Putin's Triumph Beyond Love and Hate

Brief Reflections on a Victorious Tune

Discourses surrounding Putin's victory transcend the bounds of absurdity. From staunch admirers to equally fervent detractors, Putin's figure ignites debates of the most fervent nature.

"Putin's Victory in Last Week's Elections in Russia: A Stunning 87% Win with Record Voter Turnout of 73%!"

The elections held last week in Russia saw Putin emerge victorious with an astonishing 87% of the vote and a record-breaking voter turnout of 73%! Shades of the Ceaușescu era, with its memories, prompt us to believe we are witnessing another chapter akin to those experienced by us Romanians. Comrade Ceaușescu was almost unanimously voted for by a supposedly adoring populace, although in reality, we would have eagerly taken him down ourselves. As Vladimir Putin begins to seriously rival Stalin in the number of years spent in power, the temptation to see episodes of rigged elections from the dictatorship era repeated in Russia looms large.

Indeed, Putin's detractors, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media, rush to hurl as much mud as possible at Russia, and especially at Putin, sparing no derogatory epithets or pejorative terms. Politico rushes to denounce the Russian elections as "rigged," claiming, as do many other Western and Romanian mainstream publications, that the queues at polling stations were actually protests against Putin, and that Russians, even those outside Russia, rushed to queue only to protest. As Romanians, we've seen similar movies of rigged elections, so it seems plausible.

However, beyond this narrative that soothes our anxieties, the Levada Center, which even one of the media platforms most aligned with the official discourse on Russia, Hotnews, describes as a "reliable polling company," presents Putin with an 86% approval rating, compared to 71% before the start of the "special," ahem, military operation in Ukraine.

Well, this should give us pause. Seriously. Because one of the less comfortable hypotheses is that everything that happened in Ukraine is coming back to hit us like a boomerang. All the sanctions, the banning of all things Russian, from cats to Tolstoy, the prohibition of Russians flying to the West, all these measures that often bordered on the ridiculous, the attempts of intellectuals to also sling as much mud as possible at Russia, the abject manner in which they hunted "Putinists," just to look good in the end, all of these have likely turned against the West, and what we see is an enraged Russia. A population that has fully fallen into the trap of the discourse that has portrayed Russia for years as a fortress besieged by the dangerous West. Now, behold, through sanctions and the wave of hatred unleashed by Westerners, it seemed like a fulfilled prophecy. Moreover, it gave Russians the feeling that Putin is all that stands between their safety and the barbarian hordes ready to tear Mother Russia apart! If we take the Levada Center's data seriously, we can find similar situations in Romania's past: former President Ion Iliescu was voted overwhelmingly by Romanians with record turnouts at the polls.

In this second hypothesis, which seems at least as plausible as the first, Russians cast their ballots to express their fury towards the West and its sanctions, and the result was a pro-Putin outcome, but above all, an anti-West one. It's very difficult to render final verdicts on complicated political situations, however, I would hope that these hypotheses are taken seriously if we aim to transcend binary thinking and the vehemence of absolute truths.

Moreover, I closely follow the political commentary online with considerable scrutiny, and I can draw some conclusions regarding both Putin's admirers and detractors. In the following, I will briefly present some portraits of these individuals interspersed with a few personal considerations.

Let's start with the detractors. In the conservative camp, they are less numerous. Putin's Orthodoxy (while sending tens of thousands to their deaths) seems to strike a sensitive chord. However, from the perspective of an exceptional Romanianism based on great love for the Dacians, conservatives condemn Russians as "barbaric" brutes and violent, subhuman beings ready to obliterate our refined and advanced civilization with their primitive, ignoble instincts. It doesn't make much sense to analyze these discourses, which seem to say more about the mental balance of those who utter them than about reality.

But their condemnations pale in comparison to the virulence of the progressives and liberals. Ironically, the loudest screams come from the progressive camp. Putin is portrayed as the one who hates sexual minorities, feminists; he's depicted as a dictator, a patriarch, a backward and dangerous cis heterosexual Orthodox man. Judith Butler dreams of the day when he will miraculously disappear.

