Russia’s ‘Frontiersmen’ a Problem for Kremlin, Andreychuk and Oreshkin Say

Paul Goble

            Staunton, August 1 – Unlike Russians in the central part of the country, Stanislav Andreychuk and Dmitry Oreshkin say, those on “the frontier” of Russia in the North, Siberia, and the Far East are less deferential to the Kremlin culturally because they lack the traditions of serfdom and politically because they feel Moscow doesn’t show them the respect they are due.

            Andreychuk, a member of the Golos council, says that people have gone into the streets in Khabarovsk just as they voted against the constitutional amendments because they feel Moscow has ignored them and does not respect their agenda, one that is far different from Moscow’s (currenttime.tv/a/frontier-people/30761546.html).

            And just as their cultural background involves more independent mindedness on their part, they continue that tradition to this day, just as people in the central part of Russia continue to be deferential to whatever regime is in power. That makes the periphery of the country vastly more important at times of crisis, independent of the ethnicity of its population.

            Oreshkin, a Moscow political analyst, says that even when Khabarovsk residents end their protests, they will not cease to be angry; and they will engage in “a campaign of civil disobedience,” poking sticks into the wheel of the state machine unless and until the center takes them seriously.

            But, he continues, “the Kremlin is not in a position to solve the problems of the regions simply because what it considers a normal regional policy is for the regions anything but normal.” And where people are prepared to object, they will make their feelings clear.

            Russians in the Far East are what Americans call “’people of the frontier,’” independent, strong and self-reliant types who want to be respected and don’t want to be given orders all the time.  Regional elites often come from the same class of people and thus think in the same way rather than focusing only on what the Kremlin wants.

            Because of Moscow’s approach, Oreshkin continues, it cannot solve the problems regional movements raise. It wants weak, dependent and subservient regions and does not see that if the regions are weak so too will be the country, however much people in Moscow puff themselves up.

            Suggestions that Putin should become more directly involved or even go to Khabarovsk are something those in power can’t take seriously. If Putin went to Khabarovsk, he would soon have to spend all his time travelling to all the other places where people would conclude that the way to get attention is to go into the streets.

            The Kremlin leader has to act as if he can ignore what is happening, even though that tactic precludes any serious long-term strategy of development. 

            Those who believe that Khabarovsk is the beginning of a liberation movement are engaged in “wishful thinking,” believing what they hope for rather than what is. As long as Putin is in office, Oreshkin says, the result of such protests can be only one thing, more repression, as disastrous as that is not only for the regions involved but for Russia as a whole.