Putin ‘ s removal or death will change nothing. Russia is a country of 140 million that has been horribly mangled by its hurried attempts to break into modernity. And these costly attempts still were unsuccessful. Now, Russians react violently against anything associated with modernity.
Putin is just a tiny little detail of this profound hatred of modernity.
I can’t recall if you have ever precisely defined what you mean by modernity. If so, could you please point me to the post?
LikeLike
I don’t normally do this, but the following definition from Wikipedia is not bad: “As a historical category, modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization and secularization; the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy) and forms of surveillance (Foucault 1995, 170–77).”
The entire history of Russia since the XIth century is an attempt to “catch up” with the West. The Russian tsar Peter the Great is called “the Great” because his efforts to bring Russia in line with the European achievements were enormous. Then Stalin did the same thing: industrialized, modernized, alphabetized, broke down the traditional agricultural norms and the fiercely patriarchal family structures.
Both Peter and Stalin, however, were desperately trying to catch up, so they introduced these reforms in extremely painful, traumatic ways that necessitated the slaughter of many people. And they still were not entirely successful.
LikeLike
Allow me to explain what is meant by this: “We are doing with banks what we can’t do with tanks …”
Essentially we understand the miserabilist position of Russia, and that all of the political mutterings are meant for an internal Russian audience.
That does not mean that this has been given sanction — it means that we understand that if we are going to deal with a country that’s complicit with its batshit crazy leader, we have to engage in a less direct form of politics.
While it’s hoped that enough economic pressure would send Putin sailing into some sort of fugue state from which he will never return, and will hopefully send him to a hospital for the criminally insane, we’re not exactly hopeful for a better result.
That’s why “doing with banks” means that we are smiling when the Russian economy is stuck and unable to do anything to cope.
Because Russia is from this standpoint unable to overcome its corruption, it provides some hope that the corruption will be the way that everyone can be saved from nuclear terror: one secret arms deal at a time, trading out those nuclear weapons to parties who can be relied upon to dismantle them properly, reduces the overall risk.
We won’t get there until individual Russians who control the nukes can be bought out, and we won’t get there until the pain of living within a bankrupt economy is great enough that they want to be bought out.
So as much as I would like Obama to take the direct route of sending two thousand of its largest non-nuclear weapons to Ukraine, I also understand the necessity to make these moves through a less direct form of politics.
Unfortunately this means that Ukraine will likely become a nexus for some of the most corrupt dealings in the world, if this is not already the status quo.
That’s the breaks — I wish I had better news for you …
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment