Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 3 – Even Russians
who oppose Putin’s policies in Ukraine are divided in terms of their sense of
personal responsibility for them, with middle-aged feeling personally guilty
and the young believing that they are not responsible in any respect, according
to Pavel Kazarin.
That divide, the Russian commentator
suggests, has important consequences for the future of Russia as one generation
replaces another and important lessons for Ukrainians if they are to avoid a
similar and equally disastrous evolution in opinion in their country (ru.krymr.com/a/27959929.html).
Kazarin says that he has travelled
abroad with Russian colleagues, all of whom are part of the minority of
Russians who consider “Crimea to be annexed and the Donbass to be a victim of
the aggression of the Kremlin. But,” he continues, “that is where their
similarities end and the differences begin.”
The main divide, the analyst says,
concerns the responsibility Russian citizens feel for the actions of their
government; and there Russians divide generationally. “Those who met 1991 as
adults said that yes,” they felt responsible. “Those who passed the 1990s in
school said that they don’t.”
“If the older generation views
present-day Russia as their own defeat, then the young categorically does not
want to take responsibility for it.” The
older cohort feels that they have lost what they felt they gained in 1991 and
so view the situation personally rather than as some historical question.
First 1993 when Yeltsin shelled the
Russian White House. Then in 1994, there was the war in Chechnya. Then in 1996 there was “the victory of
Yeltsin ‘at any price.’” And in 1999, Vladimir Putin “appeared in the role of
successor.” Today’s “official Russia” is more like what the August 1991
putschists wanted than what those who defeated them at the time did and do.
All these developments are very much
“part of the personal biographers of the older generation of liberally inclined
Russians. For them, present-day Russia is the result of their own personal mistakes
and shortcomings, their illusions and their unjustified hopes,” Kazarin
continues.
But the younger generation of
Russian liberals “do not feel any personal responsibility for what Russia is
now like because they were from the outset deprived of the chance to influence the
country in the dynamic 1990s, and by the middle of the first decade of this
century, the architecture of the Russian Federation was sufficient fixed” that
no one could change it.
Consequently, Kazarin says, this
younger generation, although it feels itself to be on a sinking ship, “does not
intend to blame itself for an incorrectly chosen course because its members did
not play a part in choosing it.” That generational divide happens in many
revolutionary periods, and there is a very real risk it could occur among
Ukrainians as well.
“If present-day Ukraine does not
manage to deal with the tests it is undergoing” in a better way, then the same
thing could happen and a divide could open up between “those who fought for the
future and those who lived burdened by it but without a sense” that they made
it and are responsible for it.
And therefore, Kazarin concludes, “the
main task of Ukraine at present is to ensure that civil society with privatize
the state, to make it not some abstractly separated and unnecessary institution
of force but an instrument for the development of its own population.” If that
is not achieved, he says, Ukraine’s future risks looking like Russia’s present.
No comments:
Post a Comment