Paul Robinson: The blurred reality of Russian patriotism

By Prof. Paul Robinson, Canadian Dimension, 1/25/22

In 1966, the Soviet writer Vladimir Soloukhin penned an article in the journal Molodaia Gvardiia (Young Guard) entitled “Letters from the Russian Museum” (the Russian Museum being an institution in Leningrad devoted to Russian art). In this, Soloukhin lamented the destruction of Russian churches under the Soviets and complained about the habit of renaming historical Russian towns and streets after communist heroes. “The best thing would be restore all [the old names] either gradually or immediately (immediately would be better in my opinion), without exception,” Soloukhin wrote, before going on to complain further about the general neglect of Russia’s national heritage.

Soloukhin’s article reflected the reality that under the façade of Soviet communism, Russian nationalism retained a powerful grip on much of the population, including its artistic community. This was shown by the hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens who lined up to view exhibitions by the nationalist painter Ilya Glazunov some years later in 1978. The attention paid to Soviet dissidents and to the liberal intellectuals who swept to the fore under Gorbachev in the 1980s hid this nationalist substrata from many observers’ eyes. But it was always there and had strong popular backing.

This is still the case, but there’s a tendency in the West to look for signs of something different, in the hope of discovering that the Russian people are in reality pro-Western liberals, longing to liberate themselves from tyranny and move their country in our direction. Evidence for this is found in the few remaining Russian liberals, who tend to be concentrated in what are often called the ‘creative classes’—artists, journalists, IT technicians, and the like. In the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, the Western media has noted the opposition of many such Russians to the war and the fact that thousands of them have left the country. With this, hopes have risen that what nowadays are called ‘influencers’ (those who influence and form public opinion) will mobilize the Russian people against the ‘Putin regime,’ topple the state, and bring the war to an end.

Musicians have been particularly notable for their opposition to the war. For instance, Boris Grebenshchikov, founder and lead member of the legendary Soviet rock group Aquarium, has called the war in Ukraine “madness” and said that “those who unleashed it are a disgrace to Russia.” Many others, such as Soviet megastar Alla Pugacheva, Oxford-educated rapper Oxxxymiron, and popular singer-songwriter Monetochka (Elizaveta Gyrdymova) have followed suit. Just last week, Monetochka, who has fled Russia, caused something of a scandal after telling concert goers in Latvia: “Russia will be free! Glory to Ukraine! Long live Belarus!” One might be forgiven for thinking that the ‘creative classes’ are indeed united in their opposition to Putin and the war.

This isn’t actually the case. As in the past, a powerful patriotic/nationalist movement coexists alongside the rather weaker liberal, pro-Western one. And so it was last week that another former Aquarium member, violinist Andrei Reshetin, wrote an open letter to Grebenshchikov, denouncing his anti-war views and explaining why he (Reshetin), at the grand old age of 59, had joined the Russian army and gone to fight in Ukraine.

“Bob,” he wrote, addressing Grebenshchikov, “As you know, I am on the other side of the trenches and I’m a soldier. … I’m here because my conscience dictates it. And neither I, nor those who stand beside me, are fascists, like you say. We are on our own land. We are liberating it from those who seek to destroy everything Russian, our memory, our culture, our church, our thoughts. … Bob, you collected money for those who are shooting at us! … Stop! Let your legacy be your magical, perfect songs, not this shame.”

Aquarium aren’t just any old pop group. In the canon of Russian pop music, they’re the equivalent of something like the Rolling Stones. So although Reshetin was a somewhat lesser member of the group, his stance is symbolically significant (imagine a member of the Rolling Stones joining the British Army and going off to fight in Iraq). And he’s far from alone. While many Russian artists have spoken out against the war, for every one who has, another can be found who’s done the opposite. An example is popular singer Iuliia Chicherina, who has long expressed her support for the rebel Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics of eastern Ukraine. Following the invasion of Ukraine last year, she toured the front giving concerts to Russian troops and allowed herself to be photographed pulling down a Ukrainian flag in the town of Energodar (Enerhodar). “Everything is different. Even the air is different. We’re on our land. We’re on the frontline. Not one step back. No retreat. This is our land and we will stand,” goes the chorus of her song “Na peredovoi” (On the frontline).

