Russophobia: Jigsaw falling into place?

Yet another mind-blowing book, published in April 2022 by Palrgave Macmillan/Springer, a German-British academic publishing company.?

Some might say it would be reckless to discuss Western Russophobia, while Ukraine is going through such an intense conflict, and this topic is very heated right now.? Since the sad events of late February 2022, Russophobia has never been so intense.?

Now we understand that the struggle is also waged for minds and values, for control over the information space, and for shaping how we see the world. But is it true that there is only Russian propaganda? Should we assume that anti-Russian Western propaganda has never existed? In the current conflict, the West has already openly called Russia an existential threat that needs to be significantly weakened or destroyed. Have they come to this just now? As we can see,? it was the same before this conflict, and in the last century, and even the one before that. Moreover, the distorted view of Russia and Russians, which lasted for centuries, was the starting point of the current conflict.

Why the West doesn’t like Russia: another history lesson.

Why did the Author decide to delve into the past and examine instances of Russophobia that have emerged over the last 500 years or even earlier, starting with the split of the Christian Church into Western and Eastern branches? Honestly, it was emotionally hard for me to read all of this. I won't go into detail on all the facts, they are provided in the book. Strangely, it seems that the West has always had its own “Russia” and its own “Russians”, in no way similar to my country and to me. As we will learn further on, this distorted view has become an excuse for the West to act towards Russia the way it does, from good-evil and superior-inferior position.?

The book meticulously traces the historical demonization of Russians, from the Livonian War in the 16th century, through French anti-Russian propaganda during the Napoleonic Wars, the British Russophobia of the 19th century, with its peak during the Crimean War, dehumanization of Bolshevik Russia and the Communism Threat of the 20th century.?

All these facts are bolstered by an impressive array of sources to which the author refers. The list of references is vast and mostly includes Western authors (have you ever heard of the fake testament of Peter the Great?). It turns out that over time Russophobia was eventually planted in the Western collective unconscious. Even after the USSR collapse, Russophobia, oddly enough, hasn't disappeared. Why did this happen and what is the purpose of this historical journey??

There are two possible answers. First, if we fail to recognize that we are dealing with a long-standing conflict, we will not be able to debunk the most subtle thesis of Russophobia - that the West has always merely reacted to anti-Western sentiment and the “primitive barbarism” of Russian society and government. The book reveals how over time, and especially starting from the mid-19th century Russophobia has evolved into a conscious, rational technology, an element of competitive struggle against my country. Even, to some extent, it has become a leading part of the Western narrative.?

And second, if we want to build rational relations with the West (we still do), we must understand what they think of us, how they perceive us. By "they" I mean only the Russophobia-affected part of society, leaving aside those who’s not influenced by it. But we must consider that this phenomenon has already spread in the West like a dangerous social virus, shaping public opinion, which, in turn, influences policy-making.?

Binary oppositions as a tool of propaganda.

Like any propaganda Russophobia employs the same universal tactics and technologies that professional manipulators use. A success here depends on selling binary oppositions through constant repetition. Binary oppositions are used to change the language and diminish the ability to make comparisons. While language conveys meaning, propaganda distorts meaning.?

The book tells us how Russia has for centuries been depicted as the civilisational “Other” of Western Europe and then the wider West. The basic oppositions here are depicted in the stereotype of Western world, Good, “Us” vs. Eastern/Asian power, evil Other, “Them”, and continue in simplified oppositions, such as:

Government - Regime; Determined - Aggressive; Tough - Bullying; Enlightened - Superstitious; Civilized - Barbarians; Developed - Developing (or, Underdeveloped); Liberal - Authoritarian; Democratic - Despotic; Advanced - Backward; Soft power - Hard power; We liberate - They conquer; Humanitarian interventions - Brutal invasions; Peace-loving countries - Aggressive dictatorships; Freedom - Slavery; Open society - Closed society; Free press - Tight media censorship; Uncensored media - Propaganda

…and many others, purporting a progressive view of human history that places the West at a higher level of Superior civilization vs. Inferior and aggressive Russians.?

A trap of binary oppositions. Containment, Conversion, Victory.

It seems like “nothing new” with these oppositions. However, everything could be that simple, but it's not like that. The division into oppositions doesn't end with the division itself. This is where the brain-washing begins.

Nowadays Russophobia as a technology has transformed into the ideological pop-culture of the Western society, and since it’s absorbed by the masses, it is time to proceed to the next phase. A person who identifies with one of the binary opposites should, at least theoretically, envision a way of relating/interacting with the other. If a person has put himself into good-evil opposition, then which of the tactics/reactions will he choose towards an evil opponent? As physiology suggests here, the most typical are fight, flight or freeze. If you suffer from arachnophobia, encountering a spider can be highly distressing, isn’t it? But here, one is afraid of an entire nation (russo-phobia) of over 140 million people, with cultural heritage and military power. This already makes me consider mind manipulation, do you agree? Which of the civilized tactics should one choose to interact with Them? Dialogue and diplomacy? Collaboration on common issues? Conflict resolution techniques? Cultural exchange? Empathy? Does it all seem to be being used, or is one of the parties just pretending to use them??

