Explaining anti-Russian racism of neoliberals/neocons
Saturday, January 23, 2010 at 1:49AM A while ago I was writing my sociology assignment and realised that the topic was not quite my cup of tee. So while I grappled with the question, to avoid going completely mad I decided to release the pressure by reading some 'comedy.' I decided to have a look at what LaRussophobe has to say. Instead of reading every piece of drivel that appears on that site I scrolled down to an article that had the most comments underneath. The comments section consisted of the usual, irrelevant to the post, links by Robert about Chechen 'suffering' and rabid proclamations of Andrew, but if it was about these losers I would not even be starting this post. Scrolling down the page I came across a gentleman named Karl Naylor, I am sure I have come across his blog earlier but linked it in my sidebar quite recently.
Karl it looks like wrote to good Edward Lucas from the Economist complaining about him linking LaRussophobe on his website [see here and here]. Ed replied that he is happy to link to LaRussophobe even though he does not endorse everything that is written there. Karl had the decency to call Lucas a respectable journalist. Lucas is an employee of a once respectable magazine, whose quality he continuously denigrates. He cannot afford to publish anything of the kind found on LaRussophobe because he, unlike Kim, does not write anonymously. But he is happy to at least link to LaRussophobe because, to be frank, in the end he agrees with it. I view asking Lucas to remove LaRussophobe as useless, he simply would not. Here is why...
Lucas hails Yeltsin as a 'good democrat' in contrast to the 'authoritarian' Putin, the 'good democrat' who sent tanks against people's representatives who were not happy with the results of American imported shock therapy. The good democrat who was a puppet of robber-baron oligarchs while people lost their savings and the old were payed pennies on pension. As long as you are following a Western dictate, you will always be a good democrat. Saakashvili is pro-democratic leader not so much because of his actions, which in fact suggest otherwise [see here and here] but because he is fully kowtowing to Western interests. The Russians on the other hand found Western dictates unbearable and chose a different path. This change eroded the semblance of infallibility of the West and therefore needs to be explained.
When you hold on to a pseudo-religious conviction of infallibility of your own civilisation, the failure of other cultures to comply with your 'wellmeaning' dictates cannot be explained by introspection but through critique of the other. The other needs to be described as barbaric and culturally deficient entity, incapable of absorbing the civilising mission of the enlightened. One recalls Tacitus' description of the Germans. Although one must say that Tacitus' literary style was far ahead of Kim Zigfeld, the approach is not radically different. It was a mix of fear and contempt, combing the awareness of Roman cultural superiority (1) and fear of the unconquerable Germanic tribes.
You see, in the worldview of LaRussophobe and its frequent readers, the Russians do not have a culture worth mentioning, except in a negative sense. Anything worth mentioning is either borrowed, stolen or built on the backs of enslaved nations. Lucas cannot afford the luxury of these cultural supremacists on LaRussophobe yet he must be aware that they provide a complete answer to his pseudo-religious dilemma. He therefore embraces their dogma by linking to it.
(1) Whatever you think about American culture, not acknowledging its vast appeal would be a folly.
Reader Comments (6)
I think you're spot on in your comparisons of the Russophobe mentality to a hardline theological one.
I've written about it at Categorizing the Russia Debate, Timothy Post wrote Trying to Understand Russophobia., and there are a few other pieces making similar points from other bloggers (e.g. by Gregor and Sean).
With regard to Lucas and some others of his type...I don't think the issue is "racism" or ethnic dislike of Russians. I think the issue is a cultural and political one.
Their problem is that Russia insists on being Russia, i.e. a Eurasian civilization with its own characteristics. Attempts to make it into a carbon copy of Europe and the USA are bound to fail.
Lucasian critiques of Russia usually amount to "America is this way, Germany is this way, even Slovakia is this way...what's wrong with Russia, that it can't be this way too"? A further irony is that such critics are relatively accepting of the much harsher regime in China.
