Blogs

The views expressed in blogs published on Rights in Russia, including those of the editor, are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of Rights in Russia.

Rose Glickman: Arseny Roginsky - A Farewell

posted 21 Jan 2018, 04:05 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 21 Jan 2018, 05:42 ]

9 January 2018

By Rose Glickman

Source: BASEES - reprinted by kind permission


One dreary Leningrad day in the winter of 1976, I went home to my room in the dormitory on Shevchenko and found a strange young man sitting on my bed. Brave soul, I thought. Or foolhardy? 

In those years Russians were not keen to advertise their friendship with foreigners. But Senya Roginsky didn’t give a hoot. In the many years of our deep friendship I watched him violate all the rules of basic survival in the USSR. Memorial, the jewel in Senya’s crown, was preceded by years of “samizdat.” Using a library card he got for allegedly researching Plekhanov, he was combing the archives for the evidence of Soviet chicanery, especially the kind that sent his father into the Camps and into prison where he died. That very library card was the “violation” which the Soviet government used to send Senya as well to the Gulag for 4 years. 

Senya held a regular Friday night “salon.” If I close my eyes I can see myself getting off the metro at Park Pobeda, and walking through the park to his apartment on Ulitsa Gagarina where the most interesting people in Leningrad gathered — all, of course, dissidents. Some of them, like Senya, subsequently became leading activists in the post-Soviet civil/human rights movement, connected in various ways to Memorial. 

How lucky I was to have Senya as my guide through the intricacies of Soviet life as well as a faithful and generous friend. How lucky Russia is to have had such an avatar of courage, intelligence and integrity: a guiding light through Soviet and post-Soviet times. Russia is poorer for his death, as are all the friends he leaves behind. Слава тебе, Сеня!

Viktor Kogan-Yasny: On the Yeltsin-Putin Regime, Liberal Democracy, and Personalized Power

posted 28 Dec 2017, 06:37 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 28 Dec 2017, 06:50 ]

28 December 2017


By Viktor Kogan-Yasny



Viktor Kogan-Yasny is chair of the NGO Right to Life and Civic Dignity and is a political adviser to the Yabloko party


I am once again convinced just how dangerous, both in terms of the present time and historically, the Yeltsin-Putin regime has been - a regime of provincial Russian bureaucrats imbued with imperial thinking, who believe in force, cynicism and money, and who are in love with themselves. The regime is dangerous because of what it actually does; but it is much more dangerous because of the “lesson” it gives to other countries, both neighbouring Russia and further afield – and by the historical mark that it leaves behind itself the world over.

To ignore the essential nature of this regime and live in a principally different way is exceptionally difficult. The regime’s essence easily transforms us: we become cynical, superficial, lying; we love abstractions, as we did under the Soviet regime, and our own self-interest, as if we were negative heroes in Dickens’ polemical novels; we are almost unable to distinguish the essence from the form...

Who do I mean by ‘we’? All of us, since we don’t set ourselves the task of following a fundamentally different moral direction.

***

Liberal democracy, as a form of social Christianity, is based on the principle of the rejection of retribution as a motive for decision-making. It is also based on the rejection of the very possibility of putting in danger, let alone intentionally sacrificing, some specific people for the sake of others.

Such a principled approach cannot be adopted as the highest social value on the basis of a numerical majority - a majority which is always subject to passions and animal instincts. A huge responsibility for not allowing terrible events to take place lies with political leaders. If they allow themselves to follow animal instincts “out of sympathy,” compete with each other in this, and fail to work to make themselves better, then we are doomed to live through very difficult times.

***

We see a certain person is succeeding in achieving all he wants in terms of strengthening his hold on power, and in the geopolitical arena. And those who have been saying that very, very soon he will have to call a halt to his ambitions, now find themselves humiliated.

It is true, indeed, that being in power for an unlimited time, having unrestricted authority in terms of domestic politics, and adequate military force in foreign affairs, have created conditions where it would be possible to annex even the moon, and then to wait for the rest of the world to give its consent.

