Ukraine and Russia – 20 years without empire: historical lessons

(Continuation; for beginning see the previous issues)

Yu.A.: “This is a very sore point. The distorted Russian society emerges from three rather different angles. A part of the distortion has its roots in the pre-Soviet era, the October Revolution, and imperial Russia. The ideal was smashed in 1917. For, unlike the Austro-Hungarian or the Ottoman empires, the Russian Empire was ideocratic, not territorial. It rested on a prevailing ideal that formed its backbone. Its essence was in the words ‘Moscow, the third Rome.’ Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, and Nicholas II strove to achieve this goal. This slogan envisaged that Russia would be guided by foreign political interests rather than domestic Russian considerations. Kliu­chevsky put it quite wittily: ‘The state gorged, the people decayed.’ Besides, the existence of an ideal demanded the existence of an auto­cratic power and serfdom. One could not live without the other.

“But very soon, after 1917, the ideal of Russia’s domination in the world received a new impetus. It was the same, albeit very much altered, idea that sounded as follows: ‘Victory of the proletarian revolution all over the world.’

“In the Stalin era this ideal underwent another transformation. ‘Victory of the proletarian revolution all over the world’ gave way to ‘building socialism in one country,’ and then it was about building communism in one country – the Soviet Union.

“When Nikita Khrushchev was in power, the ‘communist’ ideal began to tumble down because the former had announced a ‘sausage socialism,’ i.e., ‘everybody will have something and overall prosperity will come in 1980.’ Then everybody began to think: ‘But how can I get this ‘something’ – not only sausage but something else?’ Everybody – from the broadest masses of people to the leadership – began to think of this only. In the Khrushchev era only fools continued to believe that communism would ever emerge. The loss of faith is in fact the collapse of the ‘communist’ ideal.

“At the same time, there was a dream to devise and carry out a ‘red project’ as a global alternative to ca­pi­talism. This also aroused some enthu­siasm: we will build an alternative to ca­pitalism as an opportunity for all to be equal and achieve success. This in fact brought about a realm of dream about egalitarian justice which, as it turned out, was impos­sible to achieve. And all this turned into an ‘animal farm,’ where all are equal but some are ‘more equal than others.’ After all, this in fact brought up the Soviet nomenklatura. This idea finally fell together with the Soviet Union.

“The third ideal after the collapse of the USSR sounded as follows: ‘We will live the way they do in Europe.’ In other words, we will build a market economy and democracy instead of an authorita­rian system and Stalinist totalitaria­nism and a nation state (a no longer ideocratic country with a residual imperial syndrome) instead of an empire. This idea caused the enrichment of those who were given access to resources and the loss of the ability to distinguish between good and evil.

“This ideal went through a test by the crisis that hit Europe. I a bit di­s­a­gree with Mr. Shcherbak that we should not overestimate the crisis. It has now assumed such a scale that many call it another end of Europe. In any case, its scale allows many to say that capitalism has reached a deadlock. Almost nobody is sure that this deadlock can be broken. But the thing is that Russia still remains. Earlier, the populace at least nursed a hope that we would live like in Europe, but now everybody thinks: God forbid like in Europe! Many are saying, on second thoughts, that it is perhaps not worth going there.”

L.I.: “The rich had no second thoughts: as a result, 200,000 in London…”

Yu.A.: “As for the desire to flee Russia, nothing has changed. They are striving even more to do so – and not only they personally. Word has it [Russia’s former finance minister] Kudrin helped many integrate into Europe. He has very close connections and speaks English, so he has easily integrated into that place – not on his own but with the elite. He took the whole Russia with him. I mean that, having access to resources, they pumped all the capitals they had to the West and are reaping dividends on na­tu­ral rent from there. They also settled their families there and bought everything they could buy.

“But many Russians no longer lead a carefree existence and are not fully convinced that Europe is the ideal, ideolo­gically and otherwise, place for the country to strive for. We have clearly failed to do as they do in Europe – we made a warped attempt to introduce European liberal values for which Russia has ne­ver had any groundwork or traditions. So we had to introduce liberalism in such a way that it turned out to be crony capitalism.

“So there have been three different ideals in the history of Russia: tsarist, Soviet (Red), and liberal Western. They have all failed. Now there is no clear picture of a realistic strategy of development.”

