NR 1, NR 2 W ANTYKU

 

РУССКИЙ  МИР
ROSYJSKI ŚWIAT      RUSSIAN WORLD

Larisa Yakubowa

--„Ruski mir”. Putin stworzył potwora i spuścił go ze smyczy-- link do artykułu
Igor Isajew dla Wirtualnej Polski – wywiad z Larisą Jakubową

--"Russian Mir". Putin created a monster and unleashed it--*
Igor Isaev for Wirtualna Polska – an interview with Larisa Yakubowa

The vast majority of people see "Russian mir" only in the category of ideology, politics or geopolitics. In fact, the danger and strength of this product lies in the fact that it has gone far beyond these limits and is a part of modern marketing - says Larisa Yakubowa in an interview with Wirtualna Polska. - The basis of "Russian mir" is an absolutely apocalyptic way of understanding the world, an alternative worldview, aimed at preventing existence in a normal world.

Since 2014, Larisa Yakubova, a historian from Donetsk and a member-correspondent of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, has been researching the "Russian world" (Russkiy mir). This is the Kremlin's concept that justifies the aggressive policy of conquering the neighbors. Jakubowa sees in the apologists of "Russian mir" a totalitarian sect that seeks to destroy the modern world. During her research, she predicted that Russia would attack Ukraine on a full scale. In an interview with Wirtualna Polska, she talks about how "Russian mir" is also dangerous for Poland.

Igor Isaev: Is "Russian mir" an exclusively Russian-speaking space?

Larisa Yakubova: No. It's a lie space. Total and comprehensive.

What is it?

Defining "Russian mir" is difficult because it is constantly changing. I've been studying it since 2014, but it appeared long before that date. If at the turn of the millennium the concept of "Russian mir" included one set of ideas and concepts, today it is a completely different substance. During these nine years, it went through several stages and changed a lot.

What were the stages?

"Russian mir" was formulated as a set of quasi-intellectual and spiritual concepts, which was first used as an element of Russian "soft power".

Its roots go back to the first Russian political emigration. I mean the one from the 1920s. But back then, they were the forerunners of the product we have today.

Are you talking about the fascist Ivan Ilyin who wrote about the supremacy of "Russian civilization"?

Yes, but among the others. This product was revived in 1998 when Russia declared insolvency and officially became bankrupt. It was not only an economic bankruptcy, but also an ideological and cultural one. It was a cross-cutting phenomenon.

Today's Russia is a country that appeared in this form in 1991, although it seems to have been present in history for a long time. The then post-Soviet intellectuals and the contemporary Russian intellectuals set themselves the task of creating a modern national idea that will shape the country in the future.

The expression "Russian mir" was proposed by Gleb Pawlowski, the Kremlin's political technologist, although this phrase first appeared in a collection of works by the Soviet philosopher Mikhail Gefter.

…with whom Pawlowski had very close relations…

Yes, he was a student of Gefter.

Born in Odessa, Pawlowski seems to have a certain complex towards Ukraine, albeit hidden under a highly intellectual mask.

Gleb Pawlowski is a typical representative of the elite of Ukrainian origin. After arriving in Moscow and starting his career among the state elite, he tries with all his might to spread the idea that Ukrainians are the same Russians, sometimes worse and sometimes better. In this construction, "Russian mir" assumes that Ukrainians are equally well suited to building a great Russian statehood. And this invalidates Ukrainianness as such.

It is an identity that denies national origins and tries to adapt culturally to the metropolis. Pawlowski agrees to be a part of the imperial project and with all his might constructs a concept that allows people like him to realize themselves at the highest levels of public service. He presents himself as "the better kind of Russian", not some "gastarbeiter" (guest worker)who will work for five kopecks (a few cents)

Was it, then, that Russia's economic bankruptcy that revived imperial nostalgia?

Recall the classic saying of Putin, which he has been repeating since coming to power - "Russia has been brought to its knees." The beginning of his rule was a turning point in which Putin initiated the project of building a "great" Russia.

With the subsequent recovery of the economy, the Kremlin tried to create a new concept of the national idea, which was supposed to compensate the Russians for the feeling of "national humiliation" due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was the time when the first Chechen war had already ended and the second was going on. At the same time, society still had an apocalyptic feeling that the newly established Russia in 1991 was being destroyed.