But the ultimate cost of such a state of affairs is absolutely beyond the capacity of a great number people to bear. The failure of this line in politics is inevitable, and the wreckage, alas, will subsequently crush very many people and very many things, in a spontaneous development of events.

Simon Cosgrove: Arseny Roginsky - The Quiet Revolutionary

posted 21 Dec 2017, 10:42 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 22 Dec 2017, 05:11 ]

It is wonderful to read the moving 
tributes to Arseny Roginsky by his Russian friends and colleagues. It is perhaps not out of place to add a few words of tribute in English. 

Arseny Borisovich was an extraordinarily intelligent, charming, charismatic, modest, and at the same time an intensely serious, courageous and committed man. The events of his life’s story – his work as a historian, his imprisonment as a dissident, the development of Memorial, his role in the human rights movement – all illustrate his wide intellectual horizons, deep human sympathies, his strong pragmatism, his rich gifts as a leader, writer and speaker, and his resilient values. [Read more]

Viktor Kogan-Yasny: On Political Leadership and War

posted 18 Dec 2017, 07:29 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 28 Dec 2017, 06:51 ]


27 November 2017 


By Viktor Kogan-Yasny


Viktor Kogan-Yasny is chair of the NGO Right to Life and Civic Dignity and is a political adviser to the Yabloko party


All parochial political figures of a limited world-view, who find themselves occupying important positions of state because of circumstances (and their ambitions), conduct public affairs in a manner that invariably leads to one and the same outcome.

***

If they act on the basis of the priority of force – there will be victims, victims in ever greater numbers…

If they believe that territory is more important than people – there will, as a result, be neither people nor territory…

The political class exists in order to defend the real interests of a very large number of people, not their phantom, or pseudo, interests. The main priority must be peace, civil and international. War is the very last resort, and is certainly not a continuation of ordinary politics “by other means.” 

We have completely forgotten our history: just wars (of which there have been very few) have never been conducted for the sake of territory. For the sake of territory... there have been feudal wars, and wars led by madmen…

The conduct of an opponent and competitor in no ways justifies one’s own sins…

Politicians who refuse to make concessions or reach compromises in the sphere of international relations are worth nothing. Citing the struggle with the Nazi regime in Germany as an example is absolutely misplaced on every count.

What was at issue in that instance was not territory, or the structure of military blocks, but the actual physical existence of individuals, ethnic groups, peoples. Precisely for this reason, the compromises with Hitler have been recognized as mistaken. 

This is precisely why the attack on the USSR by Hitler led to very broad public support for the war. This attack resulted in the Great Patriotic War because, as rapidly became clear, it threatened some people with total destruction, and others with complete enslavement - and not at all because Hitler occupied some particular territory,  or any other reason.

John Crowfoot on "The Dmitriev Affair - What Next?", a public event to be held on 19 December 2017, 19:30-21:00, at Pushkin House

posted 7 Dec 2017, 11:41 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 7 Dec 2017, 11:55 ]

7 December 2017

Pushkin House and Rights in Russia invite you to an evening discussion about Yury Dmitriev, the Gulag researcher who is currently on trial


Photo of Yury Dmitriev (c) Simeon Maisterman



The prosecution of Gulag researcher YURY DMITRIEV has not gone according to plan.

All involved, including the defence team, expected the 60-year-old historian to be found guilty in early September of making pornographic images and receive anything up to a 15-year sentence - https://dmitrievaffair.com

Instead, there has been an unprecedented groundswell of public protest in Russia, and concern abroad, over Dmitriev's persecution on evidently trumped-up charges. At the Petrozavodsk City Court Judge Marina Nosova and the prosecutor (now replaced) have been constantly wrong-footed during the closed hearings by Dmitriev's excellent defence counsel.

