What to do with a nuclear country that behaves like a schizophrenic? Interview with Peter Pomerantsev
Why do Western leaders persist in trying to save what is not there; "Putin's face"?
What to do with a country that behaves like a terrorist that has laid hands on nuclear weapons?
How can tens of millions of people go crazy at the same time?
Are there "good Russians" and can they help in the war with Putin's Russia?
You can ask yourself these questions endlessly, as if you were staring at fire or water.
And you can ask someone who sees the context, which is not always straightforward for those who have been living for nine years and five months under the "fire" of "we are brothers" [Russian propaganda often uses this narrative about Ukrainians and Russians being fraternal people].
For instance, it is useful to speak with Peter Pomerantsev, a British writer and journalist who is senior fellow at the SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University, a researcher of information influence technologies, and the author of the books "Nothing is true and everything is possible'' and "This is not propaganda. Adventures in the war against reality."
Peter was born in Kyiv and spent the first nine months of his life here. His father, Ihor Pomerantsev, is a writer, journalist and human rights defender. He emigrated from the Soviet Union with his family in 1978.
Peter and his colleagues are currently collecting testimonies of eyewitnesses and victims of Russian crimes in Ukraine. "We should show the systematic nature of Russia's crimes and connect them with similar ones in Syria, Chechnya and around the world," he says.
In an interview with Ukrainska Pravda, Peter Pomerantsev talked about why not only a military, but also an informational "Ramstein" [a series of meetings of Western ally defence officials aimed at developing new strategies and initiatives to assist Ukraine in fighting the ongoing Russian aggression] is needed, to discuss the "basements" of the Soviet past, what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, and the model for protecting nuclear-free countries from "weirdos with nuclear weapons".
"In a few years’ time, Ukraine should be included in the international security treaties system"
- According to the madman theory of political strategy, you need to behave in such a way that you convince the enemy country that you are crazy and capable of anything. Is Putin behaving like this, having started a war?
- This is a classic strategy. Putin did the same thing in 2014. And Trump also liked to do so.
But in Putin’s case, it is not about trying to appear to be a madman so as to achieve his goals. This is no longer about rational interest and the calculation of options. They have not been living in the rational world for a long time, assuming they ever did.
But there is another important matter. When the Russian leadership started threatening to use nuclear weapons, they must have been sent a signal that if they continued to play this game, they would get the same in return. And the signal was convincing, because now they are not talking about a nuclear strike. There are apparently some red lines on which communication between Russia and the United States is still possible, in spite of everything.
- The dehumanisation of Russians in Ukraine is an obvious consequence of their actions with weapons in their hands. The dehumanisation of Ukrainians in Russia is a purely media phenomenon, the result of propaganda. Is it possible to use any tools other than weapons and the Armed Forces [of Ukraine] to influence the consciousness of Russians brainwashed by state television?
- It’s not a question of "de-occupying the minds" of all Russians, but what matters now is to undertake specific information operations that would allow at least part of the population to be disabused of Kremlin propaganda. In a broad sense, it is a matter of changing the traditional state of mind of a Russian person when he or she feels humiliated, be that by the West, the world or history, and who in turn humiliates others. Russians are often in both of these states of mind at the same time. I'm not a psychoanalyst, but it sounds a lot like sadomasochistic games.
When the British and Americans were fighting Nazi propaganda during World War II, they were working on several fronts and for different audiences at the same time. And they demoralised the [Nazi] military so that they would surrender. And at the same time, there was a high-ranking BBC broadcast in German, where Thomas Mann talked about the Germany of the future without Nazism.
A systematic "de-occupation of minds" happened in Germany and Japan, but only after their defeat. Historically, capitulation comes first, and then the transformation of minds.
- Does the West understand what kind of end to the war will mean the defeat of Russia?
- There can be different configurations of Russia's defeat in this war. But it has not even been discussed seriously in the West so far. A pseudo-choice is still put forward: either Putin is leader, or the country will collapse entirely, with unpredictable consequences for the world. Either the centre is strong, or nuclear weapons are dispersed and end up in the hands of Islamists. This is completely absurd - there are a million options between these extremes. The words "regime change in Russia" are better not pronounced in Washington. It scares everyone.
Russia is a country that poses a threat, a problem country that holds everyone hostage. It is necessary first to reduce these threats. And then think further.
It is clear that Ukraine wants the complete destruction of Russia tomorrow. I would like everything to fall apart there too, for the Kremlin to become a museum of torture, the mausoleum to disappear, and Russia to give up nuclear weapons.
Of course, we can dream about this. But a more realistic option is to bring them to the point where there is an internal political crisis among the elites, and in a few years, while they are dealing with the sanctions, with whom to extradite to the West as war criminals, and what reparations to pay to Ukraine, Ukraine will become incorporated into the international security system. Like what Estonia, Poland and other countries have done before.
This may not be ambitious enough, but it is a more realistic scenario than that of Russia signing an act of surrender in the Kremlin.
"Everything is like in a Hollywood action movie, where terrorists have captured nuclear weapons"
- One gets the impression that the West's strategy is to prevent Ukraine from either losing or winning this war, as both are associated with "risks of escalation". And so there is a desire to enable "Putin to save face." Is this the case?
