The Russian Federation is doomed to suffer the fate of the former USSR, the issue is in forms and terms only — Alexander Sytin

***

-  You are an active participant of political talk-shows on Moscow TV-channels. Our question is as follows: all hot events in Russian neighborhoods are presented as crafty designs of the West aimed at weakening te might of Russia. An impression is that Kirghizes have no internal contradictions following which they are faced with political conflict. As if no Armenia is occupying Azerbaijani lands with consequential Karabakh war (Moscow TV-channels are interpreting this war as advent of Erdogan to be stopped). As if Belarusians are not sick of Lukashenko’ rule within 30 years, etc. It turns out that the main problem lies allegedly in the West that is willing to replace Lukashenko and install missiles there to threaten Russia. The same is true of developments in Ukraine; resignation of President Nazarbayev, etc.  

Where are views of this kind in respect of other countries coming from? Isn’t so ordinary for Armenians to expand their lands at the expense of Azerbaijan? Is that Erdogan who seized the territory of Azerbaijan? Is that Ukrainians that unleashed a war against Russia? Same goes for other «hot spots».

These are none other than premeditated actions of Russian political experts and television in respect of developments around Russia to mislead their own public through blaming these conflicts on the West. Or turn a question differently: are these conflicts happening to do dirt on Russians?

- It has to be kept in mind that the information-propaganda work, in particular, television, is accounted for a number of factors. Beyond any doubt, there is a goal-oriented ideological paradigm based on a concept of society-building. For some time past, Kremlin ideologists are primarily engaged in developing an ideology (in the manner of the Soviet one) directed to putting the society together in the matter of wealth distribution and legal inequalities. In considering that the Russian society is UTTERLY heterogeneous and contradictory, efforts on this track are doomed to failure.

Hence it follows that if you are going to consolidate the society but cannot put forward serious managerial and spiritual-ideological decisions, all that remains is to tell a yarn about external threats and hostile plans of «foreign, particularly, American backstage». This approach makes it possible to answer a question why military expenditures are growing while economy remains to be absolutely ineffective  and stratospheric level of corruption is not regulated by the authorities. That’s not the issue; the main thing for the authorities is to guarantee a physical survival of citizens due to the lack of armed conflicts and «that our boys should not be killed in the war».

However, it’d be utterly wrong to think that the authorities are forcibly imposing their ideological cliché on society. In reality, the power is saying and doing what an overwhelming majority of population is hopeful on. If you strip away all the rhetoric about the restoration of the USSR and the triumph of social justice, you must admit that the fear of external aggression, both military and cultural-economic, is one of fundamental features and backbones of the Russian society, its group social and national psychology. This psychology remains to be 85-90% Soviet. Note that after 30 years the social and technological experiment on the creation of «a new man» has been crowned with success. As if that weren’t’ enough, features of the «news Soviet man are reproduced and inherited».

 It ought to be noted that consciousness of the Russian man bears absolutely imperial character. He wants to live «in a great country that instills a fear to all». Failing this, he feels defective and unfortunate. His mission is to be «go-to», patron of bordering peoples, interfere with EVERYTHING these peoples are faced with, be a go-between, judge and pardon, and the most important thing he must be present on their territories in the form of military bases or state-monopoly companies. The Russian man feels chronically wretched without a complex of «elder brother (father)».

In other words, there is a peculiar symbiosis in the information policy – ideological interests of the power are IN LINE WITH in-depth aspirations of the people. In the end, the power is doing what the people counts on in the field of information and international policy.

Beyond any doubt, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, peoples of the Baltic countries and Belarusians, Ukrainians and Moldavians, Kirgizes and Uzbeks are noted for THEIR contradictions and interests. However, their needs and sovereign interests are utterly false and far-fetched by means of «world backstage», for their true interests are  rooted in ally/integration into the Russian people within the framework of enormous, strong and triumphal empire: all these are surreptitiously instilled in minds of Russian citizens. The unity of the Great Patriotic War times is none other than spiritual ideal not only of the authorities but the so-called in-depth people. But what about the television? – It is in keeping with the requirements above.

- And again, Putin demonstrated a new weapon – a missile flying quicker than other missile devices worldwide. It is obvious that under «aircraft carrier killer» (a name of the new missile) is meant US warships.

Of interest is the fact that earlier Putin demonstrated other missiles, laser gun, etc. In the meanwhile, village inhabitants outside the Moscow Ring Road (MRR) have for years been living without gas and rural sewerage. What a phenomenon? Kremlin must have forgotten causes of the USSR collapse which decided to compete with the United States in star wars but failed due financial ruin.  The accepted view has been that through demonstrating new weapons Putin is fanning militarist sentiments of Russians who are still under militarist sentiments and ready to live low but «with no war». The state is easier to device new weapons than establish a sewerage network and gas system across Russia. The fastest missile on TV is sufficient to reduce his popularity. Missiles are more important for Russian citizens that high living standards, being aware of this Putin is eager to win elections through raising the warmongering of society.

