Information war from the Russian perspective

Ever since the Ukrainian crisis started, the relations between myself and my Russian friends have suffered quite a bit. Depending on the person, we have either agreed not to talk about politics, wrangled every time we are in contact (but still remain friendly to each other, underlining that we have nothing against each other personally), or stopped speaking to each other after yet another row about who’s lying the most – Russians or “the West”. The Malaysian plane crash has only made it worse, with Russians blaming Ukraine (and the U.S.) about the catastrophe; and Western media pro-Russian rebels (and Putin). Although I generally consider the people I am in close terms with both intelligent and and skillful critical thinkers, I am finding it more and more difficult to find a common language with them. It is because at the moment they are not only critical of the Russian national TV and its ouvertly “Western-looking” counterparts like BBC Russia and Golos Ameriky, but every single media outlet. In short, they have stopped believing in objective journalism. They are determined that every journalist, regardless of their background or media affiliation, is a puppet of their emplyer. As a good friend of mine pondered the other day, “even the so-called independent journalists must be paid by someone…”. The current Russian public is certain, that everyone can be bought: the news anchor of RT who resigned on air a few days ago (obviously the Americans just paid her more!), members of the research team that are trying to find out what happened to the plane that was shot down (“obviously they want to prove it was the pro-Russian rebels who did it!), et cetera. In essence, the Russian public are growing more and more prone to believing in all kinds of conspiracy theories.

In the heads of millions of Russians the current situation in world politics looks like this: “The West”, lead by the United States and her allies (including the EU and UN and) have launched an information war against Russia. The aim of the war is to discredit Russia in all possible ways and portray it as a tyrannic and stagnated state. By doing so, citizens of those countries that used to be close allies of Russia (Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) become more and more negative and aggressive of Russia and Russians and, in the end, financed by the West, stage a coup d’etat, a so-called “colour revolution” and gain power. Russia’s influence in the world decreases and she will become weak – an easy prey for Western state-linked corporations that want to gain control over Russia’s rich natural resources. If this happens, Russia will be humiliated and stripped off all her righteous former glory. The Russian people will be forced to live in poverty, as slaves to the foreign countries, feeling ashamed of their Russianness.

According to the Russian experts, the information war started in the end of 1990s, when the Russian state had recovered from the chaotic Yeltsin period. Putin’s era has seen the Russian state growing gradually stronger and stronger, with Russian leaders becoming more independent of foreign companies and taking an active role in world politics. The elites are trying really hard to nurture a feeling of patriotism and national pride among the masses. Judging from the psychological viewpoint, painting the picture of a common enemy works more than well. However, I am beginning to think that the public’s attitude towards all media employees as potential brain-washing hit men is bringing out some schizofrenic attributes in average, peace-loving Russians. They feel the ever-present threat of the blood-thirsty Western imperialists. They feel like they can’t trust anything anyone says – who knows, maybe even their close friends or relatives are working for the other side. At the same time they are painfully aware of what is being said about Russia in Western media; things they really don’t want to believe because personally they are very fond of their country, its history and traditions. On the other hand they look around them and see poverty, exhausted fellow citizens, people who are tired of trying to make ends meet.

I discovered a fascinating website that describes the anti-Russian information war in detail (unfortunately available only in Russian). It states that the successful information war has lead to enormous gains for the West. The site includes a list of both Russian and international organisations as well as individuals that have either striken a deal with the imperialists or fallen victims to their brain-washing. Russian opposition activists, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch and even surprising names, such as Karl Marx make the list of russophobes. What is interesting, is the re-emergence of very powerful words such as “russophobe”, “fascist” or “fifth column” in the everyday liguistic environment. Many Russians today are sure that Ukrainians are a nation of russophobe fascists. Such projection of the Soviet-era Slavic brothers is in stark contrast to both the reality and the Russian portrayal of Ukrainians only ten years ago. In addition to Ukrainians, also Georgians have gone from friends to enemies almost overnight. I wonder whether Serbs will get the same treatment if/when the country decides to embark on a road of closer collaboration with the West?

