Russia's "Civilizing Mission"

Putin must have a fine sense of humor, as the only sense in which Russia has ever had a mission civilatrice is in the sense the Belgians did in the Congo.

President Vladimir Putin yesterday said he would crack down heavily on any attempts to instigate a popular revolution in Russia, while laying claim to Moscow's continued role as a civilising influence across the former Soviet Union.

Mr Putin, dogged by protest-led regime change in three former Soviet states in the last 18 months, delivered a clear message in his annual policy speech that unrest would not be tolerated in Russia.

He told MPs and senior officials that Russian democracy would develop "only by legal means" and that "illegal methods in the fight for ethnic, religious or other interests are in contradiction with the principles of democracy". He added: "The state would react to them in a legal but tough way."

His speech appeared to respond to and reject a series of criticisms of the Kremlin's "managed democracy" made last week by Condoleezza Rice during her first visit to Moscow as US secretary of state. "As a sovereign state, Russia is capable of and would independently determine for itself the timing and conditions of movement in this direction," Mr Putin said.

In an attempt to appeal to growing nationalism in both Russia's political elite and electorate, he mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union. He said it was "the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century. Specifically for the Russian people it became a real drama. Dozens of millions of our citizens and compatriots found themselves outside of the borders of Russian territory".

Echoing nostalgia for Russia's imperial past, he added: "The Russian nation's mission to bring further civilisation to the Euro-Asian continent must be continued." He said this would involve "enriching and reinforcing our historical links through democratic values, multiplied by national interests".

The man's a comedic genius, I tell you, a real laugh-riot. Russia's "mission" has never meant anything for its neighbors but slavery and brutality, and it's rather revealing that the single biggest expansion of freedom in the last 100 years should be seen by the Russian populace (yes, I do believe most Russians see it as he does) as a "geopolitical catastrophe."

Comments

[praktike]

yes and no. I think you'll find there's plenty of pro-Soviet nostalgia in certain parts of the near abroad, because they were subsidized. Other parts, not so much.

[Abiola Lapite]

I can see how some of the "Stans" on Russia's southern fringes might miss the days when the Soviet Empire was strong and subsidies flowed freely, but nowhere else.

[radek]

It's not a comedy. More like a really really spooky farce.

Weird thing is, there's not much about it in Polish press. In fact they seem to focus on the 'economic' part of the speech which was more, um, 'liberal'. Maybe just cuz they've learned to take this kind of thing as a matter of course. The difference is that this time it echoed in the West, proboably because of Condi Rice.

[Alexei]

I am afraid your response, and The Guardian's, are symptoms of a one-sided reading of Russian and Soviet history. It is indeed ridiculous to speak of civilizing missions these days; however, it is even more unfair to claim, as you do, that "Russia's "mission" has never meant anything for its neighbors but slavery and brutality." For Putin, no doubt, referred to Russia's expansion in the East and the South, primarily in Central Asia. I challenge you to find an educated, secular Kazakh and Uzbek -- or Yakut to that matter -- who will support your claim without qualification. State brutality and enlightenment not only are compatible but often go hand in hand. You might want to read Laurence Jarvik's summing up Uzbekistan's transition to modernity (Uzbekistan: A Modernizing Society, in Orbis 49-2) to get an idea of what Putin actually meant.

Regarding the second statement within the same sentence, "it's rather revealing that the single biggest expansion of freedom in the last 100 years should be seen by the Russian populace (yes, I do believe most Russians see it as he does) as a 'geopolitical catastrophe,'" Putin's use of "geopolitical" may be unfortunate but that's about the only thing that is problematic with his (granted, grandiloquent) claim. (One might argue, as an aside, that it is the Russian people who are uniquely qualified to judge whether 1991 brought them an "expansion of freedom.") The key to assessing Putin's claim is recognizing that a momentuous and near-momentary expansion of political liberty (i.e., putting drastic limitations on the state's intrusive power) may well coincide with a tragic shrinkage of freedom of opportunity, and socioeconomic deprivation. An extreme example would be a country freed from a totalitarian dictatorship slipping into Hobbesian chaos. Seen in this light, Putin's claim is perfectly justified. The real problem with Putin's address is not its message; the problem is that it is nothing but a speech.

[Abiola Lapite]

[One might argue, as an aside, that it is the Russian people who are uniquely qualified to judge whether 1991 brought them an "expansion of freedom."]

Such narcissism - who said I was talking about Russia? I'm pretty certain that all the new Eastern European members of the EU definitely view the fall of the Soviet Empire as an expansion of freedom, as do people everywhere around the world who no longer had to put up with Soviet-backed Marxist movements. The demise of communism represents the biggest single step forward for human freedom over the last 100 years, and anyone who thinks of it as a "geopolitical catastrophe" is either evil, less than bright, or of doubtful sanity.

[Alexei]

Well, count me among the insane then. You may have not meant Russia, but the reason for your post was Putin's address to the Federal Assembly -- an address that by definition is about Russia, primarily. Whatever assessments Putin makes when addressing a Russian audience, being -- technically speaking -- an agent of the Russian people above all, are made from the standpoint of, and in relation to the Russian nation. In other words, when he says "geopolitical catastrophe," it means "a catastrophe of enormous proportions for us Russians." There is no reason to assume he was talking about non-USSR Eastern Europe.

[Abiola Lapite]

"In other words, when he says "geopolitical catastrophe," it means "a catastrophe of enormous proportions for us Russians." There is no reason to assume he was talking about non-USSR Eastern Europe."

Sure, just like the collapse of the Third Reich was a disaster for the German people ... Anybody who feels sad about the collapse of a gigantic machine for mass murder and oppression is either morally depraved or sick in the head, and that is true whether or not the person counts himself amongst the beneficiaries of the old order.

[Timur]

Geopolitical or not, collapse of Soviet Union was a catastrophe. It was a catastrophe for us Russian and non-Russian people living in the Soviet Union. There are no two ways about it. Our house collapsed when we were in it. That's exactly what it was. Other repercussions, political and economical for the rest of the world you can qualify any way you like but by August 91 Soviet Union was not a brutal and oppressive empire, and collapse of it did not add a single bit to the freedom of the people inhabiting it, but brought nothing but misery.

[Abiola Lapite]

"by August 91 Soviet Union was not a brutal and oppressive empire, and collapse of it did not add a single bit to the freedom of the people inhabiting it, but brought nothing but misery."

... Which is why all those countries were so eager to break away from it. Yeah, right ...