Putin's power, which has been massively consolidated, entrusted intellectuals with the task of developing a product that would mentally unite Russia and all post-Soviet Russians who no longer had a Soviet Union but did not feel proud to be creators of a new Russia.

You say "product". Do I understand correctly that this was primarily a product of political technology?

I would emphasize the initial stage, i.e. the end of the 1990s, when it was created by several teams of intellectuals and artists, including group of so-called methodologists (political technologists Piotr Szczedrowicki and Jefim Ostrowski).

However, already in 2004, it was an economic and political version of "Russian mir", and therefore a political technology. It was quickly picked up by the authorities, who saw the significant mobilization potential of this technology and treated it as the basis for the operation of state structures. At that time, the "Russian Mir" was understood as an element of mobilization not only of Russians within the country, but also of the mobilization of Russian diasporas around the world, in order to gather their energy, wealth, abilities, and influence on other countries.

At the time, it was a modern idea that sought to be global in the positive sense of the word. However, it already bore all the hallmarks of imperialism.

For example, what?

For example, the superiority of Russians and Russian language speakers in relation to other citizens of the former Soviet republics. This was particularly visible in the Baltic states, as well as in Ukraine, which from the beginning was referred to in "Russian Mir" as an integral part of Russia.

After the Orange Maidan in 2004, there was a sharp turn of the "Russian mir" - from moderate political technology to active counter-revolutionary action. The Kremlin saw the Ukrainian Maidan as a challenge to regimes like their own.

In Russia, the idea of a democratic revolution has become the number one irritant to the Kremlin. At that time, the most important goal of the "Russian mir" was to counteract "color revolutions", as it was called in the Kremlin.

Does counter-revolution in this case mean anti-Western attitude?

After 2004, the main task is no longer the development of Russia within the frame of the global world, but opposition to democratic and liberal changes in the Russian state. At this point, Putin controls the most important parts of the economy, the mass media, and politics goes into the hands of "collective Putin", that is, the entire extended Kremlin apparatus in Moscow and in the regions.

Russia's entry into a "victorious war" with Georgia in 2008, which skyrocketed the country's political ratings, showed the development of links between the so-called deep people and "collective Putin" [rus. "Glubinnyynarod", a term introduced by the Kremlin ideologue Vladislav Surkov, meaning the apathetic, but the essential mass of Russians - ed.].

Russia did not have the strength to develop and deepen the war with Georgia for many economic reasons. It has not been possible yet to bring the Russian mass consciousness to the state it became on February 24, 2022.

There were still living cells of the opposition, albeit bleeding deeply. There were charismatic opposition leaders who were able to persuade influential layers of society to protest the war. The entire economy was not yet in the hands of "collective Putin", and not all levers of political management were in his hands.

In addition, Georgia was not the place where the global war between Russia and the West was historically intended to take place. Such a role was assigned to Ukraine. In 2008, Russian society was not yet ready to play the role of a submissive and utterly pointless resource in the global war that it is now.

Why wasn't it ready then, and is it now?

Because "collective Putin" has implemented his conservative counter-revolution during those 20 years. It ended in 2020 with the adoption of a new Russian constitution that disproportionately extended the president's powers while eliminating checks and balances.

In addition, "belief in god" was written into the constitution, and the Russian language was called "the language of a state-building nation."

Yes, then it has not only been shown that the Constitution no longer existed, but it was also about "sealing" the colossal work done over those two decades. At that time, the Kremlin created a complete socio-economic base for starting a world war.

What base is this?

There is no middle class in Russia, which is the basis of independent political opinion. The middle class was simply not allowed to develop in Russia. Today, over 70 percent of Russia's population depends on the state budget, as during the era of Soviet totalitarianism. At the same time, this is not a social bottom, because each ruble of social benefit moves them out of the category of poor people to the category of people who have not yet plunged into poverty.

On the other hand, business in Russia are large state-owned corporations that engage in corruption in government procurement. Separately stand the oligarchs, who in fact are the "collective Putin" for managing financial flows.

It is a closed circle of chronic poverty for most of the society, and at the same time unjustified dependence on the state. This creates a new version of modern paternalism that is used in war.