According to the official story, the Western anti-Russian information war is designed to isolate Russia and Russians from the rest of the world. What they seem to have missed is, however, the immediate isolating effect that has followed the Kremlin’s vigorous campaign against the “Western propaganda”. Even Angela Merkel famously complained that president Putin seemed to be “living in another world”. More than anything, this is a result of believing in the global international information war. It is blurring the line between fiction and reality (as a sidenote, did you hear about the theory that MH17 was, in fact, filled with corpses?), and leaving people feeling scared and paranoid as they believe they’re constantly under threat. Conspiracy theories mushroom and people reach the state where they refuse to trust anyone.

Needless to say, co-operating with such people is extremely difficult. This is why Russia–West relations have been going downhill for a good time. This is also why I believe the sanctions against Russia won’t work; in contrary, they will be used as yet another example for the Russian people, proving that the whole world is against them. Indeed, they ask, why is it that the West turns a blind eye to China’s human rights violations, not even to mention about the crimes Israel commits in Gaza? Why are they so keen to point out Russia’s shortcomings from the Sochi olympics to environmental issues? Why do they deliberately want to weaken Russia’s economy?

For them, the answer is simple: they are anti-Russian imperialists, that want to gain over Russia and her oil and gas. To let you check how brain-washed by anti-Russian propaganda you are yourselves, here’s a list of the most common lies, spreaded by the russophobe camp:

1. Russia is miserable and shameful. (Everything from Russia is of bad quality. Life in Russia is agony.)
2. West is better than Russia (more civilised, better developed, etc.)
3. Patriotism is for idiots (modern citizens should see themselves as independent world citizens)
4. Everything in Russia is getting worse (if nothing changes, e.g. a drastic political change towards Western-style liberal “democracy”)
5. Russia has no enemies. (The Cold War has ended and the biggest enemy of Russia is Russia herself)
6. The Russian ruling elites are illegitimate idiots who only care about their own bank accounts.
7. A new revolution is necessary in Russia (to get rid of the old elites for good and start afresh).
8. The state is our enemy (and anyone who works for the state is probably a corrupt bastard).
9. The Orthodox religion is bad (because it’s exacly why Russia has remained such a backward country)
10. Russia for Russians. (Which is why Russia should retreat from Caucasus and allow Chechen independence.)

A Challenge

 

A couple days ago I received an interesting message from a fellow Finn with a few thought-provoking questions about the future of civil society in Russia. We’ve discussed the topic a few times in the past as it is a key concept in the work of the Observers. 

How does one build civil society in a country where public institutions simply do not function? I mean institutions like legislation, juidical system, execution of laws. And what about the poorly developed system of market exchange, skewed structure of ownership and the practice of biased deal-making? The sociel contract is nothing but a combination of plutocracy and oligarchy, dictated from the top, controlled by clans of silovniks, between whom Putin is trying to find a right balance. How does one build civil society in a country where there is an immense gap between different regions as well as different social groups? The development of a middle class is taking place slowly, the economic structure is fully dependent of raw materials, profits of which are allocated among those chosen by the political elite. “The Russian model” is further characterised by a rigid Moscow-based bureaucracy, Soviet infrastructure, uncompetetive sector of heavy industry and high transaction costs. An average citizen, living in a country in transition, is interested in only one thing: the rise of living standards. The above-mentioned deficits can be easily fixed as long as the conditions are right. The conditions are set by informal institutions, thinking of which is, in our case, very depressing when we bear in mind the course of Russian history. In essence, everything is dicated by Culture, Tradition, Habits, Trust and Reputation. Do any of these in the Russian context support the formation of civil society?

I understand what Jaakko is trying to say: “history weights a lot”, and even if some changes would begun to take place, it would take over a hundred years for the society to be re-shaped in a radical manner. Furthermore, as long as those in power are trying their best to block the given development, everything is prone to stay as it is, as it has always been. I cannot claim that he, or other people that say the same thing are wrong, but as an Optimist I believe there is another way. Although I am not an enthusiast of Soviet Russia, I believe the changes that took place in the society in the course of the existence of the USSR are truly impressive and contradic the further statement, at least “in the Russian context”.