RUSSIA CAN ONLY RIDE OUT A SYSTEMIC CRISIS IF IT CHANGES ITS FUNDAMENTAL MATRIX

Ihor SIUNDIUKOV: “What you are saying can create an impression that Russian history has passed a certain cycle. For this is not the first or second time that the people have been denied access to resources. This has occurred more than once. But in the past this alie­na­tion was often cut short by certain cataclysms, explosions, and disappointments over what seemed an ideal but was in fact a great hoax. These would bring about depression, apathy, and an explosion again. At what stage or point of this historical cycle is Russia today? And, in this connection, your forecast for at least the near future.”

Yu.A.: “As it seems to me, Russia is now at the stage of extinction. You can see this in the entropy and escapism of the huge masses of Russia’s population, including those who are well-off and even wealthy. I would not be too euphoric about what happened on Bo­lotnaya Squa­re and Sa­kha­rov Avenue. Many Rus­sian oppositionists view it as almost a victory. So they began to think about discussing things with this go­vern­ment over a glass of vodka. I think it is a very grave mistake, for the Bolotnaya Square and Sakharov Avenue protests confined themselves to the problem of ‘clean’ elections. This is the ethical, esthetical, and, as Aku­nin said, hygienic content of two demonstrations – to confine pro­tests to a mo­ral and ethi­cal aspect. Elections are their ultimate demand, which boils down to ‘Down with Churov!’ [chairman of the Central Election Com­mission. – Ed.].

“Yet, compared to Bolotnaya Square, the Sakharov Avenue rally noticeably evo­l­ved towards overpoliticization: there were more slogans, such as ‘Russia without Putin,’ ‘Down with Pu­tin,’ and ‘Vote for Anybody but Putin.’ In their everyday life, these people were outraged at the lies and insults which this politician hurled at them. They were keenly aware of these lies when they were told: ‘Go to court over this matter.’ But they know there are no courts. There is no court as an institution. Moreover, when people saw the somersault called ‘Let’s swap places!’ they understood there was no law, either. These people are phantoms behind which there are no institutions.

“In my view, participants in the December events have become more advanced poli­tically than the tribune that constantly tries to check this protest and reduce it to a demand for new elections. And what is an election if there is no judicial system, when there are no elections as an institution, and when no one can advance in the activities they pursue? For there are no such slogans in Russian society as ‘Down with auto­cracy!’ or ‘Down with monopoly on power!’ They do not even figure among the demands spelled out during the December demonstrations, not to mention free and competitive access to the country’s resources.”

L.I.: “Can the current democratic process be considered as successor to the one you once pursued?”

Yu.A.: “But the democratic process I pursued fizzled out. As one of the participants and leaders of the early-1990s democratic mo­vement, I will say that it suffered a defeat. I can only share my bitter experience. For we were also in high spi­rits and full of ideas, we also wanted to drop Sovietness, we protested against Article 6 of the Constitution, we want­ed radical chan­ges and a good life, but we chanted ‘Yeltsin!’ So we did. Yeltsin really came. He was not only the founder of what is now called ‘Yeltsin-Putin re­gi­me,’ he also began to adjust the constitution to it. The 1993 Constitution is in fact unable to ensure the division of powers and turn parliament in an independent branch of power.”

L.I.: “But they may be in need of bitter experience just now.”

Yu.A.: “I am trying to say this. At the time, we did not know and did not understand where to move. It is good that Gorbachev was dismissed, it is nice that Article 6 of the Constitution was scrapped. And what then? It was not clear. There was a proposal to live like in Euro­pe. But you can’t possibly live like in Europe without having the law, the institutions, and morality. So we got what we got. Things were like this. I admit we were unable to think properly at the time.

“So I would like as many people as possible to be aware of the necessity to strive for free and competitive access to the country’s resources. A totally new political and judi­cial system should be formed. The very paradigm and matrix of Russia must be changed. This means we should change a host of institutions and, after all, mentality, i.e., the way of thinking and feeling. How can this be done, if at all? I know this is needed, but I do not have a recipe to do this. Maybe, this will require a constituent assembly, for Russia needs to be ‘reconstituted’ again. It is a long process. Yet we must either do this or die slowly, which is the case now.”

Mykola SIRUK: “Why is the opposition not using your ideas?”

Yu.A.: “What is the political opposition? It is people who aspire for power. But if they are aspiring for power, how can they make use of what I am saying? This will only weaken the ‘muscularity’ of the protests that are coming out on the streets. For among those who take to the streets of Moscow are people who think that monarchy must be restored, there are some who are nostalgic for the empire, some who support the ‘red project’ in the literal meaning of the word, such as Sergei Udaltsov and Ilya Ponomariov, founders of the Left Front. Do they really need me and my ideas?”

