Andrei Kolesnikov
{
"authors": [
"Andrei Kolesnikov"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [
"Inside Russia"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
A Background War
The Kremlin needs the constant narrative of a war in which it plays a righteous role to maintain public loyalty
Source: Vedomosti
A constant war waged in the name of peace and running in the background. This is what the Russian ruling class needs to preserve itself in power, especially if its involvement only amounts to air strikes—some precise, some less so.
The television series named “War” must keep on changing in space and time. In recent years, we have had the accession of Crimea, seized as per the example of Catherine the Great, without a shot being fired. Next came the hybrid war in Donetsk and Luhansk, expanding the zone of quasi-state formations around Russia’s perimeter. Now we have Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, which is nostalgically Cold-War-like in spirit.
Soon, I believe the Kremlin’s official historians will prove that all of the wars that Russia has waged, whether openly or covertly, have been three things: righteous, fought in self-defense and preventative in nature.
Seen in this way, the favored slogan of successive Soviet and Russian generations, “Anything but war,” does not sound so paradoxical. By this logic, even the Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland (1939-1940) was a “preventative” one. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already argued as much at a meeting with military historians, in flagrant disregard of that war’s disgraceful nature, senselessness, horrific casualties, and ultimate failure.The goal of maintaining power requires that the show must go on, like a triumphal victory banquet. Once set in motion with Crimea, Donbass, or Syria, the machine cannot stop. There are rational motives: the need to deflect attention away from the economic crisis onto victorious air strikes, to sustain a wave of patriotism and presidential approval ratings at current levels through at least 2018. But there is also the irrational self-perpetuating cycle of mass military hysteria.
It is worth noting that intervention in a conflict in a Muslim country does not instill in the Russian authorities a fear of retaliatory domestic terrorist acts. No terrorist attack in post-Soviet history has ever affected the ruling elite, at least not physically. The most defenseless members of society—hospital patients, children, parents—have paid the price. And the moral trauma of tragedies such as the hostage seizures in Budyonnovsk in 1995, in Moscow in 2002 or in Beslan in 2004 can be healed quickly with the remedies of silence and oblivion.
Efforts to make sense of tragedies like these are drowned in an endless white noise of information. Moreover, the history of the Putin era shows that a terrorist act can serve as an excuse to tighten the screws under the guise of “anti-extremism” and “security.” This is precisely the excuse spin doctors and government ideologists need as they plan parliamentary and presidential election campaigns.
So, Russia will keep on finding new enemies and new targets. Next, it may send attack bombers to Afghanistan, or increase its military contingent in the Arctic. The exercise keeps the military-patriotic spirit of the Russian people in good working order without their ever stepping away from their TV screens.
The key is for war to become the default, the ever-present hum, a simple but always-inspiring tune in a noisy cacophony of information. It is the background that will allow Russians to choose and be chosen—and I am not referring to the Bible but to the next elections.
This article originally appeared in Russian in Vedomosti.
About the Author
Former Senior Fellow, Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Kolesnikov was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.
- How the Putin Regime Subverted the Soviet LegacyCommentary
- Putin’s New Social JusticeCommentary
Andrei Kolesnikov
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Stare Down China on Trade?Commentary
The European Commissioner for Trade is headed to China. But after President Xi’s bridge-building visit to Washington, can a more isolated EU overcome Beijing’s stranglehold on critical raw materials? Who will blink first?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective DefenseArticle
European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.
Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont
- The Uncomfortable Truth About EU EnlargementCommentary
Before the next wave of EU enlargement takes place, the union needs to grapple with thorny questions of how power is distributed among its members.
Emil Sondaj Hansen, Ditte Brasso Sørensen
- The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of TimeCommentary
The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.
Marc Pierini
- A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, TooCommentary
A summer of escalation in the Black Sea has hurt Ukraine economically and is exacerbating world food security. A truce is needed—as is a broader reframing of Europe’s Ukraine strategy.
Thomas de Waal