@ E.HenryThripshaw
I didn't have Lucas in mind particularly, because he can't afford it. I was thinking more the others of his type, the anonymous others from LaRussophobe. The line between cultural objections and racist supremacism there is very blurred, if it exists at all
The ancient Germans were also not quite happy about their lands becoming an exploited Roman province and Germania was never fully incorporated into the Empire.
China cares little for its own people, which doesn't seem to bother people like Lucas...
Leos & Co.
Many West Europeans are focused on Eastern/Central Europe because of that area's close proximity to Western Europe. In addition, a good number of West Europeans (and for that matter North Americans) have roots in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, non-Asians can develop a great interest in Asia.
Russia has been "blessed" with having had a number of conflicts, involving other peoples/nations.
Concerning these broadly mentioned conflicts: in the West, a good number of individuals have been given slanted presentations, running counter to the Russian position.
The prolonging of this process, in conjunction with a lack of well placed, substantive counter-replies further nurtures this status quo.
An example of anti-Russian advocacy getting formally recognized by the American body politic:
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php
Just three points I’d make
1) Whilst I use the term ‘Russophobe’ out of laziness, it seems to me the irony is that I am being objective about the recent history of the United Russia party, and the facts speak for themselves (as Anatoly says, it is the lack of facts that neo-liberals use that makes me think they have a religious mindset). Under Yeltsin, the economy melted down, their was a horrific war in Chechnya, the population declined, the mortality rate rocketed and the parliament was bombed.
I don’t know what I think of Putin precisely because I don’t know what his ‘ideology’ is. But again the facts speak for themselves: the economy improved, there was a brutal but decisive war in Chechnya, no bombing of the parliament, half the number of journos killed, growth of the Middle class, high popularity, growing national esteem.
Ironically enough, as a Medievalist weirdo, I would feel a bit warmer towards Putin if he really was the quasi-Tsarist social democrat that the neo-liberals portray him as. But he has done little to stop abortion or redistribute wealth. And whilst his Chechen war was less stupid and counter-productive than Yeltsin’s, it was still handled abysmally. Furthermore, whilst there is a lot of stupid hysteria and lies about Putin’s record on media freedom, that is not to say that it is defensible. I admire Putin overall because he stopped a hemorrhaging,imploding country from collapsing, but I'm far from an uncritical admirer.
However, I agreed with poemless that the priority for us in the West is to set out own house in order, whilst Britain is getting creepier by the year (off to a good start in 2010: ten years in the clink for belonging to Islam4uk, a political group that our government doesn’t like; can imagine how Luke Harding would spin this one. And it's still January).
Oddly enough, Putin even cut benefits that were given out in Yeltsin’s time. I think Putin was actually fairly influenced by neo-liberalism and it is often overlooked that he chose a private sector employee for his successor.
Of course, now there is a new President, yet I notice Russophobes are very reticent when discussing him. I noticed especially that the war in Georgia was largely attributed to Putin in the Western media.
2) I think there is an element of ‘the narcissism of small differences’ in East/Central Europe. The Poles and Russians are very closely related, and the Russians are more distantly related to the Balts.
3) Regarding Russia’s immense cultural achievements, I reckon that we ‘Anglos’ have an unpleasant cultural negative-assimilation, which is very difficult to explain. Essentially there seems to be a feeling that people who achieved stuff may have lived in a foreign country, but were essentially middle class Brits. Just look at (say) I, Claudius or even the recent miniseries Rome. They make no effort whatsoever to employ Mediterranean actors, but have the Graeco-Roman nobility speaking in RP English and acted by average Brits. Or the numerous miniseries based on Russian novels where everything is very British. There is an odd sense that consuming culture is more important than producing it. The dagoes probably don’t appreciate their history: but we have Latin classes so we’ll incorporate it into our own; Julius Caesar was probably more like a former public schoolboy who writes in favour of war than like an Icecream salesman and Dostoyevsky was probably more like a middle class high church Anglican than those savage ‘peasants’ that have invaded Ennismore Gardens.*
This is a point I think is quite well summed up by Boris Johnson who has a bust of Pericles and thinks that he is in that tradition, even though he has expanded CCTV in London. By contrast, the Greeks themselves pulled down CCTV cameras after the Athens Olympics. And of course, he wants the Elgin Marbles to stay in the country that stole them.