*

On Tuesday, 19 December, the Pushkin Club and Rights in Russia are hosting an evening of discussion about this most unlikely cause célèbre.

http://www.pushkinhouse.org/events/2017/12/19/the-dmitriev-affair

There are three speakers - John Crowfoot, translator and manager of the Dmitriev Affair website; Bill Bowring, barrister, Professor of Law (Birkbeck College), an expert on Russia's post-Soviet legal and judicial systems; and Dr. Andrea Gullotta of Glasgow University, a historian and specialist on the Solovki Special Purpose Camp, who met and talked to Yury Dmitriev during his research trips to Karelia and the White Sea.

We invite you to celebrate and support "a most admirable man" (Natalya Solzhenitsyn), about whom more than 70 writers, film-makers, actors and priests have now spoken in glowing terms ( https://dmitrievaffair.com/support/video-clips/ ).

*

We very much hope to see you on the Tuesday evening (do remember there will be seats for only 70).

If you cannot come, look out for a film of the event on YouTube soon afterwards, and be sure to add your name to the Change.org petition
https://www.change.org/p/chairman-of-petrozavodsk-city-court-a-a-sudakov-public-appeal-in-defense-of-yuri-dmitriev/fbog/35241705?recruiter=35241705&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=share_petition

in defence of YURY DMITRIEV, who has spent twelve months in custody, after a quarter century combing the forests and archives of Karelia, seeking any surviving trace of Stalin's numerous victims ...

Viktor Kogan-Yasny: Notes of a Pessimist

posted 26 Nov 2017, 23:51 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 26 Nov 2017, 23:53 ]


27 November 2017





Viktor Kogan-Yasny is chair of the NGO Right to Life and Civic Dignity and is a political adviser to the Yabloko party


The Russian Federation and the countries of the former Soviet Union will see no real progress, as opposed to an imitation of progress, until the appearance of a “political elite.” By “political elite,” I mean a social stratum of well-educated people with a sense of moral responsibility, ready and willing to take positions in government, who at the same time absolutely and categorically refuse to treat government as their personal or collective fiefdom, as nothing more than an opportunity for rent-seeking, for “sharing the spoils.”


Serious efforts, that are not merely imitative but genuinely creative and transformative, aimed at protecting citizens from arbitrary government are undertaken in conditions similar, if you will forgive me, to involuntary membership in a monastery or a criminal gang. Endless obligations are imposed on the individuals concerned, while no tangible rights whatsoever are received. Their actions are given almost no publicity, although they face threats and corruption, and are met with public indifference (and very often “friendly fire”), and can have no hope of a significant outcome beyond the realm of “small deeds.” This is the nature of the contemporary world, sceptical and cynical. It makes a mockery of what is serious, while failing to see the humorous side of daily idiotic bureaucratic entanglements that bedevil our lives…


A pattern or “matrix” has been created that establishes the ways an individual may defend their interests, and this means almost exclusively either by “going to war” or by fraud. If we don’t rid ourselves of this matrix, that’s how it will be: war – fraud - war …

And one other thing:

Putin, and subsequently Navalny, issued highly unethical commentaries on the 100th anniversary of the October Putsch. They stressed the historical scale of the event which, they said, changed the fate of the world, and so on. Navalny also added that, in his opinion, one hundred years ago the Bolsheviks were, in their own way, truly serious people and rulers, while in the Kremlin nowadays there are merely swindlers…

How should one respond to that?...As to the fate of the world, the Holocaust and Hitler’s Nazism as a whole probably changed matters rather more even than Bolshevism, but no one (in the public arena at least) would think of talking about those horrific events in such a “dialectic,” “technocratic” and morally detached manner…

So far as petty swindlers in the Kremlin are concerned, I personally would not agree, but the point at issue is something else. What is it that bothers Navalny, a public figure who has decided to compete with Putin? He opines that “back then” there were mass shootings, totalitarian ideology, and that this was all “real” and “fundamental” in nature. Nowadays, he says, there is none of this. And this absence reveals “inconsistency” on the part of a regime that pretends to toughness and authoritarianism?