- If you look at it from the perspective of Ukraine, maybe this is how things look. But in reality, nobody at all in the West thinks in the categories you're talking about.
The picture is completely different: when you have a crisis involving a nuclear power, the worst that can happen is that the conflict escalates into World War III. This is the starting point: how to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict to a minimum. This is what all Western politicians were taught at university: to localise conflicts where a nuclear power is involved.
I don't know if this is correct, but it is a priority of the first order; all scenarios for how events may unfold are built around this.
- However, what rational calculation are we talking about when you are facing an irrational force?
- This is exactly what Washington has just started to think about: what to do with a nuclear country that behaves like a schizophrenic?
This is a new and a big problem for everyone. All existing theories are based on the notion that nuclear superpowers have a certain level of responsibility. And here everything is like in the classic plot of a Hollywood action movie, where terrorists have seized nuclear weapons.
Everyone already understands this, but there is still no theory that would explain what to do about it.
- If we expand the context, the war that Russia is waging in Ukraine is not only about Russia and Ukraine. It is about any country which doesn’t have a NATO umbrella, but rather has aggressive neighbours with nuclear weapons. For example, about China and Taiwan. How can one protect such countries?
- It is significant that such countries have taken a very pro-Ukrainian position. For example, they realised in Australia at some point that this is similar to their situation with China.
The truth is that there will never be a direct military response to the aggression of a nuclear power. But if such a country knows that there will be a terrible blow to its economy in response to its military aggression, that weapons will be supplied, as we are seeing now in Ukraine, perhaps Russia will apply the brakes.
If Russia had known that this war would cost it so much, I am not sure that it would have started it. They thought that they would get away with it, as usual.
A model of the future is perhaps being created in Ukraine now. This is not exactly a security guarantee, but it is definitely a restraining factor.
- There is a question regarding this topic that worries many people: will the resignation of Boris Johnson affect the attitude of the United Kingdom
Great Britain to the war in Ukraine, and most importantly, to helping with weapons?
- Britain has a stable principle, unlike Russia. Its position has existed since the 19th century: Britain is a liberal empire whereas Russia is an autocracy. And Russia is the power we have always opposed.
Nothing will change in the future. Perhaps the rhetoric will be toned down a little. Perhaps it will become closer to the European and American [rhetoric], but it does not necessarily follow that this will be worse for Ukraine.
"One more Ramstein [meeting of countries assisting Ukraine] is needed, this time not about weapons, but about information"
- It seems that Russian propaganda today has reoriented itself towards an internal audience capable of believing in secret biological weapons laboratories with birds, bats, mosquitoes, and combat drugs. What is happening in the world now with those who would call for "understanding Putin"?
- First of all, this is not exactly right. Russian propaganda works effectively today in countries that are important to them, and wins out there at the end of the day - in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Ukraine, with rare exceptions, is not visible there at all, and neither is there any understanding of Ukraine there. Instead, for many of these countries, if America or Britain helps Ukraine, it is as if the devil were helping.
As for Europe, the most supportive pro-Putin politicians have always been on the fringes - the extreme right and the extreme left. Proximity to Putin has become a risk. It is believed that Marine Le Pen's closeness to Putin helped Macron win the election.
The Kremlin is now actively promoting mainstream narratives in Europe, targeting ordinary people. Messages like, "Why do you continue to help Ukraine if you have high gas prices because of it?", "Prices will fall if there is no war," "Prices will fall if there are no sanctions."
It works because it appeals not to abstract values, but to self-interest. The purpose of all this is clear: to induce Ukraine to negotiate peace on unfavourable terms.
- In one of your articles for The Guardian, you ask: "What hike in gas prices are people willing to bear before they close their eyes to Putin's crimes against humanity?" Do you have an answer to this question?
- I am convinced that it is necessary to drastically change the structure and framework of communication. To talk about the fact that Europe, which is addicted to Russian gas, is a victim in these abusive relations with Russia. And there is only one way out - to end this relationship as soon as possible. It will be difficult, it will be expensive, but it should be done.
If you continue to build everything on empathy and on the need to tighten belts, Ukraine will lose. If you place empathy on one side of the scales, and the self-interest of a Westerner on the other, there are no options here.
Self-interest will win out sooner or later. People believe that they have already helped Ukraine, have already suffered, done a good deed... How much can you do?
- Who should set up these new communication frameworks?
- Today, narratives are not created by three people and two TV channels. We live in a world where various countries, civil society, and individuals do this.
It should be a completely new form of partnership. Like Ramstein, only not about weapons, but about information. Of course, Ukrainians should be at the centre. But it is essential to gather together partners capable of solving specific tasks in specific countries.
Ukraine, of course, should play a positive role. But in some cases, such as Hungary, someone has to take a tough role.
For example, if Ukraine builds relations with Orbán by, let’s say, helping the Hungarian minority in Ukraine, then Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia will tell him: "You will find yourself isolated in the EU if you continue to help Putin in this conflict."