The situation is as convoluted as it gets. Three-letter security institutions and well-meaning NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy heavily finance non-governmental institutions, as Katie Halper has highlighted regarding the military, which don't hesitate to exploit the good name of sexual minorities to push the notion that only in the arms of the tolerant West can they survive. The attraction of progressive youth is deftly executed with the idea that only in the West can sexual minorities live peacefully because backward Russians cannot coexist with them. Or at least not as long as Putin remains in power. And there is some truth to what they say. Putin's party, United Russia, which might deserve a monument for internalized misogyny, epitomized by figures like Yelena Mizulina, has downgraded assaults on women from crimes to misdemeanors, initially punishable by fines

Putin's party defends Mother Russia, but not the mothers within Russia who, it seems, can endure punches from those who can afford to pay a simple fine. Furthermore, in November of last year, the Russian Supreme Court banned the LGBT movement as "extremist." Banning Western NGOs promoting equality and inclusion, along with such measures that "support Orthodoxy," is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the intention was to ban externally funded organizations, that would be understandable, but banning the movement as a whole is truly extreme and provides legitimate grounds for those who label Russia as backward. At 70 years old and under the influence of the Orthodox Church, Putin seems to have very little understanding of how the world is evolving regarding morals, with his attitudes reinforcing the image of an outraged pensioner facing the decadent Western youth. Of course, double standards are practiced, and while Russia is reproached for these things at every turn, the abuses in Poland against the LGBT community and the banning of abortion—which is still legal in Russia—pass almost unnoticed by comparison. Additionally, let's not forget that the beacon of progressivism, Donald Tusk, has done little to address the issue of abortions in Poland.

To see how complex the story is, the civilized and civilizing West, with its tanks and rockets, always finds a way to bombard the backward individuals who don't have the correct conception of sexuality. Muslims, Russians—they are wonderful targets for the progressive rocket that aims to force-feed them the right mindset and inclusivity in any way possible! If you think about it, it fits perfectly: pacifist progressives are terrified of the sexual barbarians who would mercilessly wipe them out if given the chance. Strategically, it's a well-targeted blow by the security apparatus, which, by insisting on the sexual backwardness of the "uncivilized" (Russians, Palestinians, Yemenis, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), undermines any potential pacifist movements emerging from the progressive areas of society.

Another species of detractors is that of neoliberals. Upset that Russia still maintains political control over the economy, that oligarchic elites haven't completely swallowed politics, they rush to predict Putin's demise, who, it seems, refuses to see the benefits brought by austerity, privatization, impossible loan conditions from institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, handing over resources to Western corporations on a silver platter, and other saving benefits! They rather have the appearance of foxes for whom the grapes - the enormous resources of Russia - are sour because Putin doesn't let them reach them. They are by far the most ridiculous, yet the most dangerous. They hold a dominant position in Western societies and they are advocates of unlimited war, even at the risk of frying us all in a nuclear explosion.

I saved the cherry on top for the end: the admirers. These are not few and they are very interesting in their own right. I confess I follow and study them with considerable diligence. I've spoken directly with Scott Ritter and Mark Sleboda. Their admiration comes in several types. Let's take them one by one.

The most delectable of all are undoubtedly the conservatives. Douglas Macgregor - a retired colonel from the US Army - presents the military situation very interestingly and balanced, but seems possessed by another person when it comes to explaining the situation in Russia. For him, like for many well-to-do neo-Protestant Americans, supremacists, racists to the core, Russia is... white. Russia is Christian, conservative, and anti-migration. It doesn't matter that it has millions of Muslims and that there is a great variety of ethnic and religious minorities there. You can't let a beautiful mental image be spoiled by details like these. Many fervent neo-Protestants have moved to Russia to escape Western decadence that threatened their "values". They see Putin as a Messiah, a patriarch of "normalcy" and rush into his welcoming arms, hoping to escape all the groups that annoy them: feminists, members of sexual minorities, people of color, and especially migrants. They project onto him the kind of masculinity they aspire to. The order, discipline, and cleanliness they find in Russia impress them. They, devout Christians, believe that fighting against a Christian and white Russia like them is not a good thing. It would be much more inspired to fight against China! Well, let's think about it: they're "yellow", they're atheists, they're communists! You couldn't find a more perfect enemy for the well-to-do neo-Protestant American even if you searched for a thousand years. How could we turn against our brothers, so white - admittedly, Russians are particularly aesthetically advantaged for those who adopt conservative beauty standards - so Orthodox and so conservative? Especially when we have the "yellow" Chinese, atheists, and communists at hand! Many explain Victoria Nuland's departure from the central American administration by the victory of this group of "hawks" who don't want war with Russia, but definitely want one with China.