It probably sounds like bullshit, but it might be something you come to notice if you spend more time here.
Though of course, there is also the factor that many neo-liberals are astoundingly vulgar, crass people.
*Needless to add, I’m taking the piss here, but I get the impression that’s how many middle class Brits see things. The description of the Russian believers at Ennismore as ‘peasants’ was a direct quote from an Independent article on the subject.
@Leoš Tomíček
I think you give to much credit to the Economist newspaper which is part of the Rothschild media empire and Mr Lucus who reminds me of yellow journalism of Thomas Walker real name Robert Green reporting for Hearst on the Soviet Union or Mrs Politkovskaya which I just found out all the sources she used in her reporting are NED/Soros affiliated/financed.
The best person to compare Lucas to is Robert Conquest taken opinion from sources that are not impartial and dubious and stating them a almost certain fact or at least implying so.
Lucas uncritical success is more due to Russia’s complete inability in PR information or critical analytical retort. I would say the same for all commentators on Russia except Peter Lavelle before joining RT, Justin Raimando and other few exceptions.
This is another interesting thing I discovered regarding the Crimea from a declassified 1998 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Intelligence Information Report (IIR) of foreign terrorists networks in Russia and the Crimea.
“A good deal of information concerning OBL’s and al Qaeda’s efforts in Chechnya, the Caucuses, Crimea, and the Central Asian Republics is covered in the IIR. The confirmed existence of a [secure, reliable, terrorist-sponsored] “direct route to Chechnya from Pakistan and Afghanistan through Turkey and Azerbaijan” is a stunning “information point” within this IIR – especially in light of the date of the information, 1998.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2004/nov/defense-intelligence-report-details-al-qaedas-plans-russia-chechnya-and-wmd
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/102/dia.pdf
@Gregor
"Ironically enough, as a Medievalist weirdo, I would feel a bit warmer towards Putin if he really was the quasi-Tsarist social democrat that the neo-liberals portray him as. But he has done little to stop abortion or redistribute wealth. And whilst his Chechen war was less stupid and counter-productive than Yeltsin’s, it was still handled abysmally. Furthermore, whilst there is a lot of stupid hysteria and lies about Putin’s record on media freedom, that is not to say that it is defensible. I admire Putin overall because he stopped a hemorrhaging,imploding country from collapsing, but I'm far from an uncritical admirer."
That's because you don't know the reality of the situation and the extent and network behind the 2 campaigns especially the second war which was absolutely necessary with the people running the government Berezovsky and the Oligarchs aligned with foreign intelligence and organised crime were actively conspiring with Chechen terrorist groups to try and annex neighbouring Dagestan region and get access to the Caspian basin Russia’s Kosovo.
Most of what you know comes from NED/Soros affiliated groups filtered to the media operating from the Caucasus.
But I don’t blame you as it is virtually impossible to find any information that is not pro-Chechen and Russia has not bothered to release or contribute any information.
The main foreign policy issue since the break up of the USSR has been getting Eurasian oil and gas from Russian dominated influence into the EU and prevent US and British centred economic alliances.
It’s interesting what is happening with Turkey in this regards when you will see I think more US officials being critical of Israel like Brzezinski saying if Israel attacks Iran it would have to fly through Iraqi airspace US and should shoot down Israeli jets and negative news stories about Israel in British programmes like the settlements on BBC Panorama recently and the Israeli lobby on Channel 4.
The first war was inevitable Chechnya before the first war was plague by rival forces fighting for power and clans were raping, murdering, kidnapping and ethnic cleansing the native Russian population and a civil war between rival factions.
In fact the first war was not meant to be a war at all but to restore order in the republic.
Russia which already had troops retracted troops as a cause of hostility after the fall of the USSR and when it sent in troops to restore order this gave external and some internal forces the pre-text for war supporting Chechen’s with finance, training and chartered flights via Turkey and Jordan.