Between 1987 and 1990 Dr. Igor Chubais was one of the most conspicuous figures in the Moscow-based “unofficial” associations Perestroika and Perestroika-88. He was the founding member of the CPSU’s Democratic Platform in 1990 and was later expelled from the party in retaliation for “activities aimed at splitting the party.” He was the editor in chief of the journal (almanac) Novye vekhi (New Landmarks). He is the author of the books Ot Russkoi idei — k idee novoi Rossii (From the Russian Idea to the Idea of New Russia, 1996) and Rossiia v poiskakh sebia (Russia in Search of Itself, 1998). In 2003, in collaboration with a group of colleagues, he wrote a new textbook entitled Otechestvovedenie (Studies of the Motherland).
After August 1991 Dr. Chubais became disillusioned with the democratic movement, which was “finished off” by Boris Yeltsin. He ended his political activities and devoted himself to philosophy. He is convinced that Russia must form a new world perception and a new system of values. He has a negative attitude to the politics of the current Russian government, which he calls “a single nomenklatura company,” which is “leading the country toward a social explosion.”
The Russian researcher emphasizes that the condemnation of Stalinism and totalitarianism is one of the most important topics in today’s Russia. He explains why the Russian government refuses to denounce Stalinism and totalitarianism; why it refuses to define the Holodomor and the consequences that this may have for Russia. He believes that the current political system in Russia is ineffective. While admitting that Ukraine’s move toward NATO may aggravate relations between Ukraine and Russia, he points out that Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Alliance will force officials to adopt Western Europe’s democratic legal norms.
“IN OUR COUNTRY WE ARE CONTINUING TO PRAISE STALIN AND STALINISM”
Dr. Chubais, why does the Russian government refuse to legally define the Holodomor?
I believe that, unfortunately, we have never parted with the USSR in the broad sense of the word. This is what makes Russia different from the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, or Bulgaria, where transformations took place. In Bulgaria, they brought Todor Zhivkov to trial. In Poland, they are going to bring Wojciech Jaruzelski to court once again.
Meanwhile, no conclusions have been made in post-Soviet Russia. Today’s Russia has no identity. Here you find Soviet values and those of the thousand- year-old Russia, attempts to allege that ours is a Western country because it is a member of the G-8. The result is a perfect farrago and the absence of any rules, norms, or values. This is one answer. There is another one, which is narrower and more to the point. The refusal to assess the crimes of Stalinism is explained by the fact that countless members of the current nomenklatura — the people who are in power — are former security service officers; hence their attitude.
Are there people in Russia who consider this policy dangerous, who realize that it is impossible to keep things secret forever or to try to prevent information from reaching the outside, because the world has changed?
I think that your concise formula, that you cannot conceal something because it will come out anyway, is undeniable and obvious.
The result of our government’s activities is that our country, which is truly great and has a great history, has no true friends or allies, despite our immense potential, raw materials base, and highly qualified manpower! The trouble is everybody expects the Russians to cheat, con, or keep something secret. This doesn’t work; in fact it yields exactly the opposite result. It is dangerous to make friends with such a country. Can you visualize today’s Germany praising Hitler and regarding itself as his successor? We are continuing to praise Stalin and Stalinism — sometimes indirectly and at other times directly. We have all this to live with.
As proof of your point, the results of an Internet poll in Russia indicate that so far Stalin is ahead of every other nominee in the television project Russia’s Name, an analog to Ukraine’s competition to name the Great Ukrainians.
Nothing surprises me anymore. The answer to this is very simple: the trouble is that we still don’t have a truly independent scholarship in the field of humanities. The images of Stalin and Lenin are built not by scholarship, not by researchers but by the government. Nor is it surprising that there was one kind of Stalin under Lenin, another one under Stalin, and a different one under Khrushchev. Public attitudes to Stalin varied under Yeltsin and Putin. This difference is explained not by the discovery of new documents in the archives or new studies. The reason is the differing interests of the political leadership in building the leader’s image. There is a dramatic re-Stalinization process underway among the younger generation. After all, the older generation knows about the GULAG, about all those prison camps, the tens of millions of lives that were destroyed.
I should point out that we still don’t know the precise death toll, which is proof that the final figure is horrific. Our young people know nothing. I was giving a lecture at one of Moscow’s institutions of higher learning, and picture this: a young student rose from his seat and said, “Professor, you should save your breath and not tell us about the GULAG and the millions of victims. There was only one camp, although its existence has yet to be proved.” Germany has Dachau and Poland has Auschwitz. Both are memorial sites today. There is nothing of the kind in Russia; here all tracks have been carefully hidden.
Are there any trends in Russia along the lines of condemning Stalinism and totalitarianism?
I believe that this is one of the central and most important topics for today’s Russia. Unless we resolve this issue and work out an adequate picture, my country will not be able to make any progress. Of course, there are people in Russia who think like you and me. Recently I attended the launch of the book Dve Rossii v XX stoletie (Two Russias in the 20th Century), written by Pushkarev, one of the leaders of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists. Our positions coincide. Five days before this event I attended a television recording session starring our stand-up comedian Mikhail Zadornov and heard his science-fiction theories about Russian history. He made absolutely unprofessional, clumsy, and senseless claims. Nevertheless, First Channel allowed him half an hour to vent his ravings. No one will ever give any air-time to Pushkarev. There are researchers, authors, people who understand and who are writing, and they need to be heard. But this is precisely the problem.