Is it disappointment he feels? Or does he take the view that, along with all the shootings, the Bolshevik system gave birth to something positive? Very possibly.

But this kind of thinking, outside moral frameworks and without comparative historical analysis, rejecting cause and effect and based on pseudo-dialectics, raking everything together “in a single heap,” poisons the consciousness of our country that in any case is not so conspicuously developed.

So our rational faculties will remain dormant …And if that is the case, we shall continue in the future to face the consequences. 

John Crowfoot: Accusations of child sex abuse - and the political subtext in the Dmitriev case

posted 23 Oct 2017, 07:29 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 23 Oct 2017, 07:41 ]

23 October 2017

By John Crowfoot


Photo of Yury Dmitriev





As the Dmitriev trial got under way, journalist Maria Eismont concluded an article about the case ("Dmitriev should be a State-Prize nominee", Russian Reader website, 6 June 2017) with the following words:

"There is another important thing about the Dmitriev case: the charge his persecutors chose for him. He was not charged with ‘extremism’ or ‘separatism,’ which have been commonplace in politically motivated cases, but with child pornography and depraved actions towards a minor. The charges not only guarantee a long sentence and promise the accused problems in prison but also challenge the public to support him. ‘What if something really did happen?’ Dmitriev’s friends and relatives acknowledge that while those who doubt Dmitriev or are willing to countenance the charges are in a clear minority, such people do exist, and some of them are ‘decent’ people.

"The number of ‘paedophilia’ cases, based on controversial, contradictory, clearly flimsy evidence and flagrantly unprofessional forensic examinations, has been growing for several years. Recently, I attended a similar event in Naro-Fominsk, seventy kilometres southwest of Moscow. It was also a memorial evening for a living person who had been incarcerated on charges of depravity against a child, actions the man could not have committed, according to witnesses who were nearby when the crime was alleged to have occurred. Dozens of people had come to remember what a good nurse Yevgeny (Zhenya) had been. Then they corrected themselves: not had been, but is and will continue to be. Then they cried.

"'Paedophilia' cases have long been custom-ordered to rid oneself of rivals and used to pad police conviction statistics, but now they have been put to use in political cases."

Charges of paedophilia or, rather, the threat of such accusations, were very occasionally used against dissidents in the Soviet period, but a search through the Chronicle of Current Events or the USSR News Brief turned up only one case. (Many if not most such threats, naturally, may never have come to light.) Recently, an attempt was made to pressurise rights activist Magomed Mutsolgov by claiming he had child pornography on his confiscated computer (see Under Attack, 2016, fn 105).

The prosecutions covered by Eismont over the past five years follow a different pattern. Typically, they are disputes between separated couples which, at some point, lead to doubtful accusations of child sex abuse. Common features of several cases described by Eismont are that the child was drilled by one side to repeat allegations of sexual abuse that under examination proved false and were subsequently denied by the child itself. More disturbing is that no matter what the evidence the accused was nevertheless found guilty and sentenced to the minimum 8-years' imprisonment for such an offence.

In the Dmitriev case neither the prosecution nor, naturally, his daughter Natasha have presented any evidence of ‘depraved actions’ on the part of her adoptive father. The concern remains that the overwhelming tendency of Russian courts to convict (in 99% of judge-only cases), and the precedent of seemingly automatic guilty verdicts whenever the sexual abuse of minors is alleged, may yet lead to Dmitriev's conviction sometime before mid-January next year.

On the other hand, the evidence and arguments presented in Petrozavodsk City Court by expert witnesses for the defence over the past five months may yet create useful precedents concerning the validity of evidence cited in such cases. In this respect also there is everything still to play for in the prosecution of Yury Dmitriev for child pornography and sexual abuse of a minor.