At the same time, journalists are conducting serious investigations regarding people in Central Europe, in Hungary, who are against the sanctions. Everyone has its own task to solve, but the goal is the same; to get Hungary to change its very unpleasant position in this war.
"Russia wants to drag everyone into its internal hell"
- You are the author of a book about how Russian propaganda worked in the second half of the 2000s. What has changed[in Russian propaganda] since then?
- Since 2014, all propaganda has focused on the mechanism of sadomasochism, which I have already mentioned. There are no more intellectual games or twenty different narratives. Now it's just a fixation on aggressive but effective techniques repeated ad infinitum. It’s the classic Nazi model of identifying a person with the state, using the simplest levers. They don't even try to play with ideas or meanings. There is nothing but these eternal chambers of sadomasochism.
They involve themselves and others in these terrible performances of the past. Torture chambers are being recreated, which are reminiscent of the Soviet past. You are with us forever in the terrible basement of Soviet trauma. We won't let you go: return to the Soviet archetypes and let's torture each other. Pure Dr Freud.
Basements might be the main metaphor of this war. They drive people into basements both literally and metaphorically. In the basement of their consciousness and their traumas. And there, things from the Soviet past are hung on the walls - deportations, executions, a terrible repetition of the Soviet past. Russia wants to drag everyone into this internal hell.
- The countries of the anti-Hitler coalition used "good Germans", opponents of Hitler's regime who managed to escape from Germany, for propaganda and counter-propaganda. Ukraine is currently discussing how "good Russians" can help in the fight against Russia, and whether they should be given Ukrainian passports. What do you think?
- At the beginning of the Second World War, Britain
counted on "good Germans", hoping that they would help get rid of Hitler. Because this worked in the First World War, when the revolution began in Germany. But by 1941 it became obvious that it was impossible [to do so] a second time.
The "liberal Russian segment", as they label themselves, can play a positive role if we enter a phase of prolonged cold war. But now, in the midst of an intense war, I don't think it will help win it.
In this regard, it is now more useful to work not with liberals who have left Russia, but with some journalist from Krasnodar, with a Buryat [member of a Mongolian ethnic minority in Siberia] who understands the real situation in the region, with a person from the psychological service of the Rosgvardia [National Guard of Russia], with a corrupt FSB agent who wants to defect out of selfish goals, etc.
Nevzorov may be useful for Ukraine in some way. Although not to the same extent as Pugacheva [Alla Pugacheva is a Russian singer who left Russia with her husband after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She hasn’t publicly commented on the war yet, but according to Marat Gelman, her close friend, Pugasheva thinks that a war is madness and that if a criminal case is opened against her husband (he is against of the war), then "Pugasheva will start talking and will not stop"].
In the United Kingdom there is a queen who appeals to multiple generations at once. For Russians, this is Pugacheva.
The Union fell - another country appeared; there was democracy, and now "Nazism", but for the Russians, there is always Pugacheva, who combines time and identity. She left Russia and has kept silent, but if she spoke, it would really be a psychological superweapon.
- The war with Russia requires consolidation in Ukraine. Particularly in the media. This may involve censorship and self-censorship. How to avoid slipping into a dictatorship?
- The BBC asked itself the same questions during the Second World War. There was censorship then, too, and there was a state institution that tried to monitor everything. But that's not the point. The issue is that a difficult decision was made somewhere in 1940: in order to maintain public trust, the BBC will talk about Great Britain's losses in the war. It was very risky and posed a threat to keep up the fighting spirit, but they decided to do so. And because of this, trust was preserved.
It is especially important during wartime for the country to be on the same page, so that the military and civilians breathe in harmony. There is a risk that soldiers see one reality and the media shows another.
Therefore, you need to find a balance. On the one hand, to maintain unity and the fighting spirit, and on the other, to remain honest with your readers or viewers. If this balance is not there, there is a risk of losing a sense of reality. If the soldiers see that society does not understand what is happening on the front, reality may begin to fragment.
It's a very delicate thing and very complicated. I don't envy the people who have to make decisions about what to talk about now and what to keep silent about. But self-criticism and honesty are mandatory.
- You are currently working in Ukraine on a project documenting Russian crimes. Is this an attempt to ensure that the experience of the war in Syria is not repeated, a war that quickly left the agenda of the world’s media?
- Not only in Syria, but also in Bosnia. The goal is to think one step ahead. What will happen in a year when CNN gets tired of this story?
Our aim is to coordinate the work of lawyers and journalists, who rarely work together. Journalists are often the first to arrive at a crime scene and collect great material, but then it can’t be used in court. This was the case in Bosnia: journalists interviewed women who were victims of rape, but they formulated the questions in such a way that lawyers could not work with this material. Of course, these are different professions, but minimum standards are needed so that they do not interfere with each other.
Our other goal is to show the systematic nature of Russia's crimes. If we write the story of Mariupol, it will be done together with the history of Grozny and Aleppo. It is necessary to show that Russia acts this way regularly and systematically, and therefore it is also necessary to solve this problem systematically.
Mykhailo Kryhel, Roman Romaniuk, Ukrainska Pravda
Pictures by Dmytro Larin