In this week’s Western media highlights, Eerik-Niiles Kross discusses Putin’s hybrid war against the West, while Leonid Bershidsky comments on the Russian president’s latest call-in show. In the Russian media, Sergei Medvedev argues that the Panama papers scandal is the result of the work of three forces—net activism, demand for honest politics and direct democracy, and that they will eventually bring change in Russia. And Dmitri Travin suggests that Russia's current aversion to democracy is determined by historical reasons rather than the cultural fatalism.
Ukrainian battle tank destroyed by the pro-russian separatists on the road nearby Shchastye village. Photo: Sergii Kharchenko / NurPhoto /ZUMA Wire / TASS
From the West
Putin’s War of Smoke And Mirrors
Eerik-Niiles Kross, Politico Europe
Estonian parliamentarian Eerik-Niiles Kross argues in Politico Europe that Putin has been waging a war—both overt and covert—against the West over the past few years, executed via both military and nonmilitary means. Kross cites the Kremlin’s denial of involvement in Ukraine as one example of this new type of hybrid warfare: “By denying the reality of war [in Ukraine], Russia allowed the West to hope that the Kremlin was looking for a way out… And the West responded as predicted—our leaders sacrificed their negotiating position in the hope that this was sincere.” If the West is to prove victorious over Russia, Kross believes that it will have to do more to combat the Russian-fueled refugee crisis, protect Europe against right-wing extremism, and unify the continent against Russian aggression.
What Minsk Means
Lilia Shevtsova, The American Interest
In her latest piece for The American Interest, Lilia Shevtsova criticizes the Minsk-II agreements, arguing that while they “allowed the West to save face… and de-escalate tension,” they cannot “yield a sustainable resolution” in the long-term because they also allowed Russia “to… not only control Ukraine but also force the West to endorse its understanding of the new European and global order.” Shevtsova argues against a “freezing” of the conflict because the Kremlin will likely take advantage of the situation (as it has historically been known to do) by fomenting instability in Ukraine and securing concessions from the West when it finds it politically convenient. Whatever peace agreement the West ultimately brokers, Shevtsova argues that it must keep in mind that Moscow sees Ukraine as a single part of its overall strategy: erecting a new world order.
Putin Tones Down His Annual Reality Show
Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View
In his latest for Bloomberg View, columnist Leonid Bershidsky comments on Putin’s latest annual question and answer session, noting that Putin’s performance seemed fairly understated compared to past years. While downplaying Russia’s economic troubles, Putin didn’t seem eager to engage voters on geopolitical issues: “This was Putin as a calm and experienced manager, not the international rogue and adventurer he has portrayed as he waged wars in Ukraine and Syria, braving ostracism by Western leaders and the wariness of Asian ones.” At the same time, Bershidsky is quick to note that Putin still leaned on dubious factoids and conspiracy theories to buttress his claims about the nation’s welfare. Russia’s failing economy, Bershidsky writes, may not yield such positive results for Putin and his friends in parliament come election time in September.
From Russia
Tectonic Shift: How the Panamanian Dossier Will Change Russia and the World
Sergei Medvedev, Forbes.ru
In this piece for Forbes.ru, historian and journalist Sergei Medvedev offers his analysis on the Panama leaks. He argues that the leaks represent a new model of civil society and information dissemination, one that operates at the expense of political elites. The ultimate result of this development, Medvedev writes, will be a more democratic global society that focuses on morality and human dignity, as opposed to just survival. Medvedev predicts that political ramifications will eventually be felt in Russia, but not until after the election cycle of 2016-2018.
Cultural Determinism, or a Flexible Reaction
Dmitri Travin, Vedomosti
Political analyst Dmitri Travin writes for Vedomosti that Russia’s current authoritarianism, patriotic hysteria, and economic crisis are not the result of a paternalistic political culture, but rather the result of the country’s specific historical path. Russians who reject democracy do so, Travin explains, because they associate it with the challenges and chaos of the 1990s. Travin ultimately argues that Russian society now faces a choice: does it want authoritarianism, or does it want a new model, one which will allow it to escape from the grips of economic stagnation and political repression?
Dreams of the Past: Why Crises Lead to the Revival of Soviet Ideas
Lev Gudkov, Slon.ru
Lev Gudkov, a Levada Center sociologist writing for Slon.ru, dissects the patriotic hysteria that has taken hold over Russia in recent years. Gudkov argues that this chauvinism is a reaction to Russia’s deteriorating economy—many Russians are concerned about their financial futures, a fear that harkens back to the chaos of the 1990s. The patriotic fervor sponsored by the Putin regime has fueled an “atmosphere of confrontation” with the West and a “fifth column” of internal enemies, which has pushed Russians to reconsider their priorities; if Russia is engaged with enemies at home and abroad, people become more willing to suffer economic costs. Gudkov believes that these social developments are less about Soviet nostalgia than a general desire to simplify the complexities of reality. Ultimately, he predicts a long, steady degradation of Russians’ social consciousness.
This week's roundup was compiled by Daniel Frey.