It’s not just musicians and singers who tout the patriotic line. One of Russia’s foremost novelists, Zakhar Prilepin, several years ago formed a volunteer battalion to go fight on behalf the Donbas rebels. “When the documents are looked over, they’ll see the most people died where my battalion was stationed,” Prilepin later boasted.

While many academics, political commentators, and other intellectuals quietly oppose the Russian war effort in Ukraine, many others can be found lining up to back it. This even includes some previously in the liberal camp, such as political activist Aleksei Chadayev, who recently gave a lecture entitled “The drone as instrument of practical philosophy.” A one time aide to murdered liberal icon Boris Nemtsov, Chadayev has moved in a different direction to his former boss, arguing that throughout history war has been the main driver of technological progress and that Russia needs to master modern technology in order to win its war against the West. For this, he says, it needs more freedom. As one critic put it, Chadayev’s position comes down to “Without LGBT, you can’t build a decent UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle].” More freedom, so we can better smash the West!

Chadayev’s liberal militarism would have fitted in well around 1914, but nowadays is rather quixotic. There aren’t many like him. Still, even among those political commentators who at one point would have been considered moderate Westernizers, there is a strong sense that even if Russia shouldn’t have got itself into this position, now that it is, it has to win. Analysts like Dmitri Trenin and Fyodor Lukyanov, once the go-to men for Western journalists wanting moderate-minded quotes on Russian foreign policy, at one point argued that Russia’s place was in the West. Now they write articles for RT explaining why the war in Ukraine is existential in nature and must therefore be pursued until final victory. The intellectual atmosphere has shifted.

None of this means that Russia’s creative and intellectual classes are united behind their country’s war effort. Quite clearly, they’re not. But neither are they united against it. In fact, a considerable number of them are freely and spontaneously lending the war their support. And they seem to have a lot of public backing. One of the primary social media platforms in Russia is Telegram. Its most popular channels are dominated by pro-war, anti-Western military bloggers and war correspondents, such as Rybar, War Gonzo, and Alexander Kots. It was once believed that as Russians shifted from TV to social media, they’d come out from under the influence of the state and shift towards more liberal sources of information. Reality is proving very different—it is patriotic voices who seem to be winning the social media popularity game.

There’s a tendency to view the war in Ukraine as ‘Putin’s war.’ An article this week in the National Post noted that the West was sending tanks to “help Kyiv win its war against Vladimir Putin,” as if Putin was manning the entire 1,000 kilometer frontline all by his lonely self.

This is, of course, not the case. Putin has many allies, including among those to whom the Russian public listens. This may change if the situation at the front alters drastically. But for now, it is not Putin whom Ukraine is fighting but Russia, and that makes its task much more difficult than many might like to imagine.

Paul Robinson is a professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. He is the author of numerous works on Russian and Soviet history, including Russian Conservatism, published by Northern Illinois University Press in 2019.

Kyle Anzalone – Report: Biden Pushed Peace Plan that Recognized Russia’s Control Over 20% of Ukraine

By Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com, 2/5/23

President Joe Biden dispatched his CIA Director to Kiev with a proposal to end the war in Ukraine last month, according to the Swiss outlet Neue Zürcher Zeitung. The peace plan was offered at the same time the White House was preparing significant escalations in military support for Kiev, including announcing that it will send Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

The report cites high-level sources in Berlin who claim William Burns, the head of America’s spy agency, traveled to Kiev in mid-January to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. On January 19, the Washington Post reported that Burns recently traveled to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky. During that trip, Burns is said to have offered a deal to Zelensky wherein Ukraine would cede about 20% of its territory to Russia in exchange for Moscow ending its war in Ukraine.

NZZ’s sources claim that both Kiev and Moscow rejected the proposal. In a statement to Newsweek, the CIA denied Burns delivered the proposal. Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov also dismissed the NZZ report labeling it a “canard.”

