6 August 2024
by Aleksandr Podrabinek
Source: Facebook
The recent exchange of prisoners between Russia and the West has unexpectedly exposed the pathos and motives of the more militant members of the Russian emigree community. Exposed them very clearly. People who used to be active in photography will remember how images gradually formed on pieces of blank photographic paper when immersed in developing liquid. First, it was just blurry outlines, then those outlines became clearer and clearer, you bring the paper out from under the red light and behold, the picture is clear!
I’m not going to be politically correct, I will say what I think. Emigrants from the so-called liberal lobby ended up overseas for fear of being imprisoned in Russia. Their fear is completely understandable. Their motives for emigration could even be seen as admirable. For them, personal safety and wellbeing for themselves and their families were more important than the freedom and democracy for Russia they discussed with such vigour and enthusiasm at protest rallies, on the pages of independent media outlets, and online. So, they lacked enough ammunition. It happens. There is nothing admirable in this, but nothing disastrous either. No one demanded that they sacrifice themselves, they were prepared to be heroes on the podium, but not in a real conflict with the repressive regime. So, they all left, no big loss. It is definitely better to leave while you have the chance than to break under police interrogation.
I think most Russian who have left the country feel OK, although a certain number of this emigre community, the loudest and most confrontational, experience spiritual discomfort. They are conscious of their political inadequacy, especially in the context of what is happening to those who stay in Russia, who resist and serve time. They want to prove their shrewdness to themselves and those around them, and to justify their decision to leave Russia, so they portray those who remain as naïve fools lacking understanding of how the world works. They are irritated by the very existence of political prisoners; they think they are in prison because of mistakes they made, or having failed to know the limits of their own strength. But they made no mistake!
Aleksei Navalny’s decision to stay in Russia pulled the carpet out from under their feet. Writing from prison a month before being killed, Navalny put in a letter: “I have my country and my principles. I do not want to abandon either my country or my principles. And I cannot betray either the first or second. If your principles are worth anything, you need to be prepared to stand up for them. And if need be, need to make sacrifices.”
The eloquent and outspoken Ekaterina Shulman simply does not appreciate this: “The context is such that the first thought when hearing the news was: ‘Why didn’t he just leave after his first conviction?’ and almost the only emotion was astonishment. So she is astonished; is personal wellbeing not above all else?
Even more clear with his choice of words was the always highly tactful politician Dmitry Gudkov. “The chance has been, and still is, given for almost all public figures, including well-known opposition figures, to leave Russia. But if they don’t get the message, that is when they are imprisoned. So if you don’t want to become a prisoner, you should not expect mercy from the Investigative Committee; there are planes flying to Tbilisi and other great cities … You should save yourself at the most remote sign of danger. It is always the best decision to protect your life.”
Gudkov and Shulman are both simple people, giving their direct and straightforward opinions on the benefits of cowardice. But there are others who would not feel comfortable in this situation. Simply to feel like a fugitive acting to save your own skin doesn’t appeal, they need worthy arguments. They would like to retain some level of status, desirably the same status they had when in Russia, when they were listened to.
And what arguments would they be? The killer one goes: “Russia is a country with no hope of reform, and the people collectively support a fascist regime.” They say this as though there are not hundreds of political prisoners in prisons and camps all around Russia, who chose the path of resistance over escaping Russia; as though there hadn’lt been many thousands of rallies and marches all over Russia when they still were possible to organise; as though the authorities were not forced to falsify election results to hide Putin’s meagre electoral support.
Anna Roze writes about her Russian contacts, and it reads like she is talking about Russians generally: “None of the Russians I know showed compassion for the real victims of aggression. In Ukraine, the fact that Russia is killing people every day with Russians’ silent consent, destroying not just entire cities but also the very basis for existence in a sovereign country, was just background information to them, and not central to what was going on.” Well, what can be done with such a worthless people? It is simple, abandon them and continue to stigmatise them until your dying breath. And God forbid anyone will see you as one of them.
Journalist Viktoria Ivleva went even further, going on Facebook to attack Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ilya Yashin, and Andrei Pivovarov for not talking enough, or saying the right things about, the Ukraine War in their press conference in Germany last week. “I would like to hear at least a bit of repentance from you, and not just lecturing that everything is Putin’s fault, that the people are blameless and innocent. Who was it that voted for Putin time and again? Wasn’t it the people? … The war our people started has left us with one right only – to go down on our knees.”