A world divided between good and evil makes confrontation moral and compromise immoral - this is a first trap set by binary oppositionists. That’s why flight or even freeze has become unacceptable. Therefore, if your world is dichotomised between a benign “Us” and a belligerent “Other”, and your choice is fight, then peace is achieved through the tools of power, like Containment, Conversion or Victory. In any case, thus security maximization is equated to power maximization. Even after the collapse of the USSR (1991), the West continued to treat Russia as an aggressive Other. That's why maximization of power was chosen as a tactic of Russia’s Containment using the tool of NATO expansion to the Russian borders (1999, 2004, and so on). This happened partly with the tacit approval and partly with the open support of the subconsciously-Russophobic segment of Western society.

Let's figure out how Conversion should work in this context. A civilizational inferiority denies Russia the status as a political subject with a seat at the table as an equal. This is a second trap of binary opposition. Conversion implies a relationship to that of Teacher - Student. After the collapse of the USSR, it seemed that this approach partially worked. But in the end, something prevented Russia from seeing itself as the West's Student. Was it because of cultural differences? Or did the thesis of Western superiority not work? Since Russia rejected the Student role aspiring to join Western civilization, then it should be contained or confronted. Want to play it back, and choose the right path for Democracy? Please re-accept the Student role with any new agenda that the Teacher offers you. This is how dealing with binary oppositions has led to a vicious circle.

Finally, what about a Victory? To defeat Russia is to make the world safe for democracy? To be as brief as possible: this is the craziest scenario, keeping in mind the opponent’s size, military strengths and the predominant solidarity of the population. But this option is being considered. Why? See above the trap with the immorality of any compromise, which is accepted by Russophobia-affected part of the society.

Tucker Carlson’s afterword to Putin’s interview.

Carlson recorded a short video at the hotel after the interview, so to say, shared his first impressions. He was struck by how painful is for Putin the topic of Russia’s rejection by the West in the 90s - 00s. He reasoned, yet remained without an answer. Describing Putin's reaction, Carlson used expressions like "he was wounded by this fact," "his eyes flashed". And I would say this applies not just to Putin alone. After the end of the Cold War (1991) many of us expected that Russia would be invited to Western world. It was in the air and I witnessed it. High hopes to build a new world with Russia as an equal participant have faced a reaction that Russians did not expect. On the contrary this was met with skepticism and dismissed as Russian nostalgia for great power. It’s no surprise that when the West stubbornly defends the paradigm of good vs. evil and superior vs. inferior, there is no place for synergy and cooperation on equal terms. Can we say that the reasons why are revealed in this book? Is a jigsaw puzzle now complete?

And here’s another thing. The USA heavily propagandized how the Cold War ended, by selling it as a victory (when good defeats evil) rather than having ended as a compromise. The compromises between the USA and the USSR were just erased from the Western historical narrative. That’s why Russians did not expect such an attitude. That’s why NATO's move to the East after the voluntary dissolution of the Warsaw Bloc in 1991, in the eyes of Russia, was an evidence of incomprehensible aggressive behavior. Needless to say, the Warsaw Bloc was founded in 1955, 6 years later, as a reaction to the founding of NATO in 1949. As I see it, there is no way to avoid turning to history in an attempt to explain the essence of this conflict.

What should Russians do with Russophobia?

Yes, finally, what shall we do about it? I believe we shall treat it as a contagious disease in order to find a cure or to develop immunity. While realizing it’s a complex of the West, a dangerous virus, we must be calm and very rational. Moreover, many in the West already understand this too. At the very beginning of the book, the Author quotes Henry Kissinger (US Secretary of State/National Security Advisor):?

“For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy: it is an alibi for the absence of one”.?

According to Kissinger, Putin's demonized image is an excuse for the West to commit not-good things, while there’s no other excuses? A serious statement from a heavyweight in the former USA administration, known for choosing his words.?

Russophobia lasted for centuries, endlessly reviving at every opportunity. It fades when Russia is weak and revives when Russia is strong. In times when it’s strong, the head of the Russian state was necessarily demonized. From the relatively recent past, we can recall the example of Stalin; from a more distant past - Nicholas I, Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible. It turns out that as long as Russia is a strong and independent country, Russophobia will not go away. And if that's the case, then we have to realise it and, regretfully, simply accept such a state of affairs. But if the struggle is ready to flare up even hotter than ever, then we will have no choice but to take this fight openly and decisively.

Well, I guess that wraps it up. You know how they say, this book somehow pushed me into gloomy thoughts. Thank you for another very-long-read. I keep encouraging? everyone to read various books to understand different points of view. Only by exploring diverse perspectives can we get closer to the real essence and, thus, form our own opinion, free from emotions. Good luck!

March, 2024