Sources: Articles by Maria Eismont
"The case of Vladimir Makarov, 'paedophile'",
Radio Echo Moskvy [R], 28 November 2011
"The Production of Paedophilia",
Snob magazine [R], 14 December 2015
"Male nurse Yevgeny Yefimenko found guilty of paedophilia",
Bizbi: News from Naro-Fominsk [R], 28 September 2017

Viktor Kogan-Yasny: A Personal view on Ukraine, Nato, the trajectory of Russia and contemporary liberalism

posted 23 Oct 2017, 04:05 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 23 Oct 2017, 04:10 ]

23 October 2017




Viktor Kogan-Yasny is chair of the NGO Right to Life and Civic Dignity and is a political adviser to the Yabloko party



Ukraine and Nato

Nato establishes a framework. It represents a rejection of the idea and the ideology of revenge, of “counter-imperialism,” nationalism, of the humiliation of the citizens of neighbouring countries. That is why the official decision of Ukraine to join Nato, and not to take revenge on some other party and fight to the victorious end, provides an opportunity for the development of the country and its neighbours, for the advancement of peace and the rule of law, for “learning civilisation” (about which N. A. Struve wrote). Perhaps in ten years’ time in Ukraine there will be more competent citizens and military specialists and fewer streets named after nationalists.

The question remains whether this opportunity will be seized, or whether the post-Soviet environment will gain the upper hand and once again bring about events that will “astonish the world.”

We shall have to wait to see what happens, but we must not lose hope, even if new difficulties arise...

Nato and the roots of Orthodox culture

If we are talking about Orthodox culture and its relationship to politics and public life, then it must be said, despite the plethora of official statements about contrasting positions and civilizational conflicts, that it transpires that all those countries which traditionally form part of the realm of Orthodox Christianity except Russia and Belarus (not counting, of course, countries in the Middle East) are joining Nato, and European countries are joining the EU. Finland is not formally joining Nato, following a very old approach, but few even comment on this. It is the same with Cyprus. Serbia institutionally keeps its distance as a result of the historical conflict of 1999, when the actions of Nato were ill thought-out and ethically highly dubious. But this does not hinder Serbia from joining the EU or collaborating with Nato, since we are now in another epoch and a new set of problems has appeared. As for the situation of Japan, nothing needs to be said.

No country that has cultural roots in Orthodoxy – except Russia and Belarus – bases its ideology and daily practice on confrontation with Nato and the EU. And this confrontation will either come to nothing, or it will result once again in the cultural collapse of Russia, similar to what occurred under the Bolsheviks, based on a rejection of its own roots…

These are no doubt schematic points and observations. In reality, everything is much more complicated…The logic of history can be destroyed by stupidity, envy, provocative actions or simple boorishness, and these can arise as if out of nowhere. But nonetheless it is probably worth paying attention to the logic of history, to have a sense of it and seek to understand it …

A Troubling Observation

Liberals in the widest sense of the word - people who think about politics and were educated in the traditions of the second half of the last century - frequently lose sight of the fact that their ideas, seemingly unquestionable from the point of view of rational public conduct, run up against the egocentrism of a very large social group. This social group consists of people who simply do not consider themselves obliged to respect either themselves or anybody else. A very great number of people adopt the simple and egocentric view, “Leave me (and us) alone”, on the basis of simplistic slogans. To this end they are perfectly ready to sacrifice social development, personal success and material well-being, let alone things such as education and freedom of movement. These people see no fundamental purpose in the rule of law or honesty in personal behaviour, in moral solidarity with others, in mutual assistance, and so on. Maintaining the habitual and straightforward order of things for oneself and one’s immediate environment assumes, for them, priority over every other purpose.

This is why a majority of people in relatively poor Wales, a region that receives huge agricultural subsidies from the EU, voted against membership of the EU. This is why the “beneficiaries” of liberal movements against authoritarian and military-police regimes are in many cases not those who are committed to peace and freedom, but new dictators or people with a criminal background. And this, incidentally, is also why American “rednecks” (in particular, but not only them) voted for Trump.