The society has been led to the point where conscription for war, mobilization, for many becomes another "normal" life program developed by the authorities.

Have the Russians somehow become a "collective Putin" themselves, or are they victims of the system?

This is quite a complex and painful problem. We are dealing with the catastrophe of Russia, the catastrophe of its post-totalitarian transformation. After all, the transformation ended with the old Soviet version of totalitarianism being replaced by a new one. This return to totalitarianism would be impossible without the massive support of the population.

The "mass man" is the basis of totalitarian systems, it varies between 70-85 percent. society. When the government has an agreement with the "mass man", then terrible transformations take place.

On the ruins of the old state, neither a state nor a society is emerging, but something what I call a "state-society" - a new, sick political system. Paradoxically, democracy becomes the basis of totalitarianism, but only in the sense that the majority of society wants to participate in this new totalitarian system.

Such a desire was formed in Russia during the annexation of Crimea.

The so-called "Crimean consensus".

Russia has been in this great madness since 2014, consistently developing tools to influence mass consciousness. When Putin's popularity drops to 60-62 percent, as before the previous phase of the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin's military actions raise him again for a while to the coveted 80 percent.

Mass support consists of three elements. The first is the absolutely obsessed promoters of the conservative counter-revolution, such as Alexander Dugin, one of the ideologues of the "Russian mir".

The other is the contractors who, by the nature of their service, live only by the system. And the third, and at the same time the largest element, are "watniki", as the "deep people" are colloquially called. They kind of don’t want to die or kill, but they lack subjectivity, they are used to relying on the "majority opinion" that they will hear thanks to propaganda.

Although there is of course a stable 15% who, despite the mass exodus of certain categories of Russians, still oppose this policy.

What to do with this last group? Opinions on it are radically different.

Let us remember that the world has entered a period of long and very severe upheavals. Given the truly complex diagnosis of everything that happened in Russia, today the future of the world depends on the joint efforts of the world community. There are many future scenarios.

One option is that Putin's Russia will close its borders for seventy years, like North Korea, and slowly decay. This is a very dangerous option. Not only for Eastern Europe, but for the whole world, because unlike North Korea and China, the basis of the "Russian mir" is an absolutely apocalyptic way of understanding the world, an alternative worldview aimed at the impossibility of existing in a normal world. This generates a huge threat.

However, many Russian oppositionists, even well-educated, are also the product of 20 years of "Russian mir". However, we should also work with them to make them fully aware of how little they know. Not only about the world, but also about Russia itself. Without changing their consciousness, we will not be able to do anything for the future of Russia, even if it frees itself from "collective Putin."But this must be done so as not to increase the number of enemies.

[Here we have to stop the conversation for 1.5 hours — air-raid alarm sounds in Kiev]

How does "Russian mir" work in Western countries? Is it in retreat after February 24, 2022, or is it just an illusion?

It is too early to say that the danger has passed. Most people perceive "Russian mir" only in the category of ideology, politics or geopolitics. In fact, the danger and strength of this product is that it has gone far beyond these initial boundaries and is part of modern marketing.

Today it is a comprehensive, alternative information system that attracts a huge number of people. That's hundreds of millions of people around the world.

What are these people?

Primarily Russian speaking people. Also — figures from science and culture, in particular experts in Russian issues, graduates of Russian universities. They continue to hold key positions as experts or state advisers, both in the US and throughout Europe, Asia and Africa.

In 20 years, such structures have been created almost all over the world thanks to the tools of the Russian "soft power". Their aspirations go far beyond cultural events or festivals. They are deeply imbued with the ideas of the greatness of Russia, the return to the alleged "historical truth". The Kremlin is bloodsucking on the ideology of "great Russian culture", which it has appropriated and transforms into a huge tool of influence. Culture has created a deceptive mask of modernity in Putin's Russia.

Most of what you say refers to Germany or France. And what about a country with such a history as Poland. Does it have a natural resistance to "Russian mir"? What disguise does it appear there?

Countries that were already part of various forms of the Russian Empire are "vaccinated" against the "Russian mir" - if they remember their history correctly. At the same time, in Poland and in democratic Ukraine, this experience should not be turned into an all-out war against witches. "Ruski mir" can parasitize both, extreme left and far right movements.

