How the escapist axioms of Western apologies of Kremlin policies distort our understanding of the origins and motives of Russia’s current domestic and foreign behavior

Author: Andreas Umland

During the last few years, in Western political discourse, a peculiar guild of public interpreters of the Kremlin’s foreign escapades and emerging conservative ideology has taken shape. These commentators often appear in American and European mass media, and in Germany – perhaps the most important Western country for Russia – have come to be known as ‘Putin-understanders’ or Putinversteher. These apologists for Russian foreign and domestic policy often accuse their opponents of lacking empathy for the Russian people, their traditions, concerns and views. Their demonstratively hermeneutical speculations are often accompanied by historiosophic reflections on the role of Russia in Europe and the profound traumas of the Russian collective soul.

However, from the perspective of contemporary Russian history, the Putinversteher’s high respect for the Kremlin’s increasingly zealous patriotism is misguided. Moscow’s current policies are only partly a result of age-old traditions of the Russian nation and of its lessons from earlier clashes with the West. In assessing what drives Moscow’s current foreign and domestic behavior, one has to keep in mind the tragic course of recent Russian history and its dire consequences for post- (increasingly neo-) Soviet Russia.

A knowledgeable observer of contemporary Russian history should be intrigued by the fact that Russia’s current political leadership increasingly ostensibly positions itself as a global defender of family values, conservatism and religiosity. How can it be that a country which actively persecuted and often physically destroyed the representatives and institutions of its own national traditions for 70 years, feels vocation today for teaching other nations with much longer historical continuity about conservative ways? Many years of radical anti-traditionalism of Bolshevik rule have produced a post-Soviet society which will have to search for, study, and revive its own historical traditions for a long time to come. Putin’s Russia – increasingly proud of its Soviet past – is one of the last nations in the world with a right to call on Western countries to respect their national traditions and Christian civilization.

Moreover, some of the most influential people among Russia’s current administration such as President Vladimir Putin, Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Sergei Ivanov, and Executive Chairman of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, are descendants of the state agency of the USSR which put into practice the Bolshevist oppression of Russian traditions, culture, religion, thought and science for decades. The KGB was not a secret service in the traditional sense but rather the core of the Soviet apparatus of repression. It persecuted any free thought in the Soviet Union, including Russian national thinking, as well as all churches of the USSR, including Russian Orthodox ones. Thirty years ago, many representatives of today’s power elite in Russia were professionally engaged in oppressing precisely those Russian national values, traditions, and institutions that they declare themselves to be vehement defenders of today.

The leitmotif of today’s Kremlin administration is not true patriotism, but tactical pragmatism, characterized by a degree of cynical expedience, barely comprehensible to many Western Europeans. To sustain its regime, this unprincipled approach adopts for its purposes both nationalistic ideas, and internationalist slogans. Without a second thought, Putin’s regime proclaims fundamental religious, or profoundly Enlightenment-related, motives. It often resorts to uncompromising moralism in its arguments, but does not hesitate to openly demonstrate cold-blooded amorality in its actions. Depending on the situation, it refers either to universal human values, or particularly Russian national interests. At times it advocates objective historical truths, and on other occasions, defends the right to selective interpretations of Soviet and tsarist history. It sees no major contradiction between Russia’s former desire for accession to NATO, and its demonization of the Alliance today. Contemporary European Union standards can serve both as a role model for Russia, and as a manifestation of the abhorrent degradation of the West. Russia positions itself as a European nation on some occasions, and as a Eurasian civilization on others. Sometimes it presents itself as a profoundly Orthodox, and other times as a modern progressive country. The choice depends on which image is beneficial in a given situation, what is most appropriate at a given moment, or what best suits the expectations of the audience.

While searching for mental-historical reference points in order to comprehend the current behavior of Russian authorities, German observers should refer less to thought and literature of tsarist Russia, and the pre-revolutionary past, than to the East Germans’ recent experiences with the Stasi (i.e. the Ministry for State Security of the German Democratic Republic). Unperturbed personalism and ethical relativism are more weighty factors of the operating system of Russian domestic and foreign policy than Russian traditionalism and nationalism. Instead of delving into the inaccessible psyche of Vladimir Putin and exploring his childhood which is littered with legends for their explanations of Russian foreign policy, post-Sovietologists should first pay attention to the politico-economical rationale behind the Kremlin’s foreign policy, as well as to the private interests and sociological calculations of utilitarian-thinking multi-millionaires (and billionaires) who are in the driver’s seat, in Moscow today.

