“You don’t understand Russia, Mr. President,” House of Cards’ fictional Russian President Viktor Petrov explains to U.S. President Francis Underwood, “If people don’t like the job you’re doing, they vote you out of office. If they don’t like the job I’m doing, they topple statues. Blood is spilled. Chaos takes over.” Viktor Petrov’s similarities to real-life President Vladimir Putin are uncanny. Aside from the identical initials, he is a former KGB agent with a flare for posing shirtless photos and jailing dissidents. House of Cards is fiction of course, but this lethally addictive Netflix-original series engrosses the viewer into Frank Underwood’s empire by drawing off of real-life contexts.
One of Russia’s last remaining opposition leaders and most
vocal activists against Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, Boris Nemtsov, was
mysteriously assassinated on February 27th. President Putin quickly
launched an “official” investigation, which pinned the murder on a group of
five Muslim Chechen rebels, a conveniently controversial minority in Russia. One
of them, a certain Zaur Dadayev, even confessed under questioning. Perfect. But
not so fast – this tale began to unravel in following weeks, when a journalist
visiting Dadeyev in a detention center reported that he had been beaten,
threatened with a bag over his head for two days, and forced to confess.
Vladimir Putin has created an undemocratic political system
that makes his leadership virtually impossible to replace, and as Petrov
expresses, the only way his autocracy might be overthrown would be through
violent revolution. He therefore quashes dissent before it propagates. The
importance of stability overrides democratic rights.
With numerous incarcerations, exiles, and assassinations of
his top opposition, Putin is not fooling anyone in the Nemtsov case. Tens of thousands marched in Moscow to honor Nemtsov, yet the crowd’s chants of “Russia
without Putin” were suffocated by police helicopters and sirens. Nemtsov’s murder will continue to be under
speculation, and there will never be certainty as to who ordered the
assassination. Yet it doesn’t really matter because the evidence speaks for
itself: if you challenge Putin too loudly there are three options, jail, exile,
or death. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is one of the most prominent examples of this,
whose vast wealth and democratic inclinations posed a threat to Putin, and
spent years in a brutal jail/labor camp hybrid.
Many argue that Russia has particular historical conditions
that have indicated a need for strong leadership. This is partially true, and
Petrov appropriately alludes to the West’s misunderstanding of Russian
political culture. Russia is enormously vast and ethnically diverse, and
autocracy has been necessary for unity and has dominated Russian history. A
strong leader was needed to pick up the pieces from the fall of the Soviet
Union, and subsequent economic reform failures that left Russia in a miserable
depression. Internationally, Putin has restored some of Soviet Russia’s former
glory through his refusal to cower to Western demands.
Yet Russia’s history of autocracy should not destine Russia
a one-man rule forever. Just because the Russian people have experienced few
democratic rights historically does not mean that they are unsuited for
democracy. Russia’s brutal history demonstrates a merry-go-round trend of
violent uprisings in response to violent, unjust governments. Sustainable
reform is the only way to ensure Russia’s centuries of bloodshed under the Tsar
and the communist regimes are not repeated.
Putin’s construction of an autocratic state created the risk
of revolution; since the Russian people have no voice in the ballot box, their
dissatisfaction can only be heard through revolt. Of course, it is unlikely
that the Russian people will “topple statues” in mutiny tomorrow. Support for
Vladimir Putin – at least as reported in Russia – has been above 80% for the
last year.
But with Russia’s reported slip into recession, risk of increasing poverty, and
isolation in Europe, may jeopardize the stability Putin promises. Eliminating
dissidents one by one is only sustainable for so long.
For now, Boris Nemtsov remains another name on the list of eliminated challengers to the Kremlin’s authority. How many more there will be is up to the Russian people to decide.
For now, Boris Nemtsov remains another name on the list of eliminated challengers to the Kremlin’s authority. How many more there will be is up to the Russian people to decide.
I think perhaps one of the most credible sources supporting the very likely claims you make here is Vladmir Milov. Milov, both a friend of Nemstov, and opposition activist—who seems to be the lead investigator from outside the Russian security services—has speculated about both the incident and the potential motivations. Milov discusses the mentality of Putin and asserts that what he deems “profitable” or worthwhile has recently come to encompass a much broader range of strategic options and targets. “He showed that he was ready to go to war, take losses, sanctions, international isolation – all for the sake of some “sacred” and “strategic” targets understandable only to him. So the “benefits” of certain events can be assessed only by him.” (Unofficially translated from Russian to english) Hopefully civil society activists like Milov will be able to uncover enough details about the case to bring the kidnappings, defamation campaigns, and like in the Nemstov case, extralegal murders being carried out by the FSB, to and end, and show the Russian authorities that their Cold War repression tactics are no longer justifiable nor do they have a place in todays world.
ReplyDelete