I often listen to the discourse of Dan Dungaciu, a prominent member of the Romanian Academy, who almost wistfully asserted that we cannot do to Russia what it does to us. I warned back then that it was a criticism almost like praise. I wasn't mistaken. The idea of strength, order, and success guaranteed by ethnic purity and conservative values seemed extremely seductive for a broader swath of intellectuals than we would have thought.

Left-wing admirers of Putin are motivated by hatred towards capitalism and the West. Seeing in Putin a figure who truly stands in the way of Western corporatocracy and the destructive force of turbo capitalism, appreciating the fact that he managed to pull Russia out of its biggest disaster and set it back on track after the catastrophic 90s, these admirers see Putin as a desirable leader.

Their admiration is not to be easily overlooked. A few years ago, I conducted a small survey among my students. On that occasion, to my surprise and some concern, I found that students believed Romania would benefit from having a leader like Putin. In a world increasingly dominated by the pursuit of money, a world where even politicians and parties are bought, where everything seems to be for sale, a man who says a resounding no to this world has for this species of admirers, which is not statistically insignificant, an almost messianic allure.

I believe the analyses that praise Putin frame everything in religious terms of a confrontation between good - conservative, white, and Orthodox Russia - and evil: the decadent West. Looking at these commentators, I cannot help but marvel at their ability to self-delude. The confrontation we are witnessing is neither between democracy and autocracy, nor between white and beautiful races and less white and less beautiful races, nor between Christianity and atheism or between conservatism and progressivism.

It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth. I believe it is humor. And, in the spirit of humor and self-irony, I tell you that from the grand point of global geostrategy of Dragomirești Deal, the village where I lead my modest existence, what is now seen is a confrontation between economic systems. One dominated entirely by corporations, financialized and deregulated, and one in which the political factor still holds some control over the economy. I think Putin's orthodoxy would have been worth exactly as much as a frozen onion if he hadn't managed to keep Russia economically afloat, and that wouldn't have been possible without China's support. He wouldn't have been able to suddenly increase armament production if this branch of the economy had been completely privatized and had operated for profit, not for winning the war. Beyond detractors and admirers, I believe what prevails is the economy and how it is organized. In a recent debate about China, Rhadika Dessai and Michael Hudson invited Mick Dunford as a guest. I believe that if someone wants to understand something about what is happening, they need to look at... money and especially at how it is made in different parts of the world. As long as we only consider hypotheses that allow us to rest on our laurels and imagine that the world will not change, we will be at peace. Like the ostrich towards which the hurricane comes when it stands with its head in the ground.

Maria Cernat is a graduate of the Faculty of Journalism and Communication Sciences (FJSC) (2001) and of the Faculty of Philosophy (2004) of the University of Bucharest. She holds a Master`s Degree from FJSC in 2002 and in 2008 she got her PhD in Philosophy. She is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and Public Relations of Titu Maiorescu University and at the Faculty of Communication and Public Relations of SNSPA (National University of Political and Administrative Studies). Since 2011 she has published articles on Romanian websites for political debates (The Barricade, CriticAtac, Cealaltă Agendă, România Curată, Gazeta de Artă Politică, etc.). She is the president of the Institute for Media Research and Human Rights and she co-hosts a podcast focusing on Eastern-Europe politics „On the Barricades”.