According to the German sources, the peace proposal reflects a growing rift within the White House on how to handle the war in Ukraine. “Security adviser Jake Sullivan and Burns [wanted] to end the war quickly so they could focus on China.” The report continued, “on the other side would be Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. They did not want to let Russia get away with destroying the rules-based peace order and called for massive military support for Ukraine.”

After Burns failed to sway Kiev and Moscow to agree with Washington’s plan, Blinken and Austin were able to sway the president to authorize the transfer of Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

NZZ reports the decision for the US to send main battle tanks to Ukraine caught German leader Olaf Scholz off guard. The Union in the German Bundestag issued a statement saying, “Scholz did not want to deliver until the very end because he firmly assumed that the Americans would not send battle tanks either.”

Negotiations between Kiev and Moscow have stalled for nearly a year. Last March, Turkish diplomats facilitated talks that nearly ended the war with Russian forces withdrawing from Ukrainian territory captured after the start of the invasion. However, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev and told Zelensky that Ukraine’s Western backers were not prepared to allow the war to end.

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.

Poll: Europeans want peace, not sanctions

flower covered peace sign
Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Szaszadveg, 12/20/22

The European Union’s attitude to the Russian-Ukrainian war is a key priority area of the Community’s foreign policy. The intensity of the fighting is constantly increasing and, in addition to the warring parties, the burdens on Europe placed by the sanctions are also increasing. Despite this, the intention of bringing those affected to the negotiating table is not pronounced in Brussels’ efforts. However, based on the results of the research conducted by Századvég, Europeans would expect their leaders to work towards a peace agreement as soon as possible and a quick end to the war.

Since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, the Western political elite, both in its communications and in its proposals, has placed more emphasis on punishing Russia than on facilitating peace talks. Much of Brussels’ sanctions and foreign policy efforts have pushed the chances of an agreement between the parties and a quick end to the war further away. In the framework of the Project Europe Research of Századvég, it examined the attitude of Europeans to war and peace negotiations.

Two-thirds of Europeans are worried about war

Looking at the average of the European Union, 68 percent of those surveyed are concerned about the war, and more than a third find the conflict very worrisome. The highest rates are found in Hungary (very worrisome: 62  percent, rather worrisome: 31 percent) and in Germany (very worrisome: 51 percent, rather worrisome: 30 percent). Based on the results, the differences between the Member States are primarily influenced by historical background and trade relations with Russia. Presumably, the former is responsible for the fact that the population of the Baltic states and the latter is responsible for the fact that the population of the southern Member States involved in oil supply are more worried about the conflict.

ábra

The only Member State with a majority of those who do not consider the war to be of concern is Slovakia, where a total of 48 percent marked the answers of very and rather worrisome (18 and 30 percent, respectively), and the highest proportion (41 percent) marked the answer of rather not worrisome. The division of the respondents is surprising, since Slovakia is a neighbour of Ukraine and, moreover, has trade relations with Russia in several areas. One possible explanation for the results is that the attention of the Slovak population is being captured by other, internal problems.

An overwhelming majority in Europe is pro-peace

Across the EU, 82 percent of respondents agree that Russia and Ukraine should be forced into peace talks in order to end the war. The differences between the results in the Member States reveal a clash between the pro-sanctions approach aimed at punishing Russia and the sanction-critical attitude of urging to make peace as soon as possible. The southern Member States (91 percent in Cyprus, 89 percent in Portugal and Greece) which have not accepted many of Brussels’ previous proposals for sanctions packages are the most likely to agree with the forcing of the negotiations. In Hungary, which is also critical of sanctions, 88 percent of the population is pro-peace.

ábra

Although in all the countries examined there is a majority of those who call for negotiations as soon as possible, in the pro-sanctions Member States this proportion is lower. The issue mostly devides the Baltic countries and Poland: 42 percent of Estonians, 36 percent of Latvians, 31 percent of Poles, and 29 percent of Lithuanians disagree that peace talks should be forced to end the war as soon as possible.

