[The link leads to 2 min. video.]
Alexander Borodai is a member of Russian Duma and one of the founding fathers of the “DPR” (Donetsk People Republic) under FSB control.
[…]
-
First, he admits that any ceasefire for Russia will only be a temporary freeze in the war, because Putin’s main goal will not be achieved - taking control of all of Ukraine and establishing a puppet Russian regime. Any independent Ukraine for Russians is “Western weapon”.
-
Second, he admits that Russia has been waging war with the help of people like him in Ukraine since 2014, and in 2022 it only continued with a full-scale invasion.
-
And most importantly, third, he directly says that the problem is not that Ukraine can be in NATO. The problem for Russians is that they consider all of Ukraine to be their “historical territory” and that Ukrainians “do not exist as a nation at all”, and that Ukraine is inhabited by “divided Russians”.
Sense of belonging? This is exactly what I am mean by genocidal imperialism being universal among russians.
You (and other russians) fundamentally do not believe in self determination and will always find excuses to justify violence, occupations, torture and ethnic cleanings. The russians are even OK with being put down and abused by their own regime as long as there is imperial conquest.
I don’t buy the “dark history” narrative. There is nothing inherent (in a physical sense) about russians that leads to degeneracy and debauchery. It’s all the choices they make. The somewhat peaceful breakup of the USSR was a unique opportunity for russians and we can see the choices they made.
Source: I’ve lived in russia for many years and I speak fluent russian. I’ve also lived in North America, Asia and Europe and speak other languages.
There’s a fuckton of cultural baggage from, following Emmanuel Todd, exogamous communal family structures. Stuff like this. There’s a whole theory about how the “really existing socialism” states started out with that family structure, replaced the actual pater familias with a grand national one, to silently change the actual family structure to nuclear in a rebellion against the violence inherent in that particular arrangement (Todd explains that way better than me). But the fundamental values that the system was an expression of still isn’t gone, and definitely alive and well in the military context. And mafia / prisoner culture. There’s one truth in that system: If you’re not a perpetrator, then you’re a victim. As such the “fear drives people to do things” is true, the question Russia should be asking itself, though, is where that fucking cart of theirs is headed. Where they want it to be headed. Have yourselves a February revolution and this time not have it usurped by October. Normalise civic agency.
I don’t believe in cultural or ethnic essentialism. And at any rate, to move away from what you describe as cultural baggage, you have to start somewhere. A lack of desire to move beyond this is a choice made by the vast majority of individuals that constitute russian society.
Even large parts of their allegedly liberal opposition supported the annexation of Crimea (and the 2008 Georgia invasion). They are not even trying, they see genocidal imperialism as a good thing irrespective of any cultural baggage.
Who’s being essentialist now. Culture is more than the decisions of individuals, there’s reference frames, there’s inertia, generally speaking there’s natural laws dictating how and when cultures change. Even if a Russian oppositional were to suddenly be perfectly enlightened, to make any sense to their compatriots they would have to use language, reference frames, that the others can understand. We’re not talking about fashion, here, this is deeper – not “let’s stop hating black people and move on to Muslims” or something, that’s not a fundamental shift in culture, but “let’s stop hating people”. That’s a very different thing.
The usual way how this kind of thing gets overcome is by getting your gob bashed in, because as long as all goes well for the culture which is being an asshole it will justify the assholery with the success it’s having, and indeed you’ll see Russians taking pride in Russia’s capacity to withstand its own cruelty. The tentative good news is that there’s no nation better suited to cut of Russia’s balls than Ukraine precisely because they’re so closely related, because a kind of brotherly envy is part of the equation. Maybe the specific choice was even a kind of death drive, subconsciously Russian culture knew where it could the battering it desires so that’s where they went.
What’s essentialist about what I said? I genuinely don’t see it.
Large parts of the russian opposition do not see genocidal imperialism (e.g annexation of Crimea and destruction of Ukrainian and Crimea Tartar identities) as a bad thing. They have made no efforts to oppose genocidal imperialism. They openly called for supporting chauvinist parties under their ironically named “smart voting” strategy, even though they knew that those parties are not independent and are directly controlled by the Kremlin.
Your point about “reference frames” honestly sounds like white-washing russian genocidal imperialism. This is not a matter of becoming perfectly enlightened, it’s a matter of understanding that if someone is committed to genocidal imperialism, they are not going to choose a hypothetical Navalniy over putin. They will choose the real deal.
But let’s just say I agree with you for the sake of argument. So what has the russian opposition achieved by using imperialist reference frames (that you seem to imply they don’t actually support, but need to use to connect with russians) in their outreach?
What are their achievements over the last 15 years? Surely tacit endorsement of imperialism would have helped them connect to the average russian?
“Russian opposition can’t think beyond imperialism”. It’s not so much that that’s wrong, it’s blaming them that ends up being essentialist – because that kind of inability is not a specifically Russian thing. It’s like saying “Calicos are beautiful” while implying that not all cats are beautiful, you’re making beauty an essence of being Calico.
The Roman Stoics argued that women had the same mental capacities as men, therefore, they should also be educated. For that, they are sometimes called the first feminists, all within a ludicrously patriarchal society. Epictetus, very prominent Stoic, was a (white-collar) slave. Yet they never even thought about considering whether slavery was a thing that should be abolished. It didn’t cross their mind. It was not a thing that was could be questioned – not because of a prohibition against it, but because civilisation, nay life itself, was not conceivable in a way that excluded slavery.
If, today, people take that as an opportunity to attack the Stoics then they’re, rightly, accused of historicism: Not taking into account the historical context in which those people lived, which influenced everything about them, judging them by modern values those individuals might very well would share with us, had they been capable of conceiving of them. You’re doing the same to the Russian opposition.
It’s not so much about an “imperialist frame” but attempting to go beyond the “there’s only victims and perpetrators and we don’t want to be victims” thinking. Try to explain how stupid a concept that kind of thinking is to someone who is caught up in it and what’s going to happen is they’re going to consider you a victim, so they won’t listen.
They achieved nothing because talking cannot achieve anything in that situation. Navalny-type balls of steel “yeah Putin lock me up, torture me, make me a martyr” is the best that can be done and not everyone has balls of steel. Some things cannot be solved from inside the system, an external shock has to be applied. As said: Getting their face smashed in. That’s going to be a catalyst, a “we thought we were strong, we thought this was strength” moment shared by enough of the population to allow core cultural assumptions to shift.
To be fair, I did say parts of the russian opposition because some members do take a more sober outlook on russia society.
I still don’t see what is essentialist about a factual statement that parts of the russian opposition support imperialism and have made no efforts to go beyond that. I am not even talking about moral arguments, something as practical as saying “soft power is much more effective and results in less russian deaths than military invasions”.
And it is reasonable to blame them for it. It’s their choice; it’s not like their pro-imperialism strategy has led to any success.
I don’t feel that example with stoic’s is relevant. Some members of the russian opposition did recognize that imperialism was not to the benefit of russian society. Navalniy and co refuse to do so; it’s a choice that they made and it reflects their position more so than their broader cultural background.
My question stands, what have they achieved with their approach? You did imply that need to contend with cultural context of russia and they can’t be merely enlightened. So what’s the outcome of this if your logic is valid. Something’s got to give.
I strongly disagree with the claim Navalniy has balls of steel. He is a fucking idiot who most likely doesn’t understand his own people (I am assuming he thought people would rise up or something similar). Novodvorskaya has balls of steel. She opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia and made fun of the communist party when she was 19. She stayed true to her beliefs all her life (even though most russians hated her for this). And she did not have any issues with telling russians very uncomfortable truths.
You bring up external shocks and the importance of not positioning your people as victims. So where are the russian liberation battalions (e.g. trying to setup a free russia in Kursk)? Where are the sabotage programs? Where are the initiatives to utilize senior regime collaborators? If nothing can be done to change the system from within, surely one would at least consider alternatives?
And it’s not like what I mentioned above is somehow disconnected from the russian cultural context. Alexander II got assassinated by revolutionaries.
Doing what the Ukrainians tell them to do. Still looking for a master. Trying to be on the winning side, not necessarily on the right side – I mean is there anything else wrong about imperialism than that it’s bad for Russia? Just possibly? The EU could be imperialist AF and get away with it, even be loved by its subjects, yet we don’t go down that path.
That other Russian opposition is asking “Please, Ukraine, tell us what to do, we’ll do anything”: Being receptive certainly isn’t a bad thing, but that right there is not an approach you can build a national ethos around. Also, at least parts of them are themselves problematic, being more of the “We want to be Tsar in place of the Tsar” type. They are what they are because cultural context and they can’t be many because the wider cultural context makes them meaningless.
The Tsar is dead, long live the Tsar. February revolution? A good start, a weak civil society then let itself be captured and things moved on to Tsar Lenin I, then Tsar Stalin I. Then a couple of other apparatchiks, Gorbachev, who Russians despise, Yeltsin, another weak Tsar Russians are ashamed of, and, finally, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. The one to lead them, again, to glory. Who is going to replace him? Who else is leading them to glory? Noone. That’s the truth of it, but Russians can’t see it, because the glory they desire has always been a mirage. There’s people who can lead Russia to normalcy, and it’s not like there’s a lack of Russians who’d like that, but then the paranoia kicks in: What if country X, country Y, tries to do anything? (They have no interest but hey it’s paranoia) What if we are technologically too far behind, we’ll never catch up? Quick, quick, some strength! Some self-assurance! Give us our drug! Some vodka to forget the inferiority complex! There, the new Tsar, isn’t he glorious! All hail the Tsar!
Putin getting assassinated does not guarantee a positive outcome, you can kill the person like that, but not the position, and the next guy might very well be even worse. Ukraine would already have done it if they thought it would be a good idea. The position itself has to fail, has to fall, not just the person.
This is too much essentialism for me.
Everything the russians do is explained by cultural context. Any and all alternatives are not viable because of the cultural context. We shouldn’t judge russian for being proud of putin because of the cultural context.
This is not a viable approach. At the end of the day, all positive social/cultural change is driven going against the grain. If the russians don’t want to do anything, we should take it face value and not come up with excuses.