- As a matter of fact, your question formulation is an answer to the question. V.Putin is not interested in gasification and sewerage. From his point of view, and I agree with him: these are responsibilities of local authorities. However, funds designed for improvement of living conditions are openly embezzled.

    What is important to notice is that today, by virtue of money  ANY person, as distinct from the Soviet period, can provide himself with gas, electricity and sewerage. The problem lies in poverty and, partly, in his devil-may-care attitude where he would like to take a shit.

In 2011/12, I drew an inference that the Putin regime had entered into a state of decline and stagnation. First of al, it had been linked to an idea of Eurasian union which was none other than an attempt to recreate the USSR. At present, this crisis tends to increasingly aggravate bearing in mind the annexation of the Crimea, latest developments in Belarus, helplessness in the face of the pandemic, collapse of national currency that fell three times as compared with 2013, endless inflation… just to name a few. It is obvious for me that the current Russian Federation is doomed to suffer the fate of the USSR, the issue is in forms and terms only. The problem is that the authorities ARE IN NO POSITION to change the political line. Russia is besotted with imperia instinct, and no rational motivations can change the situation, except for major collapse and war defeat. The point is about history, psychology and fate of the country. One cannot forget «a brilliant» and comprehensive phrase of V.Putin: «We need no world without Russia, all of us will get to paradise but they will merely crack!» There is nothing to add to what has been said. However, the world has not heard these words …

- Democrat Yeltsin quitted the political stage by reason of age and his inability to meet the challenges. He delegated authority to a KGB agent after he came to the conclusion about unproductivity of democratic and liberal ideas in Russia. The nation did not accept these ideas, Russia was faced with collapse, etc. There is a notion in the Russian and other societies that Putin succeeded in extricating Russia from quagmire.

What do you think, Russian citizens (Russians in the first turn as a leading ethnos of the Russian Federation) are doomed to be a stronghold of conservatism, totalitarianism, support dictators in other countries and oppose Europe and the United States? What can you say about sentiments of the younger generation of the Russian Federation? As is known, Muscovites are strongly different from other, largely peasant strata f the country by their intra-political views. How far are different totalitarian views in the Russian society when adjusted for their differentiation by property principle and division of the country into the capital and the province?  

- From my point of view, the tragedy of Yeltsin lies in his inability to go to the mat in his transformations. I think that inconsistence is worse than consistent radicalism. I/m not ready to say that he was aware of transferring power to KGB agent. At that moment he took Putin as a man of А.Sobchak and even B. Berezovsky made an error in respect of V.Putin.

As a whole, attitude of «democrats of the first wave, particularly, those from business structures » to KGB agents is a complex question to be analyzed thoroughly. That’s why I’d not describe the situation as an obvious antinomy of democratic Eltsin and authoritarian Putin regimes. Neither the Yeltsin regime was purely democratic nor the Putin regime is unambiguously authoritarian. In particular, economic prerequisites of the Putin economic authoritarianism were laid down under Yeltsin by oligarchs that created financial-industrial groups closely integrated into the power. V.Putinу had to technically substitute oligarchs for KGB and intelligence persons and rename JSC into state-owned corporations. There was nothing but to consolidate the country before «terror danger », as they are now trying to consolidate the country in the face of «western threat». And that’s that.

It should be added that the Putin regime is skilful in imitating democratic procedures by nullifying their genuinely democratic content. The people did not accept liberal transformations? – But there were not any transformations. Our interview deals primarily with the fact that the power is in need of paternalism and sacralization to rule in the country; however, the people need them to live – that’s the secret of the symbiosis of the power and the nation, a stability f the Putin regime. I don’t know another historical example to illustrate SO brilliantly a we’ll-known thesis that every nation gets the government it deserves.

I can hardly answer a question about the stronghold of conservatism ad totalitarianism and backbone of dictatorship regimes. To put aside liberal cliché, I’ve NO grounds to believe that representatives of the so-called opposition could contribute to the situation in Russia. Strange it is, I’m standing in full solidarity with the majority of the people disbelieving in positive changes in power …

Developments and trends in the United States and Europe inspire no optimism for the present and, even more so, the future liberal model. I agree with a V.Putin’s thesis that this model is going through the crisis. From propaganda standpoint, it’d be wrong not to avail of negative features of American and European realities to thus emphasize Russia’s «conservative role » and its traditional values in terms of western developments. Nobody is willing to be a resident of Bishkek or Osh. My answer is yes: within the framework of your question Russia will remain a stronghold of conservatism until national-conservative tendencies and movements start winning in the West. In this case Russia will take «a pro-liberal position based of law. As a preliminary example suffice it to look at Russia’s attitude toward processes going on in Poland and Ukraine.