She, an emigrant, expects words of repentance from people who were until recently political prisoners, serving time in prison for opposing the war! It’s as though this has nothing to do with Ivleva herself, she has nothing to repent. It is the Russian people who must collectively go down on their knees and those who left in good time are guilty of nothing. But if the conversation turns to heartfelt regret, should Viktoria Ivleva not be expressing regret for the USSR’s war against Afghanistan? That war was no less bloody than this one, and Ivleva at the time had entered life as a Soviet student and a successful journalist. She wrote articles for the publication of the All-Union Leninist Communist Union of Youth. She did not protest. She did not fall on her knees. If she is calling on everyone to apologise for the sins of the authorities, then why must she not do the same?
No, of course only the people can be to blame. The people who, as Ivleva stated, voted Putin into power time and again. So then, she believes the presidential elections to have been honest and transparent, the President was the people’s choice, he is legitimate and, as a result, can be taken at face value as evidence of the peoples’ moral inferiority. Let’s forget about the falsification of results, we’ll just pretend that never happened.
What’s good about the sense of collective responsibility is that individual responsibility dissolves amidst everyone else’s. If everyone is to blame, no one is to blame. A very convenient position. Konstantin Borovoy joined the argument, denouncing the released prisoners on his Facebook page: “Asking the West to remove sanctions at the same time the regime is becoming even more brutal, with popular support, is foolish and low.” Leaving aside the distortion of facts here (there was no talk of removing sanctions completely, just of targeting them more specifically), the statement that the citizens of Russia support the brutal regime is a blatant untruth. Some people support them and some don’t. No one knows exactly what the ratio of these two groups is, but it is beyond doubt that millions of Russians do not support the regime. Why would he mirror the Putin propaganda machine in asserting the unity of the party and the people? And if everyone can be blamed, then why not start with himself? In the transition era of the 1990s, Borovoy was a Parliamentary Deputy, and had much more political influence than the man of the street. If things went wrong in our country, then maybe he should consider his role in those events? Or is everyone to blame but him?
But the thesis the people are to blame is not enough to satisfy one’s own ego.They tell the freed political prisoners in hysterical tones about the terrible situation of Ukraine and its prisoners of war held in Russia. As though anyone were arguing about that. But this creates the illusion that only they are upset about this, and that there is no one in Russia who understands this and no one has compassion for Ukraine The view that there are Russian problems that need political solutions is jealously rejected. No, today there is only one problem: the war in Ukraine.
Yes, for Ukraine the war is the most important issue. But not for Russia. It might be the most painful one, but it is not the fundamental issue. For Russia the main issue is authoritarian power, which can start wars, kill opponents, take away freedoms, and threaten the entire world by the will of a single man. The Ukraine war is the result of this main issue, and it was this which the political prisoners that had been freed discussed at their press conference. Finding effective solutions to the question of war and peace depends on the nature of power, and not on military victories and defeats. Whatever is the nature of political power in Russia, it will be reflected in Russia’s relationship with other countries. This is obvious.
The desire of Vladimir Kara-Murza and Ilya Yashin to, primarily, be involved in Russian politics and in the interests of a democratic future for Russia is well taken and rational. A democratic Russia will not need enemies either on its borders, or somewhere in Africa. It will return all occupied territories. It will pay reparations. It will take upon itself to, and eventually succeed in, repenting its wrongdoing in relation to Ukraine and other countries which it has attacked.
For this to happen, opposition figures must be in Russia. Otherwise it won’t happen. This will of course stir up a frenzy among those political emigrees who call cowardice prudence and prefer fine words in emigration to the risk of being an opposition figure while in Russia. I think that Vladimir Kara-Murza explained it clearly enough to them in his interview of March this year, which he gave while in prison:
‘A politician cannot work ‘remotely’. This is not a question of practical “use,” for a public politician this is an issue of ethics and responsibility to his fellow citizens. If you call upon people to stand against an authoritarian regime, you cannot do it from a position of safety abroad, you have to share that risk with the rest of society.’
Translated by Oscar Seecharan