This also concerns the post-Soviet military activities of the Kremlin in Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine or Syria. Those who see these adventures only as expressions of anachronistic neo-imperialism, or even of some existential fear of Western expansion, underestimate the intellectual potential of Putin and company. The Kremlin, to be sure, justifies its quest for hegemony over the post-Soviet space before Russian and international communities with patriotic formulas such as Russia’s interests of security, economy, identity, etc., as well as with alleged anti-Russian machinations of the West. As a result of years of brainwashing, courtesy of the Kremlin’s TV propaganda, these explanations are now shared by the majority of Russians. Moreover, some naïve foreign observers also heed these justifications for a variety reasons – for example, as a mark of respect for the leadership of a people who once defeated fascism.

However, the seeming delusions of persecution and grandeur of today’s post-Soviet elite have more rational underpinnings than the Putinversteher are willing to admit – with their psychotherapeutic approach to the fears, threats and claims of the Kremlin. Putin & Co. are far from paranoid. They are patently aware of the integrity and sternness of Russia’s nuclear military power and they intentionally use that priceless (as it seems to them) trump card in order to deter the West from, for instance, providing direct military assistance to Ukraine. It is not so much strong emotions and fear of NATO behind Moscow’s reckless foreign policy, as it is a domestic political imperative, namely the stabilization of Russia’s kleptocracy - at least in the short term. Russia today should be considered only in part as an aggrieved former superpower suffering from a post-imperial phantom pain, and by no means as a mere pitiful outsider in a geopolitical battle dominated by the United States. In Ukraine, the Kremlin isn’t defending Russia’s national interests, but the private benefits, privileges and goods of Russia’s super-rich rulers. For Putin & Co., the Europeanization of Ukraine must fail, as its success may offer Russians hope for change, and prompt them to attempt something similar in Moscow.

Through its military escapades in Syria and Donbas, the current Kremlin administration has, in fact, struck a heavy blow against Russia’s vital national interests, having sullied relations with the formerly brotherly Ukrainians, as well as the Arabic world and Turkey, for the long-term. Moreover, concurrent exclusion of Russia from its Western – primarily European and especially German – political, economic, and other partnerships puts the future of Russia in question. After all, the Russian economy needs not so much Eurasian economic integration as it does close cooperation with the European Union as a key partner in the fields of trade, investment, science and, in general, modernization of the country.

In its relations with an increasingly self-confident China, Russia too suffers as a result of the cooling of her relations with the West, which Beijing skillfully takes advantage of in order to acquire Russian commodities at low prices. Political and economic isolation conjured up by the Kremlin as well as the growing chasms in Russia’s budget, thanks to Moscow’s foreign military campaigns, do not bode well for the industrially mis-developed Russian state. The Kremlin’s deliberate escalation of global tensions and military exploits, which are disproportionate to Moscow’s actual geopolitical might, only reinforce various existing serious pathologies of the Russian economy and society. Those who accept all of these negative tendencies and the mundane personal reasons behind them ‘with understanding’ seemingly harbor little empathy for Russians, and little concern for the future of Russia as a country.

http://intersectionproject.eu/article/russia-europe/flaws-putinverstehers-russian-hermeneutics

Nairaminted

I would love to know what your opinion is on this article

I'm coming back to read this. My fear is, the OP is anti-russia or russophobic - I already know where the story will lead.

BALLOSKI:
I'm coming back to read this. My fear is, the OP is anti-russia or russophobic - I already know where the story will lead.

Nice excuse to chicken out. What makes you think i am russophobic?

Missy89:


Nice excuse to chicken out. What makes you think i am russophobic?

it's audible to the deaf and visible to the blind that you are russophobic!

BALLOSKI:
it's audible to the deaf and visible to the blind that you are russophobic!

Ok

Vedaxcool come and see how this OP murdered "Putinverstehers" like Appleyard, Nairaminted, Shymmexx and other than them. Missy89 you already know who's back

Missy89:


Ok

just realized that the writer is russophobic too...

Putin & Co. are far from paranoid. They are patently aware of the integrity and sternness of Russia’s nuclear military power and they intentionally use that priceless (as it seems to them) trump card in order to deter the West from, for instance, providing direct military assistance to Ukraine. It is not so much strong emotions and fear of NATO behind Moscow’s reckless foreign policy, as it is a domestic political imperative, namely the stabilization of Russia’s kleptocracy - at least in the short term. Russia today should be considered only in part as an aggrieved former superpower suffering from a post-imperial phantom pain, and by no means as a mere pitiful outsider in a geopolitical battle dominated by the United States. In Ukraine, the Kremlin isn’t defending Russia’s national interests, but the private benefits, privileges and goods of Russia’s super-rich rulers. For Putin & Co.,

Omo see triple combo Unfortunately someone said Putin was God sent, yet Putin claims the fall of the soviet union (the most anti-religious regime to have existed) was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th centuary, the same evil union that kept displacing people, causing the deaths of 100s of 1000s treacherously repressive, punishing entire tribes and race, making deals with Hitler, and forcefully colonizing others under its imperialistic designs. They say to see the sins of others you need to stand on yours, Putin hasbara trolls pretend to understand jack about one of the world most treacherous leaders, Putin.