But the social milieu that bears with it the liberal agenda of the past does not have the potential to react and renew itself. It resembles a club to which various people want to gain entrance because there is a fire outside, but in response the bouncers calmly stop them and push them back with the words: “You can’t come in, you’re not dressed appropriately.”
*** 
And looking at the question from a different angle, it is in the character of today’s neo-Bolsheviks, as it was in that of their historical predecessors, to seize the historical opportunity if it falls into their hands and adapt it to their own needs in such a way that all those who “wished for the best” are utterly shocked and disappointed (and there are all kinds of examples, including the behaviour of the leading figures of Ukraine on many issues).

Crimea, Russia, Ukraine

Europe’s post-war borders as they arose in 1945-46 must be inviolable. You can bewail as much as you want that such an approach, while on the one hand giving relative freedom to separatists, who insist on the independence of parts of states from the larger whole or even on the break-up of ethnically and historically complex states, on the other hand enables the peremptory blocking of perfectly justifiable attempts to unify closely-related populations, territories populated by the same ethnic group, or the transfer of territories from one jurisdiction to another. But there is no other means to preserve peace in Europe for the long-term future. Once a review of borders gets under way, the risk of a domino effect arises, with the consequent overwhelming victory of the instincts of the person-in-the-street over legal consciousness.

(The reunification of Germany is a special topic. Firstly, because what was at issue was the reunification of two historical parts of one and the same country. Secondly, because the decision to unify was in the hands of external forces and overseen by them. But even then, let’s recall, there were significant disagreements about the issue.)

This is why Northern Cyprus, Pridnestrovie, Kosovo, Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia (and also to some extent, Donetsk and Lugansk) are one thing, while Crimea is essentially a matter of a different kind. If there had not been formal annexation, the problem would not have arisen, nor the need for a solution. It is quite wrong to create such ambiguous situations, where furthermore it is impossible to maintain the consequent state of indeterminacy over a long period of time. The creation of “frozen conflicts” is an unpleasant and very unsatisfactory, but quite common world practice. Such developments can only be brought about without extremely serious consequences, in a “calm” manner, when disrespect for the rule of law and established legal traditions has reached such a pitch that they result in a radical lowering of legal standards. This is exactly what happened in the case of Crimea.

This is not a question of historical justice, of the protection of one group of people from another, of ethnic and cultural proximity, or of what people want. While all these matters are important, they must be resolved by means.

Law and international relations are incompatible with illogical thinking and with the emotions characteristic of household conflicts. It is precisely from confused logic and hysterical self-assertion that crises and wars begin. Wherever the “view of the ordinary person” gets the upper hand over rationality and transparency in decision-making, where the notion that “if they’re allowed to, why can’t we?” rules, then disaster is to be expected. It remains only to observe what is happening, as one might watch a powder keg inside which processes are taking place that are already beyond anyone’s control.

And this concerns in equal measure both the issue of Crimea and other, very different situations. It concerns the political mindset of the Russian Federation, and of other countries as well.

In general, it is a major mistake not to be able to see the far-reaching consequences of one’s own actions, no matter what the issue.

Mistakes can be of varying importance, but a real comparative assessment of potential outcomes is not always immediately possible, and the potential outcomes not immediately understood.

If the annexation of Crimea creates an enormous problem for the legitimate development of Russia, the failure to investigate the deaths of people creates an enormous legal problem, and a moral problem that exceeds all limits, both for Russian and for Ukrainian statehood, as well as for all major and minor Europe-wide institutions.

