The Russian web community is agitated over a letter of support for Russian fascism, aggression against and dismemberment of Ukraine, signed by a group of culture officials, actors, filmmakers, and other on-call Kulturtraegers. What look particularly funny are revelations of Putin’s two “concubines” in Facebook. They are bombastic, verbose, blurred, and nauseating at the same time. In all probability, they were written by the same people who had compiled a collective declaration of love for the tsar-fuehrer. The damsels’ last names are Moguchiy (“mighty”) and Bak (“tank, container”). So we can say that the intelligentsia’s support for a war with Ukraine has resulted in a “Mighty Tank.” Signatures keep coming.
Also on the rise are original publications that condemn the treachery of the liberal opposition, even though the latter has long ceased to exist. Among those who oppose Putin’s actions are people of entirely different views and walks of life, who are far from politics and ideology. This rejection seems to be of a stylistic, esthetic and physiological nature, at the vomiting reflex level. It is a simple disgust that has always been stronger and more reliable against any – Goebbels’s, Zhdanov’s, Suslov’s, Surkov’s or Putin’s – agitprop.
As for Putin, his press conference was not just agitprop. It drew up guidelines for the whole propaganda machine. In North Korea, leaders try to attract the grassroots by breeding a new variety of rice, while the president of present-day Russia is trying to win over the grassroots by means of agitprop which he inspires with his own example.
Of course, this can be compared with Soviet times – the1930s and the Cold War era. But I will let myself recall my previous text published in Den (No.44, March 12, 2014). I thought it was possible to conclude that Putin was bringing Russia back to the years 1989-91, when, having got rid of tank-socialism countries, Gorbachev focused on saving the USSR. It is at that period that [Supreme Soviet Speaker] Anatoly Lukyanov formed the parliamentary group Soyuz (“Union”) that relied on the elites of autonomous republics and regions which had some distinctive features in comparison with the union republics the part of which they were.
That marked the onset of the Abkhazian, Transnistrian, and Crimean separatism. It is easy to note that only in Abkhazia the bet was made on the non-Russian population. In all the other republics, including Latvia and Estonia, the Russians began to be set – deliberately and meanly – against other nationalities. It was a “bitchy” policy that turned into “bitchy” business. This term had been coined in GULAG camps, where the administration provoked and encouraged “bitchy wars” among prisoners.
The past few days’ events have confirmed that the Kremlin chose to return Russia and some other ex-USSR entities to that brief span of the USSR history, the last two years of its existence. And these intentions look serious. The proof of this is Putin’s allegation that Ukraine unlawfully withdrew from the USSR and his use of the word “republic” with respect to Ukraine. This word has, naturally, a very definite connotation – a union republic.
So I dare say and put forward a hypothesis that one (by no means the least of) Putin’s goals is to denounce the Belavezha Accords. This requires the consent of Lukashenko whom Putin trusts in spite of the Belarusian leader’s statement in support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. And, as it was in 1922, he needs a puppet Ukrainian regime that relies on the occupation forces. The head of this Ukraine will be the Kyiv governor-general because, as some experts believe, by that time Russia will have annexed not only Crimea, but also south-eastern Ukraine, the Black Sea coast, and a corridor that links Crimea with Transnistria which will also be part of the Russian Federation. This means a territory populated by about 20 million people out of the 45 million now living in Ukraine. Moreover, if you take into account Defense Minister Shoigu’s February 26 statement that Russia intends to set up naval bases all over the world, it is logical to suggest that the Kremlin needs to seize Ukrainian shipyards.
Angela Merkel says Russia abides by the law of the jungle. This is a bit wrong. Hostile takeover is the Kremlin’s policy. It is a strategic hostile takeover without the slightest attempts to bring it, one way or another, into line with international law. The world became different within a few days, but Putin hates to acknowledge this. Putin holds sway in this world, as Hitler did until 1943. Putin is dictating conditions and shaping the destinies of nations. No one knows how long this will last.
The two following Facebook posts are a good illustration of the reaction of the bygone world’s former leaders:
“Russian serviceman and Crimean self-defense members have completely blocked all access roads to an arms base in Inkerman.”
“The US State Department has announced concrete measures to help Ukraine: energy and nuclear safety, US investments, and reform of the education system.”
Who are they going to help? The state of Ukraine is being destroyed before the entire world’s eyes – might makes right.
And those who still wield some might seem to be taking America back into the 1930s and are going to defend the “American Fortress” in San Francisco. They cannot understand that Crimea is the Pearl Harbor of today.
So much about the Americans. The Russians have a different trouble, though. A considerable part of the cultural and intellectual establishment, not to mention the political elite, believes that this re-division of the world, annexation of foreign territories, and seizure of someone else’s property is a simple, easy, and permissible thing. This raises the following question.
Forget those “official singers” in the Russian camp, for there are also experts and economists, including those in power. They are very well aware of what Putin’s worldwide struggle for power will result in. In fact, the result is already obvious. Sanctions? It’s just a formality. Or will they also be signing letters: come on, our dearest one, the people will eat grass, if necessary, but is sure to support you! Or will they keep silent?
Let me say again what I have said more than once. In 1936 Ludwig Erhard, who had refused to join the Nazi party and remained jobless, wrote a study, in which he detailed the measures to be taken after an inevitable catastrophe. The manuscript has been lost, while Erhard’s plan survived.
Does Russia have her own Erhard now?