This is a propaganda article written specifically to further make the dumb get dumber. What a lot of Russophobes and anti-Putin propagandists with tin-foil on don't understand is that: every time they point a finger at Putin and Russia, the remaining four fingers are pointing back at them. A lot of these clowns are just too rigid to shake off the cold war era, when radio free Europe reigned supreme. And the irony of it all is that: even at the peak of the cold war - apart from the elites in power and uneducated/half-baked folks who make up the majority in the West - majority of the educated class in the West have never been anti-Soviet/anti-Russia. Heck, all the biggest socialist groups in the West during that era were formed on the campuses of the best Universities in the axis. From Oxford, to Cambridge, to Harvard, to MIT, to Stanford etc. That alone should paint a picture of the average IQ of those who spread these propaganda articles and the crowd that they're targeting.

Now back to the critiques. You can say Russia moved away from its traditional base. However, how's the West different? We live in a century where socialists are on the rise all over the West. Francois Hollande, the French president, won on the platform Parti Socialiste - the only socialist party in France. Jeremy Corbyn of Labour Party in the UK, the main opposition, is an unrepentant socialist. Bernie Sanders, an unrepentant socialist, might be the next flag bearer of the US democratic party in the next presidential election. Etc. And in the US, you also have a case where a nutjob, Donald Trump, who's neither conservative in the real sense of it and not to the left - leading the polls. Then you have a next candidate who's trying to create a family dynasty - something against the ideals of the US founding fathers. So how's the west also sticking to its traditional base/values? Isn't this a case of pot and kettle? Also, a cursory look at modern western societies would show that most of the countries are more tilted to the left than the right. Isn't that a shift as well?

The "Western apologies of Kremlin policies" are the brightest minds in the West who understand realpolitik and the role of geopolitics in the survival of humanity, based on objectivity. The west had its chance in Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union - what did it do? It installed a drunkard in Yeltsin; destroyed all its institutions; and auctioned off almost all its assets. Thus creating oligarchs, while driving the country into an economic crisis. Evidently, you can't blame Russians for loving the man who saved them from the abyss and misery the west drove them into, regardless of his background and methods. He saved Russia and even Mikhail Gorbachev, and all the biggest players from the west during the cold era agree with this.

The West also had it chance when Russia was weak, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to do the right thing under its sole leadership. But what did it do? It renegaded on all agreements of the post-Berlin-wall not to expand further east. It started so many unnecessary wars, thus destroying tens of millions of lives and turning a handful of countries into failed states. So you can't be mad when folks see Putin and Russia as the "saviour" to bring succour to a world being systematically destroyed by war mongers in the West. When you look at the mess the West created in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria. And how the west only knows how to destroy and not rebuild. Then what Putin and Russia have been able to achieve in Syria within a short period, despite the systematic destruction the west created there for almost five years. You can't help but admire the man. This is where you have to separate intelligent/critical thinkers - from linear thinkers/bots/nutters. The West also created the Islamic nutjobs who have now become a threat to everyone.

No amount of smear campaign can change the fact that Putin is the greatest leader of this generation. And it's not shocking that majority of learned/educated people in the west are some of his biggest fans and a lot do wish he was leading their countries - not the idiotic mugs parading themselves as leaders. Yes, we're proud Western apologies of Kremlin policies and there's no shame in supporting a man who keeps taking western leaders to school all the time. Love him or loathe him, Putin saved Russia and he might save the world as well from utter destruction. This is the Russian century and a multi-polar world is on the horizon. Deal with it.

Someone up here is saying the Western elites love Putin and his policies, that's because they're far away from Russia and listen to Russian propaganda. Ask the East Europeans how they feel about Russia and Central-Asians? They will tell a different story and expose the evil intent of Russia across the region and in the international arena.

Help me out here, Missy89. You post an anti-Russian article detailing the "origins and motives of Russia’s current domestic and foreign behavior." Yet it's on record that you have declared your support for Putin's actions in Syria.

So are you pro Russian as far as their actions in Syria go only but anti-Russian (or maybe Russophobic) in the grand scheme of things? What's the deal? Shed some light on this contradiction.

Secondly, if you are indeed in support of Putin's actions in Syria, why in Heaven's name are you picking up squabbles on several threads "refuting" what's been posted there as far as the events in Syria go? It just seems to me like your stance/message is incoherent and vacillating and you are just flailing all over all picking up fights that lead nowhere.

Are you going to "refute" what those US senators and congressmen/women, generals and intelligence officers, diplomats and journalists, etc have been saying about the origins of ISIS, their supporters and the need to withdraw support for this myriad of "rebel" groups and/or cooperate with Russia in Syria?

