Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 6 – There are three
reasons why support for Vladimir Putin is so high even among educated Russians:
fear that their country might descend into chaos without him, their lack of a
positive image about the future, and a traditional Russian deference to the
state on foreign policy issues, according to Kseniya Kirillova.
One of the unexpected developments
of recent times has been that journalists who usually do the interviewing are
ever more often being interviewed by other journalists. Last week, Larry
Poltavtsev of Snob.ru interviewed Kirillova about her experiences and views
about Russia (http://snob.ru/profile/26145/blog/94867).
In the course of
a 3500-word interview, Kirillova touched on many issues including the fact that
Russian sources have indicated very clearly that she, a Russian citizen now
preparing articles for Novy Region-2 and Radio Liberty, should not return to
her homeland because she would face repression there.
But among her
most intriguing comments are those concerning what she sees as the three
reasons members of the Russian intelligentsia currently express their support for
Vladimir Putin and his aggressive policies in Ukraine and elsewhere. Her answer to this question, important in its
own right, is particularly significant because it informs her numerous
commentaries.
First, she
suggests, many in the Russian intelligentsia support Putin not because of any
interest in imperialism but rather out of fear and especially the fear of
instability. Because people remember the 1990s and become Putin has further
demonized that period, many su ffer from the fear that “a new Syria, Libya or
color revolution could arise” in Russia and that “this means anarchy, a sharp
decline in the standard of living, the appearance of uncontrolled bandits in
the streets, and practically a civil war.”
Moreover, “the
overwhelming majority even of educated people believe that Russia ‘is encircled
by enemies,’ a situation in which in the case of the weakening of central
power, these enemies will detroy it instantly.” As aresult, even if they
believe that Putin is wrong on this or that policy, they “do not see another leader
suitable for work ‘in war conditions.’”
Naturally, “this
is a lie because if the hostile environment exists, it does so only in response
to his aggressive policy.” But at the same time, “even intelligent people and
perhaps in greater degree than others unconsciously feel the terrible situation
that Russia is lurching toward catastrophe.” Lacking the moral qualities such
as bravery to do something about it, they are prepared to accept Putin’s logic
even if at a deeper level they know it is wrong.
Second, “the majority
even among educated people who in the past belonged to the ‘peresstroika’
generation of the liberal intelligentsia, dream about the restoration of the Soviet
Union. In part this is explicable,” Kirillova says. Because the authorities
offer no bright future, people take refuge in a mythologized bright past,
especially as the Kremlin encourages this.
Many of them
believe that it really is possible to restore the USSR, although no one knows
exactly how to do this; and thus they welcome the annexation of Crimea as a
step in that direction with an attitude that is also rooted in fear: they see
the Soviet Union as “something powerful which no one can attack.”
And third, the
intelligentsia like Russians more generally finds it very difficult to “separate
itself from the state on issues of foreign policy.” This is not so much the
result of “’imperial consciousness,’” as from a more genral sense of “’a
feeling of Russia’ which [the Russian] state always tries to substitute for
itself.”
That is
especially the case with foreign policy because in that realm, “the ordinary
individual understands very well his inability to influence events. In ‘a
battle of titans,’ the ordinary person is helpless” and is aware of his
helplessness. The Russian state exploits this and educated people are affected
as much as others.
To explain the
behavior of these people is not to justify them, Kirillova continues. Such
people “believe only in what they want to believe.”
Many in the
Russian intelligentsia also accept the Kremlin’s argument that Russia is
fighting in Ukraine not with Ukrainians but with Americans. That builds them up
in their own eyes. Moreover, she says,
people accept what they do because “an individual can view everything bad as
good only in comparison with something that is still worse.”
Thus, many for
many in Russia, Putin “appears as the lesser evil in comparison with the
illusory threat” which he works hard to create. Again, she suggests,
understanding why this pattern works is not the basis for excusing it or
thinking that nothing can be done, as hard as that may be to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment