Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

“Open Russia” in London

Khodorkovsky opens a discussion club for the liberals who failed the “Crimean test”
10 November, 2015 - 12:05

Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s website informs that The Open Russia Club starts working in London. The opening event on November 10 will host two political scientists, Gleb Pavlovsky and Stanislav Belkovsky, who will discuss the question “Can we develop the idea of Russia’s future here, in another country?”

London has always been favored by Russia’s oppositionists. Alexander Herzen published his magazine Kolokol (“The Bell”) there, carrying Chernyshevsky’s articles calling for mutiny. At a party congress in London, Vladimir Lenin split Russian social democrats and laid the foundations for Stalinist totalitarianism. Thus, given this very ambiguous historical past, one should take extreme care when launching any transformations of Russia in the British capital.

And yet Khodorkovsky opens another discussion platform in London, because “under the conditions in Russia when any creative initiative, whether political or cultural, which goes against pro-government ideology, nowadays has no chance of success, Russian cultural life is moving to London, where 300,000 Russians are living, working, and studying.”

The very first advertized discussion suggests disturbing and sad thoughts. A closer look at today’s Russian liberals leaves one wondering. With very few exceptions, they all were either part and parcel of the establishment in the past, or were closely related to government. It seems that their liberalism is the product of their redundancy at Putin’s court.

The annexation of Crimea and aggression in Donbas for the umpteenth time tore off the masks worn by the so-called liberals. In the 19th century, Russian liberalism expired at the border with Poland. Today, many liberals are triumphant over the “return of Crimea.” Dmitrii Shusharin reminded in his column in The Day: “At first the idol of democratic intelligentsia, boogeyman for immigrants, and social voyeurist Aleksey Navalny said that should he rise to power, he would not give Crimea back to Ukraine. Later he was supported by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was received in Kyiv like father of Russian democracy. The progressive public rushed to defend the two luminaries of liberty and exuded endless praise for their wisdom and sobriety.”

The club’s list of speakers leaves many in Russia amazed. Both Pavlovsky and Belkovsky enjoy rather dubious reputations. They are notorious both in Russia and Ukraine. This is an excerpt from the blog of Igor Yakovenko, former president of the Association of Russian Journalists: “Gleb Pavlovsky is Russia’s political technologist No. 1. He was Yanukovych’s spin doctor during the election campaign of 2004, which Yanukovych lost. This is how Elena Bonner describes Pavlovsky: ‘I saw what Pavlovsky is worth in 1980 or 1981, when he testified against Ivan Kovalev, Sergey Kovalev’s son, and Ivan’s wife Tatyana Osipova. Since then he will rise no higher in my eyes.’

“Political technologist No. 2, Stanislav Belkovsky, published his report State and Oligarchy in 2003, in which he warned of an imminent oligarchic coup in Russia and called for reprisals against the conspirators, first of all Khodorkovsky. After that Belkovsky suddenly appears as one of the ideologists of an opposition party The Other Russia. After the release of Khodorkovsky he takes on an important role in his inner circle and becomes one of his political consultants. Remarkably, for quite a long time Belkovsky wrote for a number of liberal mass media, like my favorite YeZh [a digital journal Yezhednevny zhurnal. – Author] and at the same time for Prokhanov’s chauvinistic paper Zavtra. And now Belkovsky is working as a major expert for TV Dozhd, Russia.”

Last but not least. Answering The Day’s question, Ian Bond, director of foreign policy at the London Centre for European Reform, remarked: “I find this an interesting initiative, and I wish the organizers success. The key question is, though, whether they will be able to connect with the political opposition inside Russia, so that this is not just a club for the sake of London-based emigrants, but a resource for all those willing to implement transformations in Russia.”

The majority of Russian liberals failed “Ukrainian tests,” and they totally failed with Crimea. Both Khodorkovsky and his close environment increasingly express neo-imperialistic sentiments.

By Yurii RAIKHEL
Rubric: