Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 17 – When analysts
compare the Russian empire to the British or French, they usually focus on the
fact that the former advanced in a contiguous fashion while the latter two were
formed from lands beyond the oceans. But that is far from the most important
distinction, historian Boris Sokolov says.
The British and the French chose
which lands to transform into colonies on the basis of whether these areas would
bring a profit to the metropolitan center and its population, he says. The
Russians in contrast sought to expand territorially without much regard to the profitability
for either the elite or the population of doing so (liberal.ru/cases/imperskii-sindrom).
In this, Russian rulers acted more
like medieval kings and ended up by creating an empire which cost the center’s
elites and masses more than it benefitted either except in the psychologically
significant way of making rulers and ruled alike proud of the extent of their
possessions.
Despite the fact that the empire has
almost always operated at a loss for the center, Sokolov continues, “the
overwhelming majority of residents of Russia, including even those who are
critically inclined toward Putin, have retained their imperial consciousness.”
And that in turn helps explain the unique “cult of victory in the Great
Fatherland War.”
“People say: yes, Putin suppressed freedom,
destroyed business, and raised the pension age. All this is bad. But look he
rejoined Crimea to Russia, intends to do the same with the Donbass, and fights
with terrorists in Syria, all of which is correct since we must have as much
territory as possible in order that we be taken seriously by others.”
The same explains Russian attitudes
toward Stalin: “In their majority, Russians curse Stalin for everything except
his conquests. For those, many are prepared to forgive the victims of his
policies. And until among the population this imperial consciousness is
overcome, democracy in Russia will not win out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment