While British liberals fret about the dismal state of democracy in Russia, and letterwriters take up their pens to protest the fate of many a new “dissident”, most Russians are more interested in their newfound freedom to renovate and redesign their flats or take foreign holidays than any liberty the ballot box can deliver.
This talk of a “new cold war” is a dangerous distraction from the increasing areas of prosperity and success that are defining features of today’s Russia. If the people of Britain are more likely to define themselves in terms of high street brands than political ideology, why should they expect those in Russia to behave differently? “Democracy in peril” is a good headline, but it is under siege closer to home than the former Soviet Union.
The truth is, in part, that Russians are living better thanks to the high price of oil, and a more diverse and successful economy. It might be an uncertain place to do business long term, but it’s one of your best bets if you want to make a fast buck legally. The resulting greater spending power that is now filtering out from the industrial and business centres across the country is the reason why most Russians are genuinely supportive of their current government. Were the economy to take a downturn, it is likely more would complain. Much like anywhere else, Brecht’s “erst kommt das fressen, dann kommt die moral” applies. Would the West be so vociferous about the Russian government’s failings if Russia had not started playing hard ball on the natural resources front? Given Russia’s oil and gas reserves constitute one of its strongest cards in foreign relations, would it not have been negligent of the government not to use it in defending its national interests?
What the West resents, is not a lack of human rights or essential liberties within the Russian Federation, but the “Russia resurgent” that Putin and many ordinary Russians long to establish. What many liberal minded Russians resent, however, is not the spy in the Kremlin, but the failure of the liberal politicians to construct any viable political movement. Perhaps the Western press should pay more attention to those who are likely to be remembered as the democrats who scuppered any chance of a democratic Russia. Meanwhile, recasting this political discourse in the reheated terminology of the Cold War might initially have seemed to put Britain in a stronger position, but with Putin in the Kremlin, they have not only an ideal “nemesis”, a Bondian villain (James, not Edward), but an opponent who now feels liberated to play by his own, Moscow, rules.
