated out geopolitical
opponents (or partners however one likes to call them) on all fronts,
political, financial-economic, information and so on.”
Baranchik says that such views are
“deeply mistaken and dangerous” for three reasons. First, all Russia has
succeeded in doing is stop retreating both on the post-Soviet space and more
generally. It has not swept the board as so many in Russia now think.
Second, despite what some think and
in the face of evidence that makes this conclusion “laughable,” “economically
Russia is still very dependent on external factors … [and] tit is still far too
early to say that we can like the Soviet Union oppose the entire Western world
as the Soviet Union did.”
And third, Russia has not won the
information war at least internationally. “There is a time to throw stones and
a time to collect them.” Russians need
to impose order “in their own ranks” and get to work. Imagine if the Red Army
after the Civil War had gone around saying “’the Red Army is stronger than all
others’” and not gotten down to the job of construction.
Russia today is clearly not stronger than
all, and it is delusional to suggest, as some Russian writers do, that any
successes of the West are not products of its superior positions in politics
and economics but the result of some kind of clever game by Moscow to draw the
West in in order to defeat it.
Whatever one thinks, Russia has not won
the international information war. “For all of 2015, mentions of Russia in
world media did not exceed two percent. What kind of ‘a victory’ can be said to
exist in such a context.” And it is time to ask: “what means does Russia
possess for victory in the world media” and “what world media today belong to
us?”
“The answer is obvious,” Baranchik
continues. And “if today we do not possess the means needed for victory then
how can we talk about victory? Yes, inside Russia today it is possible to say
that the patriots are more or less well represented in the media. But the
question arises: This is now while Putin is in office. But what if the
situation changes?”
Indeed, even domestically, not everything
is in order in the media battle; and abroad, it is even worse for Russia. “It
is necessary to soberly look at things in the face” rather than delude oneself
with claims that everything is going well and that Russia is winning or in the
minds of some has already won.
“Without the restoration of full
sovereignty over our own information space, including the entire spectrum [of
media channels], there is no basis for speaking about victory in the
information war or even about achieving a draw,” as some would put it, the
Regnum commentator argues.
“Let us be open – today all the influence
and weight of Russia in the world depends on one man – Vladimir Putin,
including in the information component of the influence of Russia in the
world,” he says. If he were not on the scene, “you can be certain right here
many leading major patriotic spaces would change course 180 degrees.”
In that situation, “today’s leading
liberals without any problems would pass today’s patriots on the path to all governing
bodies. They would admit you to the part and ask for whom you voted in the
elections, because in reality, several stages of power in Russia have not been
changed.”
According to Baranchik, “it is a good
thing that Putin is her, but there is no system. And there must be a system, a
clan, ‘a Russian Order,’ ‘an Orthodox-Muslim Order,’ ‘a party of
revolutionaries,’ the Russian political class, call it what you like. But it
must be in place and work.”
Russia, he says, “must have a guarantee”
that after Putin’s departure, “in his place will be dozens of leaders analogous
to his personal potential.” If that doesn’t happen, Baranchik says, then “there
is a high probability that a new Khrushchev will replace Stalin,” a comment
that says more than he perhaps intends but one that undoubtedly will disturb
many kvas patriots.
No comments:
Post a Comment