Post-Soviet Long and Winding Roads – Literal and Figurative

posted 3 Oct 2017, 07:29 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 3 Oct 2017, 08:08 ]

3 October 2017




Viktor Kogan-Yasny is chair of the NGO Right to Life and Civic Dignity and is a political adviser to the Yabloko party






From time immemorial to the present day, in the lands of ancient Kiev, Moscow and Novgorod, in princedoms, empire, and nation states, there has always been an excessive need, on all occasions, to take complex, long and winding roads towards the attempted solution of political and social issues. This need has always strengthened conformism among the majority of the population and weakened the role of strategic and goal-oriented thinking. In all issues not directly related to the immediate task in hand, there arises a wish to journey off into vagueness, to do nothing, to shift responsibility to the authorities, to those with administrative power. Naturally, such a manner of thinking and behaving grew markedly stronger after the coming to power of the Bolsheviks. It is a manner of thinking hostile to all development. Its idea of “civilization” is standing still on the spot and looking around; not taking action. And we can see this wherever the Bolsheviks have been in power. In all these places we see this logic at work: the idea that civilization must be delivered from outside, and, if acceptable, put to use. 

In the Russian Federation such an approach became de rigueur, with the conscious adoption of policies of this kind. This quickly made the country an awkward, interfering, and also a dangerous neighbour, as well as being a disaster for the citizens of Russia themselves. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, the West had no idea about any of this. Only a few very perceptive sociologists and culturologists then living in the West (Nikita Struve, for example), to whose views no attention whatsoever was paid, were able to present an accurate picture of the situation: a situation that demanded the rapid introduction of Western-style civilisation into Russia, and other countries of the former USSR, the introduction of “civilised thinking,” while at the same time taking steps to preserve and develop the centuries-old culture of Russia. But nothing came of any of this: that civilisation, which constitutes the basis for the achievements of the West, was only adopted in the post-Soviet world to a very limited extent. The culture of the West turned out by-and-large to be ‘impractical’ for adoption, and was forgotten. To the delight of Russian bureaucrats, the country’s military and security elites, and it must be said the Western public, the model of openness, maximum freedom of contact and movement was rejected. The great ideas of the last years of the twentieth century, developed in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, perished in the muddled, lazy and irresponsible swamp of contemporary Russia. 

… And today we see that the West, absorbed in its own moral problems, has little influence on the situation in neighbouring societies, societies that, in a civilizational sense, have frozen, in some cases at a stage they reached many decades ago. Nowadays the West only considers these countries a means to solve its own problems, or as a burden and a nuisance. But meanwhile, somewhere or other in Tambov, petrol continues to be mixed with water, just as it was twenty years ago, and local residents see nothing beyond the grinding monotony of daily life. And at the same time the political elites of the post-Soviet world operate primarily on the basis of two factors: war and fraud – the same principles on which oligarchical corporate clans function today. 

Those who try to put up serious resistance to all of this, and not merely for the purposes of self-advertisement, too often come to realise they are failing to achieve results, and their efforts promise little for the future. They find themselves facing significant risks to their own life, and very great personal stress, as well as an almost complete absence of attention and interest on the part of those who, in global terms, they think of as their strategic allies.

Editor's blog: President Putin pays tribute to Liudmila Alekseeva

posted 27 Jul 2017, 06:47 by Rights in Russia   [ updated 3 Aug 2017, 03:16 ]

27 July 2017

Reflections on the week of 15- 21 July 2017

Meetings between individuals who encapsulate, each in their own way, different aspects of a turbulent period of a country's social and political life are always fascinating. This past week, on 20 July, when Liudmila Alekseeva, the doyenne of Russia’s human rights defenders, marked her 90th birthday, she was visited by President Vladimir Putin. The two sat opposite each other in Liudmila Alekseeva’s living room in her apartment on the Old Arbat and an account of their conversation was duly published on the official Kremlin website. Video of the two in conversation was broadcast on the nation's main TV channels. The President came with gifts: a bouquet of flowers and an engraving of a view of the town in Crimea where Alekseeva was born, Evpatoria, as well as a decorative plate with a picture of the tower what is now the main building Moscow State University where she had been a student. Given Alekseeva's well-known opposition to the annexation of the Crimean peninsula, the gift of the engraving would seem a particularly pointed one, although according to the published account of the dialogue it was the picture of Moscow State University that moved Alekseeva to comment, saying she had not actually been a student in the landmark tower, although she had helped build it[Read more]




1-10 of 119