The Body count of the Soviet Union

Although it is frequently considered as an example of communist genocide, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan represents a borderline case, according to Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago.[12] Prior to the Soviet invasion, the PDPA executed between 10,000 and 27,000 people, mostly at Pul-e-Charkhi prison.[153][154][155] After the invasion in 1979, the Soviets installed the puppet government of Babrak Karmal, but it was never clearly stabilized as a communist regime and was in a constant state of war. By 1987, about 80% of the country's territory was permanently controlled by neither the pro-Communist government (and supporting Soviet troops) nor by the armed opposition. To tip the balance, the Soviet Union used a tactic that was a combination of "scorched earth" policy and "migratory genocide": by systematically burning the crops and destroying villages in rebel provinces, as well as by reprisal bombing of entire villages suspected of harbouring or supporting the resistance, the Soviets tried to force the local population to move to the Soviet controlled territory, thereby depriving the armed opposition of their support.[156] By the time the Soviets withdrew in 1988, 1 to 1.5 million people had been killed, mostly Afghan civilians, and one-third of Afghanistan's population had been displaced.[157][not in citation given] M. Hassan Kakar argued that "the Afghans are among the latest victims of genocide by a superpower."[158] Mass graves of executed prisoners have been exhumed dating back to the Soviet er

Within the Soviet Union, forced changes in agricultural policies (collectivization) and droughts caused the Soviet famine of 1932–1933.[160][161][162][163] The famine was most severe in the Ukrainian SSR, where it is often referenced as the Holodomor. A significant portion of the famine victims (3–3.5 million) were Ukrainians while the total number of victims in the Soviet Union is estimated to be 6 – 8 millions.[164][165][verification needed][166]

The Soviet government during Joseph Stalin's rule conducted a series of deportations on an enormous scale that significantly affected the ethnic map of the USSR. D[b]eportations took place under extremely harsh conditions, often in cattle carriages, with hundreds of thousands of deportees dying en route.[/b][178] Some experts estimate that the number of deaths from the deportations could be as high as one in three in certain cases.[179][180] Regarding the fate of the Crimean Tatars, Amir Weiner of Stanford University writes that the policy could be classified as "ethnic cleansing". In the book Century of Genocide, Lyman H Legters writes "We cannot properly speak of a completed genocide, only of a process that was genocidal in its potentiality."

Source

Yet in Putin's mind the collapse of such a godless vile regime was a catastrophe? A regime that was oppressive to people who fell under its dominion, when one individual thinks so highly of such a vile regime, then he is even worse than the west he complains about. He is actually manipulating folks who are incapable of understanding Putin narrow minded politics. When I see Africans shouting Russia interest, i begin to wonder whether someone was dropped on his head or hit hard by a horse, It was the Europeans interest to colonise you, that it is in their strategic interest does not and will never make it right, until they understand there is such a thing as right and wrong, then any discussion with them is futile. In Syria they support in the same cynical manner like USSR in Afghanistan support a repressive regime that literally destroyed its country, murders it people and perpetuate evil. Russia today can only be considered standing on a high ground by people who lack any understanding of what morals means.

Underground:
Help me out here, Missy89. You post an anti-Russian article detailing the "origins and motives of Russia’s current domestic and foreign behavior." Yet it's on record that you have declared your support for Putin's actions in Syria.

So are you pro Russian as far as their actions in Syria go only but anti-Russian (or maybe Russophobic) in the grand scheme of things? What's the deal? Shed some light on this contradiction.

Secondly, if you are indeed in support of Putin's actions in Syria, why in Heaven's name are you picking up squabbles on several threads "refuting" what's been posted there as far as the events in Syria go? It just seems to me like your stance/message is incoherent and vacillating and you are just flailing all over all picking up fights that lead nowhere.

Are you going to "refute" what those US senators and congressmen/women, generals and intelligence officers, diplomats and journalists, etc have been saying about the origins of ISIS, their supporters and the need to withdraw support for this myriad of "rebel" groups and/or cooperate with Russia in Syria?

There is nothing anti russian about it. I haven't seen your comments on " anti-american" threads yet.

Of course, Russia's intervention wasn't actually a bad thing initially. But since it is now hard to mask the idea that Russia's reason for intervening is not to fight IS but to look for leverage, what is the problem if I point that out? Besides, the article hardly talked about syria.

I am neither pro Russian or anti Russian. I would think no reasonable or informed person will support every behaviour of a country. You talk about different situation differently and compare what is similar and what is not.

There is nothing to refute. Keep in mind, Assad has been accused of buying oil from IS and Russian companies have been indicted for trading with IS and even working for fix one of the refineries in IS territory too. I haven't seen you guys refute that.