The Changing Parameters of Debate on Russia
May 10, 2022 — BRADLEY REYNOLDS
Many in Europe are struggling to explain how Bucha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, or the numerous other places now synonymous with Russian military atrocity could have happened in the 21st century. There has been subsequent debate on if the Russian re-invasion is opposed on a global level or mainly by the ‘West’. In parallel, there has been increased rhetoric where Russian values are universally presented as foreign to European values.
The way in which Russia is explained may have a lasting impact on the parameters of debate and inclusion in European societies going forward. For example, ambiguity in the wider cancel Russian culture movement has detrimentally affected Armenian, Yakut, Ukrainian, and other victims, who have been lumped into broad explanations of ‘Russianness’. These acts of othering are concerning considering the parallel rhetoric that is arising - essentialist and cultural explanations.
“For many European societies, Russia remains an emotional issue and an important foil for defining identity.”
These explanations imply that Russia has a true nature that one cannot observe directly but with proper explanation, eternal truths inherent in all Russian actions can be uncovered. Essentialist and cultural arguments do not always allow room to consider the fluidity or nuances of individual identity, often defining people by their culture or nationality.
Additionally, there is great value in moving discussion away from Russia and focusing on Ukraine. Such discussion refocuses European societies on how to combat colonialism in the world and reaffirms the numerous hopes that the European project entails. But for many European societies, Russia remains an emotional issue and an important foil for defining identity. In this sense, being cautious about how we explain Russia is important for how we define ourselves.
Russia Explained
In early April, Deputy Director of the EU Institute for Security Studies Florence Gaub argued on German TV that “We should not forget, even if Russians look European, they are not European, in a cultural sense.” Gaub continued that “they [Russians] have a different attitude towards violence or death…they have no concept of a liberal, post-modern life, a concept of life that each individual can choose. Instead, life simply can end early with death.”
Gaub’s perspective highlights a growing rhetoric among European thought leaders. Former Finnish Prime Minister and now Professor Alexander Stubb argued similarly in March 2022 in a Europaeum panel that Russia is not a normal country, and it is naïve to think it will become a liberal democracy. Gaub’s and Stubb’s comments highlight a rhetorical frame where ‘Western’ and liberal democracy is ‘normal’ and Russia is an ‘other’ that cannot become ‘normal’.
Similar rhetoric can be seen in academia as well. Finnish university teacher, Martti Kari, rose to international fame in recent months after his 2018 lecture went viral and received over 1.5 million views on YouTube. Kari proclaimed to explain why Russia acts the way it does and explain the “Russian mindset”.
“For us in the West, truth and lies are black and white.”
Years of academic thought have modestly succeeded in analysing Russia as part of a global system rather than outside wider social, political, and economic processes. Despite this careful thought to understand rather than label Russia, Kari’s popularity shows the interest in quick cultural explanations for Russian actions in Ukraine.
Kari argues that truth and lies have different meanings in Russia, which helps explain why Russian leaders and the public pursue or support politics and warfare in the way that they do. “For us in the West,” he states, “truth and lies are black and white.” Value systems are juxtaposed. The difficulty of this type of cultural explanation is that individuals are seen as prisoners of their culture and the belief that Russia can change is diminished.
These cultural explanations affirm a group identity (in this case Western or European identity) and are effective tools in political rhetoric, but precarious for narrowing parameters of political debate in the future. We know who we are by defining who we are not. A fact that may complicate who societies warrant as having a right to participate in social debates.
Channelling Emotions Proactively
In the current political environment, cultural explanations of Russia are popular and attempts to question their polarising nature find limited purchase. A concern now is how the popularity of explaining the essence of Russia as a cultural monolith, over understanding Russia as a multifaceted society with different actors, will reflect back onto European societies. Will there be longer-term impacts of essentializing the East to affirm the West?
“Cultural explanations explain too much…[and] easily degenerate into labelling phenomena rather than learning about them.”
Considering the roots of polarising and essentialist rhetoric on Russia in public debate is important before they grow into something more troubling. In the words of Peter Katzenstein, “cultural explanations explain too much…[and] easily degenerate into labelling phenomena rather than learning about them.” Despite the horrors the Kremlin has unjustly inflicted on the Ukrainian people, we should try to learn why Russia developed from post-Cold War partner to pariah rather than labelling them as an eternal recluse with essentially different values.
As dividing walls again rise in Europe, the difficulty now is how to focus on and support Ukraine, be starkly against Russian use of force and war crimes, but also how to do so without othering and knotting the fabric of European societies for the future. For the prospect of a once again peaceful Europe and the public good, critical reflection on rhetorical practices is needed so that there are fewer lasting marks on the parameters of debate and social inclusion going forward.
The content of this website represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.