And at the same time?

At the same time, because the parasite creates very effective hybrids from them. A combination of opposing elements that feed off each other, supported by bot farms. It's a huge network rooted all over the world. And with favorable economic and political conditions, it will work very effectively for the sake of global chaos and contribute to starting one fire after another.

It does not necessarily have to act as a direct manifestation of "Russian mir". Putin has no friends in the world. He only has enemies. Yes, there are potential spaces for economic contacts that will bring him money, but let's not confuse it with friendship. Thanks to those contracts he will destroy the modern world.

The totalitarian meaning of "Russian mir" is not that it is "Russian", but that it is totalitarian, aimed at world hegemony and the destruction of the liberal-democratic world as such.

Does Putin want to see partners similar to him in power in the West?

He wants the world to be as he sees it, in terms of power, not value. We live in different dimensions, both mental and values. Putin, as the personification of totalitarianism, has built a picture of the world in which the most beautiful system is Putin's. In his vision, Russia is the only country that should become a model for the development of the future world.

Those who don’t agree with such a vision should simply be destroyed. Russia is not trying to integrate with the world. Her job is to destroy it. To this end, they developed tools to reach different target groups. It seems irrelevant whether it is about the left-wing or right-wing populism – the goal is to discredit the idea of liberalism as such. Discrediting the idea of democracy. Discrediting all values of Judeo-Christian civilization, distorting one's own Orthodoxy. This is the face of "Russian Mir".

Agents of the "Russian mir" try to imitate our normal institutions and public debate. How to distinguish them?

Special services and research centers should operate. Indeed, there is a pseudo-political ping-pong where anyone can accuse the other of being a "Russian agent" and nullify the entire discussion.

"Ruski mir" is a very complex and very effective construction. There is no other way to fight than to raise the level of expert and government circles. The objective difference between "Russian mir" and Western democracy is that the Russian totalitarian system is based on the vulgarization of political and intellectual life when everything turns into a TV show, and where anyone can come up with any lie.

In Ukraine, there are still many supporters of "Russian mir". What to do with them?

Back in March, being under fire, I wrote how proud I am of Ukrainians, and of historians in particular. Through our efforts, for over 30 years, we have fundamentally built a picture of the true history of Ukraine, which has become a reliable basis for the formation of modern Ukrainian national consciousness.

I can confidently say that despite adepts of the "Russian mir" in our country, a modern Ukrainian nation is being formed. It includes ethnic Russians (like me), Jews, Greek survivors of the Mariupol disaster, ethnic Bulgarians, Gagauzians and of course Ukrainians. We've been trying to accomplish that for a very long time.

In Ukraine, it was a completely different process than in Russia, where someone from above ordered the introduction of the "Russian mir" and tried to combine contradictory and pseudo-historical elements within the Russian nation, which in effect led to the creation of an ugly Golem, dead inside.

The Ukrainian nation is alive. It looks into the future, starting from understanding own past; it lets it through itself and undergoes a catharsis.

Does that mean seeing own history as non-idealized? As one that allows Ukrainian presidents to publicly apologize to Jews or Poles for their bloody past?

Yes. That's what it's all about in reference to our past, to determine where good and evil were. There has been a lot of good and bad in our history, but it is necessary to understand it all, evaluate it honestly and move on to the future.

My colleagues and I offer a professional history of Ukraine that does not involve the artificial division into nations or the artificial unification of nations. There is an in-depth study of 20th century Ukrainian history on the website of the Institute of Ukrainian History, which will help you understand why all this is happening to us and why Russian bombs are killing Ukrainian Russians, Ukrainian Jews and Ukrainian Ukrainians equally.

We will continue our work, because now we are working for peace, although in conditions of war it is extremely difficult.

On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine the level of falsification of history in the Russian Federation. In fact, there is currently no history of Russia as such, as it is a conglomerate of stolen national histories, especially Ukrainian history.

Russians now have no right or wrong, they have one sentence: "Well, not everything is so unambiguous."Nothing living can be built on this basis, because it will be a Kalashnikov, a totalitarian state, and again a gulag.

_________________________________________________

* - translation Krzysztof Onzol; based on the following text