L.I.: “Mr. Afanasiev, is there any support for your way of thinking on the part of Russian intellectuals, are there people with whom you can discuss this?”

Yu.A.: “I can do so in a narrow circle. I can name a few persons with whom I can share this and on whose understanding I can count. But it is a very narrow circle of people who do not strive for any power or politics. They are predominantly culturo­logists, historians, and ar­tists. But the politically-engaged people, no matter whe­ther they are liberals, mo­narchists, or left-win­gers, are saying frank­ly that all this will splash around and we will remain unable to apply pressure on the government. Some of them agree, albeit partially, to what I am saying.”

L.I.: “How would you spell out your mission or role of a public intellectual in case you see that what you are saying is still an unplowed virgin field in Russia?”

Yu.A.: “Indeed, even the ‘sleeping’ Russia is diffe­rent. Oddly enough, a large part of this Russia has been bought off. In other words, it also plays the role of a ‘customer’ – all the pensions, benefits, increments, and a privileged position with respect to the resources of many cities make people very fearful of the very idea of any changes. They are thinking: let it be the way it is. Here comes the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Incidentally, living at a subsistence level (in fact the dulling of collective memory) is a very powerful instinct. Russia is really the world of worlds – very different ones not only in ethnic terms. These worlds have gathered in the same space, but they are from diffe­rent times, even epochs. There are sometimes instances of almost tribal mentality, but there also are very advanced people, for example, in Saint Petersburg. They all live in this space. So, in my opinion, there are no grounds at all to foresee the possibi­lity of an all-Rus­sian explosion – it will be always neutralized by the multiplicity of worlds. The outbursts of discontent and protests, as those that occurred in the Middle East, are like will-o’-the-wisps. They will suddenly flash here and there, but the swamp remains the same.”

O.P.: “Russia is totally unable to cope with its expanses. What you said about will-o’-the-wisps is very frigh­tening. One of the protest movements, ‘Russia without Putin’ if I am not mistaken, has even made a map of Russia, on which they marked the places where there were or there will be protests.”

Yu.A.: “There have always been uprisings. You mentioned here the Norilsk revolt – poli­tical prisoners rose up to fight the army behind barbed wire, in a heavily guarded prison camp amidst the tundra. People were sacrificing themselves. Incidentally, the Ukrai­nian diaspora played a tremendous role there. But there were also other outbursts like this: in Kazakhstan, for instance, in Soviet and post-Soviet times. But everything was done to hush them up.”

Yevhen MACHUSKY: “As far as I can see, you are convinced that noth­ing will happen on economic grounds. And on ethnic grounds?”

Yu.A.: “Nothing will happen except for ‘dyed-in-the-wool nationa­lism’ which was also represented on Bolotnaya Square and Sa­kha­rov Ave­nue. But they behaved stran­gely. They usually behave wild­ly, as ‘the far Left’ do. But in this case (perhaps at somebody’s instruction) they did not pick a fight. During a roundtable, they were trying to compare Russia with the US. But how can you compare them? Ame­rica is really a melting pot, but nobody has been left there, who had an ethnic terri­tory, such as Tatarstan, Yakutia, the Volga region, the Caucasus, the North to some extent, in Russia. So what kind of Russian national idea will serve the purpose of salvation and liberation? There can only be a true federation here. But, as Putin said in a speech, “Well, do you understand what will happen if we grant freedom to the Cau­casus? All the others will immediately push through! Once you allow some to brea­the freely, others will stand in the line. This must not be done!’”

L.I.: “Mr. Afanasiev, do you allow even the slightest possibility of Russia opting for a strong-arm scenario towards Ukraine? Or is what is going now just a strong-arm scenario, where economic, not military, coercion is the basic tool?”

Yu.A.: “Interests and the self-preservation instinct will not allow the government to opt for a military invasion. In the case of Georgia, everything was thorough­ly asses­sed. I mean that, on the one hand, it was a demonstration to the West and payment to the Georgians for indepen­dence, but, on the other, the Russians were sure the West would not intervene. In the case of Ukraine, I don’t think this will occur. Besides, look, the number of manmade di­sasters is on the rise all over Russia. Things have gone so far that even nuclear-po­wered submarines begin to burn. The ground opens wide under the feet of people. Russia is in fact eating up the Soviet assets and infrastructure without investing anything – the overall parasitism of state-run corporations and the oligarchs who are ruling Russia. But the pipelines are not made of iron! They have a certain service life – 50 years at most. Then they must be replaced!”