The Project Europe Research

In the first half of 2016, the Századvég Foundation conducted a public opinion poll survey covering all 28 European Union Member States, with the aim to analyse the opinions of EU citizens regarding the issues that most affect the future of the EU. In a unique way, Project 28 conducted the widest possible survey of 1,000, that is a total of 28,000 randomly selected adults in each country. Gaining an understanding of society’s sense of prosperity and mapping the population’s attitudes towards the performance of the European Union, the migration crisis and the increasing terrorism were among the most important goals of the analysis. Following the surveys in 2017, 2018 and 2019, on behalf of the government, the Századvég Foundation has been conducting the research under the name of Project Europe since 2020, which continued to reflect on the topics that most dominated the European political and social discourse.

In 2022, the aim of the survey is again to map the population’s attitude towards the most important public issues affecting our continent. In addition to society’s sense of prosperity, the performance of the European Union, the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, and the perception of the migration crisis, in line with the latest challenges affecting Europe, the dominant theme of this year’s poll has been the Russian-Ukrainian war, the energy crisis, energy supply, and family policy. In addition to the European Union Member States, the 2022 research covered the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Moldova, Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and surveyed a total of 38,000 randomly selected adults using the CATI method between 13 October and 7 December.

Dave DeCamp: Former Israeli PM Bennett Says US ‘Blocked’ His Attempts at a Russia-Ukraine Peace Deal

peace sign banner covered in flowers
Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 2/5/23

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said in an interview posted to his YouTube channel on Saturday that the US and its Western allies “blocked” his efforts of mediating between Russia and Ukraine to bring an end to the war in its early days.

On March 4, 2022, Bennett traveled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin. In the interview, he detailed his mediation at the time between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he said he coordinated with the US, France, Germany, and the UK.

Bennett said that both sides agreed to major concessions during his mediation effort. For the Russian side, he said they dropped “denazification” as a requirement for a ceasefire. Bennett defined “denazification” as the removal of Zelensky. During his meeting in Moscow with Putin, Bennett said the Russian leader guaranteed that he wouldn’t try to kill Zelensky.

The other concession Russia made, according to Bennett, is that it wouldn’t seek the disarmament of Ukraine. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky “renounced” that he would seek NATO membership, which Bennett said was the “reason” for Russia’s invasion.

Reports at the time reflect Bennet’s comments and said Russia and Ukraine were softening their positions. Citing Israeli officials, Axios reported on March 8 that Putin’s “proposal is difficult for Zelensky to accept but not as extreme as they anticipated. They said the proposal doesn’t include regime change in Kyiv and allows Ukraine to keep its sovereignty.”

Discussing how Western leaders felt about his mediation efforts, Bennett said then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson took an “aggressive line” while French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz were more “pragmatic.” Bennett said President Biden adopted “both” positions.

But ultimately, the Western leaders opposed Bennet’s efforts. “I’ll say this in the broad sense. I think there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin and not [negotiate],” Bennett said.

When asked if the Western powers “blocked” the mediation efforts, Bennet said, “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.”

Explaining his decision to mediate, Bennett said that it was in Israel’s national interest not to pick a side in the war, citing Israel’s frequent airstrikes in Syria. Bennett said Russia has S-300 air defenses in Syria and that if “they press the button, Israeli pilots will fall.”

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine didn’t stop with Bennett’s efforts. Later in March, Russian and Ukrainian officials met in Istanbul, Turkey, and followed up with virtual consultations. According to the account of former US officials speaking to Foreign Affairs, the two sides agreed on the framework for a tentative deal. Russian officials, including Putin, have said publicly that a deal was close following the Istanbul talks.

But the negotiations ultimately failed after more Western pressure. Boris Johnson visited Kyiv in April 2022, urging Zelensky not to negotiate with Russia. According to a report from Ukrainska Pravda, he said even if Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with Russia, Kyiv’s Western backers were not.

Later in April, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said there were some NATO countries that wanted to prolong the war in Ukraine. “After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long … But, following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that… there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine,” Cavusoglu said.

A few days after Cavusoglu’s comments, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin admitted that one of the US’s goals in supporting Ukraine is to see Russia “weakened.”