Wanting to Keep Russia in One Piece Not the Same thing as Wanting to Keep Putin in Power, Pastukhov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Sept. 18 – There are legitimate reasons for believing that the Russian Federation should come apart but there are also legitimate reasons for believing that it would be better for it to remain in one piece, Vladimir Pastukhov says. But there is one aspect of this debate that is not legitimate.

            And that is this, the London-based Russian analyst says. Far from all those who believe Russia should remain in one piece want Putin to remain in power (t.me/v_pastukhov/1248 reposted at echofm.online/opinions/stremlenie-sohranit-rossiyu-ne-tozhdestvenno-stremleniyu-sohranit-putinskij-rezhim).

            The debate between those who favor disintegration and those who oppose it has reached “the boiling point” and threatens to become a serious headache for Russia’s political class, he continues. It isn’t helped by suggesting that support for the territorial integrity of Russia is all about supporting Putin  

            It is time to lower the temperature, Pastukhov says. The arguments of those favoring disintegration ultimately rest on “the idea that such a vast territory cannot be governed except with the help of a hyper-centralized machine of violence that will sooner or later start a war with its neighbors in the interest of self-preservation.

            “There are, of course, also purely decolonizing motivations, but they are not of a specific nature, and the logic of those favoring independence for the Basque country is unlikely to differ from that of backers of independence for Sakha. Sometimes, however, additional “toys” are hung on this “Christmas tree” in the form of accusations that Russians are innately aggressive.

But, Pastukhov argues, “I would not focus on Russians alone here, because in similar situations the same thing was written about other peoples experiencing a cultural default such as the Germans in the last century. And over time this goes away. That is, the dispute about the influence of the territory on culture, political system and foreign policy is fundamental.”

“Who and under what circumstances will argue on this topic? If they win, Putin or his successors will obviously not “dissolve Russia” themselves. In the event of Russia's defeat in any nuclear war, the subject of dispute will most likely disappear. And if something does remain, the occupation authorities will divide the ruins without asking anyone.”

Pastukhov continues: There “thus remains only the chance that some victorious revolutionary party will independently divide Russia into parts after coming to power. But I have some doubts that a party which openly writes on its banners that its goal is the dismemberment of Russia has a real chance of victory in the coming Russian revolution.”

And that reduces to a theoretical discussion any debate about this issue among Russians, the commentator suggests.