An interview of “Aravot” with Russian journalist Kseniya Kirillova
– Given the fact that many post-Soviet states, including Armenia, have very close ties with Russia, what do you think, what will be the impact of the Russian social developments on them?
– I must gladly say that as far as I can notice, the Armenian society is not under the influence of propaganda coming from the Kremlin, as the Russia and the West are not perceived as a threat and an enemy. Armenians have a very good opportunity to get first-hand information about the same US. At least, the Armenian diaspora in the United States is very large and is in close ties with their historical homeland. In addition, Armenians do not have the imperial complex, which, although latent, is maintained with the Russians. At the same time, it is also obvious that Moscow will try to have its impact on Armenia not only through campaigning but also economic and even military threat, in particular, it will try to use such an obvious lever as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
This is not considered a vertical effective action of the campaign that we see by the example of the Russian society, and this has more influence on Armenia’s authorities than on Armenians themselves. However, such a threat on the mentality of the citizens could have such an impact that the Armenian society would get accustomed to the idea of making a choice between peace and freedom, human rights and economic prosperity. In reality, the experience of civilized countries shows that it is not right to contrast these values. In the same America, the world values and freedoms are combined with one another.
– Starting from the Ukrainian Euromaidan, Russia gas actually appeared in the conflict with the international community. Now, despite Russia is under sanctions, however, it continues its active politics in the process of solving international issues: Iran and Syria. What will be the future role of Russia in the international politics in the case of the confrontation with the West, and in this context, what should the post-Soviet states expect?
– I think that this question was better than anyone responded by the experts of the Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Studies in Minsk. In their report on Russia’s geopolitical strategy, they immediately recognized the Kremlin’s provocation of instability in the post-Soviet countries as a tool, which will reduce the influence of other global or regional actors in this region.
In particular, the experts mentioned that Russia will seek to increase tensions in the Middle East and Asia and in the region of the Pacific Ocean by influencing the growth of the conflict there that can turn into the energy price hike in the international market. The split of Euro-Atlantic Union, NATO and the EU disintegration, as well as the intensification of the tension between the relations of other global actors and regional republics (primarily, between the US and China, the US and Iran) would be another geostrategic direction.
If we analyze today’s actions of Russia, we will see that these forecasts made six months ago are becoming completely true. Russia has tried to get the maximum benefit from the terrorist attack in Paris to create a split between Europe and the US. In Syria, Moscow was working to generate controversies between the regional players, for example, between Syria and Saudi Arabia.
– Human rights protection in Russia, in recent years, receives the most negative rating by the international organizations, moreover, it is still indicated that there is a tendency to worsen. Parallel to this, the imperialistic rhetoric has activated, and according to the polls by “Lavanda” Center, 20 percent of Russians want the Soviet Union to be restored. What kind of threats will it bring for Russia and certainly for the post-Soviet countries? And what can you say based on your experience?
– The number of people in Russia who are longing for the Soviet Union to be restored is huge. Those who are disposed to think so have several reasons. As I said, the Russian authorities has managed to create an illusion in peoples’ minds that Russia is a besieged fortress surrounded by enemies, many people are for the “increase of Russia’s influence” in the territory of the former Soviet Union countries, sincerely believing that Russia actually surrounded by hostility needs a “buffer zone”, a protective zone, a separation section between Russia and its enemies.
In addition, the modern power, trying to handle all aspects of social life with all its totalitarianism and aggressive means, does not suggest a desired future or a similar equivalent development to its society. The very good side of Russian modern ideology is the lack of specific content. Such ideologically equipped notions as the “Russian world,” “Russian civilization” and “a special way of development” are, do not express anything concrete. It is possible that we are meeting such phenomena for the first time in the world history.
As a result, instead of the myth about the Soviet “bright future”, only the idealized past has remained to the Russians. The Soviet Union has become the object of this idealization. The idealized image of the USSR give people a hope of protection not only in the internal but also foreign policy by guaranteeing jobs, social insurance (even a low quality), wages, so to speak, per diem, which is not dependent upon the quality, capabilities and achievements. In reality, there is no per diem in Russia and it causes more nostalgia for those times.
We should not forget about the Russian historical imperial complexes. Russia’s history is truly a history of empire overwhelmed by Russian culture, especially in Soviet times when the ethnic identity of the republics in the staff of the Union was suppressed. Collectivism, seeking for “special way” and separated from the rest of the world, faintly developed individual consciousness and so on were always applicable for Russia. Hence, the decline of the empire and the abandoning of the peoples that were merged to it because of the Russian overwhelming influence was very hard for Russians.
This processes resulted not only in the unreserved approval of the aggressive policy of the authorities, the vast majority of Russians, but also in the destructive of the Soviet past and idealization of aggressive phenomena, such as pressures, dactylography, persecution of dissidents, imposing mandatory ideology and so on. This, unfortunately, we can see now when good people living in Russia have to leave the country not because of their disagreement with the Kremlin but also because of the growing pressures.
Criminal cases are filed in the social networks against the people in my dear Yekaterinburg for clicking on “likes” and making anti-war posts and supporting Ukraine. The smallest manifestation of disagreement against the Kremlin’s aggressive policy can become a cause of filing a criminal case, an “extremism”, the rejection of “Crimea’s” annexation is declared a “separatism” and a “call for breaking the territorial integrity of Russia”, which is also punished by imprisonment, doing sit-in alone also becomes by cause for the criminal responsibility while the cooperation with the Ukrainian and Western experts can serve as a ground for the “state treason” charges, even for the ordinary people who have never had an access to the state secrets.
Even the Soviet Union, in any case, in the last decade of its existence, was trying to keep its scientists and artists. They were not allowed to leave the country, their exit visas were rejected, were imposed to pressure by KGB. Certainly, these are unacceptable methods but it showed that the authorities were the least appreciating their intellect, even with such a perverse way. The “required” standard in nowadays Russia is one: the unquestionable loyalty to the most absurd and criminal decisions of the authorities. This is already becoming a cause of broad-scale “brain flow”, as a result, Russia faces an irreparable loss of its best citizens, those who really can suggest bloodless ways of coming out of this crisis situation.
The state loses its immunity in catastrophic paces, and soon there would remain no qualified specialists here. And this, unfortunately, contributes to the absurd political decision-making. Certainly, such decisions can be made under both internal and external political conditions. I do not think that under today’s internal financial crisis, Russia would dare to make an open investment in another state, like the “Ukrainian scenario”, however, we still can expect some provocations from Russia: the growth in the number of spies is an impact in the post-Soviet countries and attempts to destabilize the situation throughout its whole perimeter.
Hripsime HOVHANNISYAN,
“Aravot” daily