THE SOVIET NOMENKLATURA HAD NO NATIONALITY
Perhaps historians in Russia and Ukraine should join efforts. Here in Ukraine we’re trying to figure out what’s happening in Russia, while trying to show you what’s going on in Ukraine without the censorship of Russia’s television channels.
You may have never thought about this, but Ukraine is playing a great role. I remember the New Year’s Eve programs on our channels, Dec. 31, 2007, with all that good humor, wisecracks, the works. Then I heard a political statement made twice by that stand-up comedian. He said that he was traveling to Ukraine and hearing the same word all the time: elections. Everyone strained to listen as he repeated the word elections . The man was actually trying to besmirch Ukraine, addressing this most significant element of the democratic system.
What makes Ukraine so important? Ukraine is not the United States or Germany. It is Russia’s neighbor. By the way, we in Russia first heard about the Holodomor after this topic was raised by Ukraine. If Ukraine had not raised this topic, then people would still be silent in our country. Well, perhaps a couple of researchers would know and write articles carried by periodicals with a print run of 500 copies in a country with a population of 145 million. When Ukraine broached this topic, people started talking about it in our country. But I think that it is a very big mistake to claim that the Holodomor was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people because the Soviet nomenklatura had no nationality.
If Ukraine would say that this was a general calamity for all the peoples of the former USSR (because Russians, and Kazakhs, and Ukrainians suffered), then we could act jointly. But when we are told that it was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people, then certain politicians here try to prove that this was not genocide. Either we join our efforts to combat Stalinism or this problem will turn into a barrier between Russia and Ukraine. If you made it perfectly clear that this concerns all the citizens of the Soviet Union, then there would be a different reaction. I believe that this was a general catastrophe, and this tragic date should be entered not only in Ukraine’s calendar but also Russia’s.
IT TURNS OUT THAT RUSSIA IS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT THAT ENGINEERED THE HOLODOMOR
All the statements that have been made by Ukrainian scholars, historians, and even President Yushchenko, note that it is not the Russian people who are guilty but the totalitarian Stalinist regime. Are there fears that Russia will be recognized as the successor to the totalitarian regime?
The obvious inference is that Russia is the successor to the totalitarian regime, the government that engineered the Holodomor. If so, it will have to bear the responsibility. Can you believe? Our FSB men refer to themselves as Chekists. Can you visualize the officers of Germany’s special service or constitution protection service describing themselves as Gestapo men? This is absolutely unthinkable. Meanwhile, our “Chekists” are proud of their status. There has been no break with the past. The picture is not complete. People are being brainwashed here.
The process that started when the State Emergency Committee collapsed, when the CPSU was banned, etc., was eventually suspended. It may be said that the old system is being revived. Whereas Germany is not a successor to the Third Reich, Russia proclaimed at one time that it was the successor to the Soviet Union. The latter was not a successor to the Russian empire. Those were totally different political systems. We have drifted away from our thousand-year history. This is our problem. I might add that the screening of Andrzej Wajda’s Katyn has been banned in Russia. It was screened at the Polish embassy and in a couple of towns. If our people saw this film, if they were not denied this information, they would act differently.
What is your take on Russia’s statements that it won’t allow a revision of the history of the Second World War? Perhaps a better option would be if historians in Ukraine and Russia joined efforts in producing a truthful historical account of this war and the postwar period.
I believe that there is much about the Second World War — or the “Great Patriotic War” — that has not been investigated. Much has not been written or elucidated. In fact, the task is not to rewrite history, but to write it. We have no history of the 20th century. It has not been written. Nor do we have a history of the “Great Patriotic War.” All we know is that the great Stalin won the war. Then came Khrushchev, who won all the victories. Then we heard the official ballads about Marshal Zhukov.
NATO AS A TOOL FOR INTRODUCING LEGAL DEMOCRATIC NORMS
There is no way to avoid the topic of Ukraine’s intention to seek NATO membership, which is a thorn in Moscow’s side. To what degree can our country’s intention to develop closer ties with NATO until its accession worsen our relations with Moscow?
This is a serious question. The short answer is that Ukraine’s intention is seriously exacerbating its relations with Russia. Of course, if Ukraine joins NATO, then without a doubt anti-Ukrainian moods will be formed within our society, not in the Kremlin. This is what makes Ukraine’s position so complicated. In my opinion, Ukraine wants NATO membership not because it wants to be at war with any country. Never! Above all, NATO is a political organization. If it admits Ukraine, your officials will have to adopt Western Europe’s democratic legal norms. And this is a way of exerting pressure on bureaucrats. I think that this is what Ukraine’s intention is all about.
Of course, Ukraine will have to pay a high price because it risks losing its identity. It will adopt European norms, but will Ukraine remain Ukraine afterwards? This is a big question and a very complex problem. Nothing is changing in Russia, although I wouldn’t say that Russia needs NATO membership. Perhaps these problems should be resolved in other ways, but there is no other solution in sight. It’s extremely difficult to give a simple and straight answer to this question. Without a doubt, Ukraine’s movement toward NATO will keep exacerbating its relations with Russia, and the final rift will be very painful.