It must be acknowledged that the youth is dissatisfied not by the lack of liberal freedoms but by the lack of multi-party system, clear algorithm s of social elevators. As viewed by the youth, these elevators must be high-speed, free of charge and not energy-consuming. That equally relates to the metropolitan and provincial population.

So, the youth is eager to get easy earnings and access to corruption flows: contests to various state service academies are above contests to humanitarian and artistic faculties of the Soviet type. At the same time there is no interest in industrial arts, technical and working specialties, nor serious education with their snug income.

And all the above is suggested to boost to power instead of V. {utin and A. Lukashenko within the framework of democratization? What the sense of changes? It’s as good as the consequences of replacement of old Communist Party elite by Komsomol. The people feels it in bones.

- Let’s turn to Russia’s neighbors, the so-called «underbelly».  This Solzhenitsyn-suggested definition offers an affront to Kazakhstanis, etc. Yet, it keeps on using on TY-channels of Moscow. Does political choice and mentality of authority-connived Russians affect the development of Russia’s neighbors? Neighbors of Russia have to take into account «national interests of Russia» when selecting the political system in their own countries; otherwise, the situation will be alike Ukraine, according to dictators of neighboring countries. Is that so? Thus, when struggling for democracy Azerbaijanis became hostages of political preferences of Russians. What do you think, will democracy come to Azerbaijan after its establishment in Russia only?

- Don’t hold «underbelly» as an insult. The fact is that it characterizes vulnerability and helplessness of current boundaries rather than something disgraceful. Once again: for Russians ALL peoples residing on the territory of the former USSR are brothers, especially in respect to Russians. Mass media say:  «peoples on this territory are not aliens for us». Russians are taking the WHOLE territory of the former USSR/Russian Empire as their own territory, so any national movements toward sovereignty as delusions of brothers to put in the right way. It is impossible to form a national sovereign ideology and political line in regard to Russia nor national policy with respect to Russian-speaking citizens without clear understanding of this thesis and strict attitude thereto on the part of countries and peoples of the post-Soviet expanse.

Nothing terrible has happened in Ukraine. Living standards have fallen but it is inevitable in the course of formation of effective economy to replace the previous socialist model. All countries – Poland, Czechia and Baltic countries have worked their way up.

Is it heavier for Ukraine? The point here is about specificity of national path and national elites. It’s another story.

I don’t understand why Azerbaijanis are hostages of the Russian political preferences. At one time the Latvians and Estonians told themselves that we are ready to eat crude potato get rid of Russia and Russian influence. Is Azerbaijan prepared to act in such a fashion? If yes, then your country has the moment more favorable than the Baltic countries. If no, then the issue is neither geopolitical nor «Russian». If you are willing sovereignty, the situation is the same as in Finland and Poland, Baltic countries and largely Ukraine. Al of the countries mentioned above are running through difficulties. From my point f view, freedom from all Russian is well worth it. That’s for you to decide!

- Last but not least. The Karabakh war. Putin does not interfere so far even despite Armenia’s plea for aid. In so doing,  Putin helps Azerbaijan to return lands captured in the 1923-93. As things stand now, two non-democrats — Putin and Aliyev are acting together for restoration of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In the meanwhile, democrat Pashinyan is seeking to destroy Azerbaijan through misappropriating Karabakh. In turn, in their statements and Moscow political shows Russian liberals are frequently protecting Armenians. Isn’t it paradoxical? Why can Great Britain, Spain, etc. protect their borders and fight against separatists, it’s normal and comply with democracy? But when Azerbaijan is banishing an Armenian expedition corps from its legal territory, Russian (and not only) liberals are in to sympathy with Armenian separatists?

- In any reasonable sense. You seem to be self-contradictory in the previous question. Russian liberals are promoting Armenia not least because of the role of ethnic Armenians in the Russian information environment. Presenting the conflicting views simply means positioning oneself out of liberal society, become «non-ordained», lose clubbish set and fall into disrepute. It all adds up to declaring a racist, homophobe and anti-Semite in the West. Thus, I’ve already been accused of fascism but I’m used to.

The contest is underway not between authoritarian Aliyev and liberal Pashinyan but between peoples /nations with their own mental, historical, territorial and existential contradictions. My vision of the world lies in the fact that I’m examining the situation through the lens of national and cultural conflicts, not in terms of struggle between authoritarianism and democracy  and humanism which is irrelevant to me, I take the conflict exactly this way. I wish flawless victory and prosperity to the Azerbaijani people. And with that, let me finish the interview.

Thank you for your interview, Dear Alexander Sytin