Impressive work, Alan. Your writing style certainly captures that refined elegance of intellectualism.
However..
It’s quite a simplistic explanation of Russian society. Sounds almost like propaganda only written in academic language. Also, there's a tint of collective amnesia. High morals of the Western world were built on blood and bones. The existence of (still) rich, living and walking symbols of monarchy looks kinda like a cult — just look at those poor people behind the fence of B. Palace, waiting for 'some' people to show up.
The more you arrogantly divide people into 'good' and 'bad', the more you replicate the same kind of thinking you criticize. It’s easy to form such opinions when you’re not faced with raw and terrifying reality being there, the places where the first primal instinct tells you to run.
You completely leave out the fact that there are people who actively oppose this war and risk their freedom and even their lives. Ignoring them just to keep your narrative simple doesn’t make your argument stronger, it makes it less real.
And it’s not only about people from the particular country. Women all over the world are fighting for their rights, whether it’s against abusive governments, oppressive social norms or everyday violence. Yet, their courage often doesn’t make things better right away. The abuse and oppression continue. Activism doesn’t always lead to positive change or make evident the best human qualities. And sometimes, staying passive is simply a way to survive in hostile conditions. Ignoring that complexity only makes your perspective less truthful.
By the way, Slavophilism actually emerged as an alternative to harsh westernization after the era of Peter the Great. This idea was formed and gained real momentum after the Napoleonic wars, where Europe itself was the invader. But it was never a strong or dominant ideology. On the contrary, Russia continued to adopt European traditions and practices even after slavophilism appeared. A clear example is the series of Great Reforms by Alexander II in the 1860s, which included the abolition of serfdom, judicial reforms, and military reforms — all heavily inspired by european models of modernization and liberalization. So, trying to link slavophilism directly to the state’s official ideology or claiming it as proof of Russia’s inherent anti-Western mindset is just misleading.
I also like how you chose Dugin to describe hostile Russian ideological contemporary nationalism. The irony is, he's basically a 'whothehellheis' kinda guy for most russians who have never even heard of him or his ideas. You’ve chosen the most beloved boogeyman of western media to represent something without actually understanding if he has any real influence.
Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly did not intend to dichotomise into "good" and "bad", either nations or ideologies - I would have hoped that was clear in the discussion of America's ruthless self-interest and the cataclysmic Iraq war.
I take the finer points with regard to opposition to the war, the role of "inner emigration" as an escape mechanism, etc. Nevertheless, we could debate the precise mechanisms. It seems to me, however, that the outcome - the ultimate point of the segment on Russia - remains, i.e., an anti-intellectual, expansionist nationalism, one in which a people who granted are disinformed by the state, but ultimately compliant.
The fact that Slavophilism coexisted with the Western leanings of certain of the Russian aristocracy class is not an argument against its influence. I think it is contestable that the movement played no role in shaping state ideology. I'll grant the Slavophiles tended to oppose autocracy, and that the trajectory of state ideology embraced it, but it still provided 19th Century nationalists with the idea that Russia stood apart from the rest of Europe and exhibited its own values incompatible with the mores of the Continent.
I don't consider Dugin a boogeyman, merely representative of a certain strand of Russian nationalism that it seems to me, given their form in territorial aggression and subjugation, is hard to downplay. I was seeking out a way of linking the 19th Century ideas (could have included Danilevsky, too) through more Soviet-era thinkers like Berdyaev. I believe that ideas matter and a certain ideological climate exists as the sum of its parts. Putin's revanchism doesn't exist in an intellectual vacuum.
I will certainly grant that perhaps my language was overly strong in relation to describing the country. Emotion can creep into writing. I very much appreciate your thoughtful input, and it gives me more food for thought on this topic.
The Bloody Thinker may accuse you of propaganda but, Alan, I accuse your response of diplomacy. I'm imagining you guys sitting on opposing sides at a table in Minsk. I mean that as "ha ha" in a jovial way.
I may disagree in one side expressed as the "cheapness of its human life" when the other has killed more in my lifetime, but you're a great writer with a different approach. You provoke my thought, and that has value. Plus you encourage me to write an article (as opposed to the blogs I've posted this year). Thanks.
