Skip to main content

The closing of borders and of minds

The latest repressive measures instituted by Vladimir Putin includes wholesale travel bans on millions of Russian citizens. As in the Soviet times, foreign travel is to be made difficult and expensive. Anyone with any contacts overseas is suspect, and the smell of treachery is a miasma over anyone foolish enough to speak out against the mafia regime. Those who believe in a different, more open way for Russia are now themselves seeking to leave, before it is too late.

The lie machine of Russian State propaganda has stepped up its twisting of the truth and indeed there is now significant evidence that the KGB apparatus of bugs, wiretaps and snooping- which dwarfs anything in the West- is being used to discredit those who oppose Russian aggression in Ukraine. The open season unleashed on the leaders of Poland is being openly spoken of as an act of Russian political aggression against the fiercely anti-Putin government in Warsaw.

So far, so unsurprising. Russia is using unconventional means, but its aggressive goals are all too conventional and familiar to those who have studied the KGB. Yet the fact is that the mental health of the Putin regime has now all but collapsed in the face of its own incompetence, violence and paranoia. Brutal, cynical and useless, the Russian state apparatus can no longer bear to look at itself in the mirror of Western scorn. Instead of opening up, Russia is closing, withdrawing and weakening still further. They now regard the Internet as a point of weakness and many senior Russian leaders are forbidden from using email. It may be more secure, but it is also far less efficient. Yet close minded paranoia dictates that security is everything.

As the Russian education system drifts and the country falls into the second division in the international rankings, the closing of Russia's borders is being matched by a closing of Russian minds. It is a fatal process that ultimately can only lead to collapse. I have often wondered that if Russia is structurally incapable of becoming free, then perhaps it would be better for the country to break up, at least giving the component parts of the Empire the chance to create open, creative and wealthy societies. The three million people of Mongolia are clearly in a happier and increasingly more prosperous place than those nations like Buryatia or Tuva that have remained a part of the Russian Imperium. Of course it directly feeds Russian fears to say so, but as Putin repeats the failures of his Czarist predecessors, it seems clear to me that the process of collapse identified one hundred years ago in What is to be Done? is still on-going, and was merely delayed by the modern dress Imperialism of Soviet Socialism.

What a sharp contrast there now is between outward looking and increasingly open China (albeit also increasingly assertive) and the darkening closure of Russia. The Chinese government, for all its faults, has an open and modernizing agenda which makes sense, the Russian government relies on greater theft, greater criminality and greater paranoia. 

As the West shakes itself free of Russian energy dependency, and as they seek to counter the unconventional war that Putin has launched against western democratic values, the international influence of the Kremlin will decline. Isolated and internationally hated, Putin has set a course that will lead to failure.

Thirty years ago I was told that support for the "Captive Nations" was a "lost cause". Now I am being told that Putin is- like the USSR- an unassailable fact of life. In fact I am more convinced that ever that in time the path Putin has followed will utterly destroy his Empire. Unless Russia can provide freedom and opportunity to its myriad national citizens, then it serves no purpose, save to be the "prison of nations". History shows that this is not a position that can be sustained in the long term. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...