Socities change. After all, civil society is a fairly new concept in political history. It developed as a consequence of given factors, the development of the democratic thought being one of them. There are many moments in history where a radical change shook  the society as a result of something. Homo Sovieticus did not exist in 1917, but it did in 1989. The cultures and traditions of the  thousand-year old Russian peasant society were completely destroyed as a result of collectivisation. Completely new ethical and moral were introduced in the national psyche, which is constantly developing. The society has already changed a lot in the last twenty years of post-Communism. New unprecited habits, practices and traditions have emerged. 90% of the Observers could never have thought about becoming civil activists just 10 months ago. What is more, globalisation and technological development accelerate the changes.

“New Russians”. Exist in the Russian society since mid-1990s.

A closer look in the Georgian recent history offers another interesting point of view. Right after the collapse of USSR, the level of corruption in Georgia was at a shocking level – even for Russians. But after a recent campaign that proved highly successful, the level of corruption has remarkably dropped. In this case civil society didn’t really play a role, it was a programme dictated from the top, but it demonstrates that even core problems faced by Russians today can be fixed.

As for development of civil society, I believe it is a more complicated and time-consuming process than combatting corruption but in no way impossible. The task? To fundamentally change the way of thinking, to bring in new set of values. What are my rights and responsibilies as a citizen? On a bringht note, the word “civil society” has already made it to public rhetoric, and not only in big cities.

I disagree with the idea that average citizen are only interested in the rise of living standards. I agree that it is at the top of their interests for understandable reasons but the mushrooming of new parties and NGOs proves that it is not the only thing they care about. An “average citizen” does not organise demonstrations but he does talk about the deficits of infrastructure with his friends and neighbours.

Building civic society is difficult when one sets the target at the level of Western European societies, where civil society has been developing with the help of government organs for decades. Of course one cannot “import” civil society to Russia overnight; moreover, it is likely that Russian civil society will be a lot more communal in nature, and at the present moment more politicised. However, I do not think the current system is strong enough to be able to fully halt the ongoing process. Civil society in Russia is not being built, it is emerging.

“We all know what our judges are like…”

Back from the datcha, straight to work ! The title refers to my biggest problem at the moment: Struggling to understand people’s sarcasm in political dialogue. I have started working on my new project, translating the Observers’ booklet into English, but it has turned out to be fairly difficult because it’s full of cultural references, or to be more specific St. Petersburg opposition-minded cultural references. The language of the booklet is not easily translatable to non-Russians. Have a look at the following sentence:

The fact that Putin is originally from Leningrad isn’t actually very important, although it is the citizens of St. Petersburg, above all, who can tell stories about Putin during his time as Deputy to Sobchak.

I asked a friend for a helping hand and this is what he explained:

In the beginning of 1990s, when Anatoly Sobchak was the city’s mayor, Putin was working in the branch of external affairs of St. Petersburg city administration. Sobchak’s daughter is now one of the most popular opposition figures. In the 1996 elections Putin lead Sobchak’s electoral campaign. In fact, all of the country’s current bureaucratic élite was working in the city’s administration in the beginning of the 90s. 

The fact that Putin was born in St. Petersburg is crucial. In fact, the system of authority he developed is based on the principles of our officials and politicians. However, these principles, in essence “to live according to the rules”, to be honest and trustworthy, are not accepted by Muscovites. In fact, they are absent among them.

Yesterday’s press conference in support of Ivan Kvasov to be elected in the city’s electoral committee was in many ways a challenging event as well. An observer sitting next to me kept grimacing to himself, sometimes commenting to himself to what the interviewees were saying. That’s the problem with these people (or everyone who’s even slightly interested in politics): They are speaking another language, a language that is extremely hard to understand unless you’re aware of the “everyday political reality” of the country. I’m lucky to have enough people around me to explain all the hidden meanings to me, otherwise I might do a really bad job with the translation.

By the way, the point of the sentence “We all know what our judges are like…” is that the judges are thoroughly corrupt, thus there is very little chances of winning any trials against the state.