I just wanted to point out that trying to explain Russia’s power structure through the lens of ideology can lead to flawed conclusions. Many western experts seem to analyze the situation through the lens of their memories of the Soviet Union’s ideological framework, which clouds the real picture. Russia today is a different country, and reconsidering that approach might improve the understanding of real drivers of the regime.
What I find interesting, and something I've been observing for a while, is how blaming russians for not protesting enough feels like an attempt to compare them to western protestors who have far more rights and protections. That comparison completely ignores the radically different political realities. And here’s the contradiction: blaming ideology, labeling people as passive jerks, and then concluding that bad things happen because they don’t resist enough.
I’d like to highlight that after ww2, Russia was in worse condition than Western countries. And maybe that’s a better starting point for a deeper analysis of how it shaped current social and political reality.
My words are less charged, so it may seem like I don't care enough, but I’m living through this situation, and it’s pretty damn hard. I don’t expect others to understand because, to truly understand, you have to live it. I also wanted answers to complicated realities, when something truly unexpected and unbelievable happened. That's why I'm here, to look at the situation with the minds of others. Just like people in Europe now are asking: what happened, why are right-wing parties suddenly becoming so popular? I believe you can see the parallel I’m trying to draw here.
And well, yes, diplomacy might be the trend now, but it will only work if it's not disguised as something else, like "ideology" , but we are not playing zero-sum here.
"Russia today is a different country, and reconsidering that approach might improve the understanding of real drivers of the regime."
Point well made, and taken. I hadn't considered this, and certainly fell into the pattern of other Westerners in seeking to attribute some historical context to Putin and his ideology. Perhaps, in fact, we need look no further than the post-Cold War period.
I really appreciate your inputs and perspectives on this.
Thanks Mike, I appreciate the kind words. And yes, in no way was the "cheapness of human life" comment intended to downplay America's reckless interventions. It was more of a comment on how Russia is happy to throw its soldiers into a meatgrinder and suffer horrendous loss of life, almost unfazed by the scale of their slaughter; this has been the case with their military "strategy" (far too kind a word) in almost every war since the 19th Century. Good luck with the writing!
Impressive work, Alan. Your writing style certainly captures that refined elegance of intellectualism.
However..
It’s quite a simplistic explanation of Russian society. Sounds almost like propaganda only written in academic language. Also, there's a tint of collective amnesia. High morals of the Western world were built on blood and bones. The existence of (still) rich, living and walking symbols of monarchy looks kinda like a cult — just look at those poor people behind the fence of B. Palace, waiting for 'some' people to show up.
The more you arrogantly divide people into 'good' and 'bad', the more you replicate the same kind of thinking you criticize. It’s easy to form such opinions when you’re not faced with raw and terrifying reality being there, the places where the first primal instinct tells you to run.
You completely leave out the fact that there are people who actively oppose this war and risk their freedom and even their lives. Ignoring them just to keep your narrative simple doesn’t make your argument stronger, it makes it less real.
And it’s not only about people from the particular country. Women all over the world are fighting for their rights, whether it’s against abusive governments, oppressive social norms or everyday violence. Yet, their courage often doesn’t make things better right away. The abuse and oppression continue. Activism doesn’t always lead to positive change or make evident the best human qualities. And sometimes, staying passive is simply a way to survive in hostile conditions. Ignoring that complexity only makes your perspective less truthful.
By the way, Slavophilism actually emerged as an alternative to harsh westernization after the era of Peter the Great. This idea was formed and gained real momentum after the Napoleonic wars, where Europe itself was the invader. But it was never a strong or dominant ideology. On the contrary, Russia continued to adopt European traditions and practices even after slavophilism appeared. A clear example is the series of Great Reforms by Alexander II in the 1860s, which included the abolition of serfdom, judicial reforms, and military reforms — all heavily inspired by european models of modernization and liberalization. So, trying to link slavophilism directly to the state’s official ideology or claiming it as proof of Russia’s inherent anti-Western mindset is just misleading.
I also like how you chose Dugin to describe hostile Russian ideological contemporary nationalism. The irony is, he's basically a 'whothehellheis' kinda guy for most russians who have never even heard of him or his ideas. You’ve chosen the most beloved boogeyman of western media to represent something without actually understanding if he has any real influence.
Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly did not intend to dichotomise into "good" and "bad", either nations or ideologies - I would have hoped that was clear in the discussion of America's ruthless self-interest and the cataclysmic Iraq war.
I take the finer points with regard to opposition to the war, the role of "inner emigration" as an escape mechanism, etc. Nevertheless, we could debate the precise mechanisms. It seems to me, however, that the outcome - the ultimate point of the segment on Russia - remains, i.e., an anti-intellectual, expansionist nationalism, one in which a people who granted are disinformed by the state, but ultimately compliant.
The fact that Slavophilism coexisted with the Western leanings of certain of the Russian aristocracy class is not an argument against its influence. I think it is contestable that the movement played no role in shaping state ideology. I'll grant the Slavophiles tended to oppose autocracy, and that the trajectory of state ideology embraced it, but it still provided 19th Century nationalists with the idea that Russia stood apart from the rest of Europe and exhibited its own values incompatible with the mores of the Continent.
I don't consider Dugin a boogeyman, merely representative of a certain strand of Russian nationalism that it seems to me, given their form in territorial aggression and subjugation, is hard to downplay. I was seeking out a way of linking the 19th Century ideas (could have included Danilevsky, too) through more Soviet-era thinkers like Berdyaev. I believe that ideas matter and a certain ideological climate exists as the sum of its parts. Putin's revanchism doesn't exist in an intellectual vacuum.
I will certainly grant that perhaps my language was overly strong in relation to describing the country. Emotion can creep into writing. I very much appreciate your thoughtful input, and it gives me more food for thought on this topic.
Best,
Alan
The Bloody Thinker may accuse you of propaganda but, Alan, I accuse your response of diplomacy. I'm imagining you guys sitting on opposing sides at a table in Minsk. I mean that as "ha ha" in a jovial way.
I may disagree in one side expressed as the "cheapness of its human life" when the other has killed more in my lifetime, but you're a great writer with a different approach. You provoke my thought, and that has value. Plus you encourage me to write an article (as opposed to the blogs I've posted this year). Thanks.
I just wanted to point out that trying to explain Russia’s power structure through the lens of ideology can lead to flawed conclusions. Many western experts seem to analyze the situation through the lens of their memories of the Soviet Union’s ideological framework, which clouds the real picture. Russia today is a different country, and reconsidering that approach might improve the understanding of real drivers of the regime.
What I find interesting, and something I've been observing for a while, is how blaming russians for not protesting enough feels like an attempt to compare them to western protestors who have far more rights and protections. That comparison completely ignores the radically different political realities. And here’s the contradiction: blaming ideology, labeling people as passive jerks, and then concluding that bad things happen because they don’t resist enough.
I’d like to highlight that after ww2, Russia was in worse condition than Western countries. And maybe that’s a better starting point for a deeper analysis of how it shaped current social and political reality.
My words are less charged, so it may seem like I don't care enough, but I’m living through this situation, and it’s pretty damn hard. I don’t expect others to understand because, to truly understand, you have to live it. I also wanted answers to complicated realities, when something truly unexpected and unbelievable happened. That's why I'm here, to look at the situation with the minds of others. Just like people in Europe now are asking: what happened, why are right-wing parties suddenly becoming so popular? I believe you can see the parallel I’m trying to draw here.
And well, yes, diplomacy might be the trend now, but it will only work if it's not disguised as something else, like "ideology" , but we are not playing zero-sum here.
"Russia today is a different country, and reconsidering that approach might improve the understanding of real drivers of the regime."
Point well made, and taken. I hadn't considered this, and certainly fell into the pattern of other Westerners in seeking to attribute some historical context to Putin and his ideology. Perhaps, in fact, we need look no further than the post-Cold War period.
I really appreciate your inputs and perspectives on this.
Thanks Mike, I appreciate the kind words. And yes, in no way was the "cheapness of human life" comment intended to downplay America's reckless interventions. It was more of a comment on how Russia is happy to throw its soldiers into a meatgrinder and suffer horrendous loss of life, almost unfazed by the scale of their slaughter; this has been the case with their military "strategy" (far too kind a word) in almost every war since the 19th Century. Good luck with the writing!
It's true
Writing with deep angle!
I add that Trump is spittle but Vance, the intended Manager of the USA, isn't. Vance and Musk -> Peter Thiel -> Those who backed Thiel's ventures.