Skip to main content
Support

BY EVGENY DOBRENKO

Between these close words—the abyss. I feel it is important to talk about it today because before our very eyes, there has been a revolution in the world’s perception of Russia.

All of us who are professionally engaged with Russia will not only have to reckon with this new perception, we will also have to rethink the very subject of our studies. I am afraid that until Moscow’s political regime changes—by one means or another—we will not see a positive change in attitude toward Russia in the world.

In the mass consciousness, Russia has turned into the global evil of the twenty-first century. In the 20th century it represented for many the “evil of communism.” Communism as an ideology had many supporters across the globe, and thus carried a certain moral and geopolitical weight. In the eyes of the world, Russia has now become something very different. It has turned into a new edition of Nazi Germany. Its aggressive nationalism and denial of a neighboring nation’s right to exist have led to the atrocities that have shocked the world. This is absolute evil.

This new face of Russia forces us to rethink such concepts as cooperation with the regime, participation and nonparticipation, complicity and resistance. It’s time to reread Thomas Mann’s famous essay “Germany and the Germans.” Now, no one has any doubts about which country needs denazification and demilitarization.

Last week I was approached by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera with a request to comment on the cancellation of a course on the Russian nineteenth-century writer Fedor Dostoevsky, a course that had been created for one of the Italian universities by the famous Italian writer and translator Paolo Nori. Allegedly, in the current situation, the subject of the course is judged too controversial. This anecdote illustrates the current atmosphere well. The disgust rightly felt the world over at Russia’s actions is so great that, driven by this understandable emotion, everyone wants to cancel something. In the world’s academic circles, in which cancel culture has been brewing for years, the temptation to find something “controversial” to cancel is even greater.

We are where we are because of connivance that grew out of the naïveté of Western politicians who do not have a good understanding of Russia as a country and as a culture. Understanding the Russian mentality and way of thinking is more important for today’s world than ever before. The culture and literature provide the best windows on them. It is necessary to distinguish Valery Gergiev, Denis Matsuev, or Anna Netrebko, Russian contemporary musicians who have associated themselves with the Kremlin’s regime, from Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, or Pyotr Tchaikovsky.

Yes, the operatic soprano Netrebko had to withdraw from performances around Europe and the US. The Munich Philharmonic recently severed its ties with its chief conductor, Valery Gergiev, who is known to be on close, friendly terms with Vladimir Putin.

Those are understandable moves. But Russia’s culture as a phenomenon is above immediate politics. Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky do not belong to Russia alone. They are part of the world’s cultural heritage. We should not allow important topics to be vulgarized, reaching the point of hysteria, that with such “cancellations” we only play into Putin’s hands, confirming his narrative of worldwide Russophobia.

The current academic atmosphere is such that we have a long and hard fight against those who insist on a complete boycott of Russia. I am not a political scientist and do not make political forecasts, but I believe that the regime has entered the terminal (Belarusian) phase. This does not mean that it will die tomorrow. But living in a hospice is an ordeal. And our colleagues working in Russia are left with no choice. They are, in fact, hostages. My position is pragmatic. Russia is not going anywhere, but its European future largely depends on the continuity of the liberal tradition and preservation of the liberal intelligentsia, to which most of our colleagues belong.

We have no right to leave them without support, and to support the boycott instead. This is not only a question of the future of Russia but also of self-respect, solidarity, moral responsibility, and professional decency. At a time when the regime in Russia is cultivating the psychology of a “fortress Russia” under siege, trying to break the country's links with the West, the decision to cut off our colleagues plays right into the hands of the regime. It would indeed be ironic—or rather tragic—if we were to do the current Russian government’s work for it, if we were to start cutting ties with precisely the group, the liberal intelligentsia, that is trying to make Russia more westward-looking and therefore has been a thorn in Putin’s side for a long time.

State institutions are a completely different matter, as are those individuals who choose to actively support the Kremlin regime. There are quite a few of them. This is why some Western universities look carefully into any formal links that Russia’s institutions of culture and education have with the country’s government. There is a consensus that there is no need to be concerned about ongoing informal personal contacts with Russian scholars and that academic collaboration without formal institutional ties or funding, such as writing articles with co-authors associated with Russia, collaborating personally on specific projects, and the like, is not a problem. Since there is no government move so far in the direction of a mandatory boycott (in which case we might find ourselves in a situation where such activities are illegal), such collaborations do not, in my opinion, represent any problem.

We should say yes to collaboration, but we should say no to collaborationism. There is no need to invent anything. There is a long and successful (for the West) history of interaction between the West and Russia during the Cold War era. So, as they like to say in Russia, “We can repeat it.” 

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.

About the Author

Evgeny Dobrenko

Evgeny Dobrenko

Evgeny Dobrenko is a professor at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.

Read More

Kennan Institute

The Kennan Institute is the premier US center for advanced research on Russia and Eurasia and the oldest and largest regional program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Kennan Institute is committed to improving American understanding of Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the surrounding region though research and exchange.  Read more