Laurie Essig

It takes Russian literature to understand Russia ' s spy ring

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife"][/caption]

There is shock and dismay in today's papers about the sneakiness that is Russia. Yesterday US authorities arrested ten "Americans" who were in fact Russian sleepers.  As if off the pages of a bad Cold War era spy novel, these people had been sent to live in the US and become as American as apple pie all in an effort to extract information... eventually.  In fact, it does not seem as if any of the sleepers were actively engaged in espionage as much as they were at "fitting in" so when the time came, they would be able to spy more easily. A neighbor of one of the sleeper couples,"known as Richard and Cynthia Murphy of Montclair, NJ joked:

They couldn’t have been spies.  Look what she did with the hydrangeas.”

And even President Obama has expressed dismay about the timing of the arrests, coming as it does just days after hanging out for burgers with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and  "pushing the reset button" on US-Russian relations. But the real way to understand all of this is not through politics, but literature. Americans love them a good romance or even an adventure story.  We like good guys and bad guys.  We like unilinear narratives where a story progresses and is resolved.  We are a country that believes in renewal and even "resetting" foreign policy.  Russia is not.  In fact, Russian literature is full of competing truths, contradictions, a circular notion of history that does not so much progress as move around and around.  There are not heroes in white cowboy hats as much as characters who must reach some state of  utter debasement (padeni'e) that then and only then can they understand the true absurdity of it all. So when the Cold War ended in the US, we Americans rewrote our foreign policy narratives to turn the bad guys, the Soviets, into good guys, the newly "democratic" Russians.  The Russians, meanwhile, continued to have very complicated feelings toward the US.  For ordinary Russians as well as policy makers, the US was powerful and therefore had to be taken into account.  But the US was also still seen as imperialistic (although primarily cultural imperialism after the Soviet Union), too simplistic, and far too arrogant. When I was writing my first book, Queer in Russia, I was struck at the simplistic nature of Western notions of sexuality.  One was either gay or straight.  And many Western gays saw it as their mission to convert Russians to seeing things in the same way.  The Westerners would patiently explain to the Russians that it was their job to "progress" and "come out" so they could be "liberated."  The Russians, offended not just by the assumption of superiority on the part of the Westerners but also by what they saw as Western rules and regulations around desire, often complained bitterly about the Westerners/colonizers.  "What do they think?  We drink vodka and dance with bears and it is their job to civilize us?" they'd ask me.  Yes, they kinda did and we as a country kinda do. The hubris of Empire is that we truly and really believe that the way we do things is the most evolved way and thus all the world wishes to be like us.  We missed the part that while we were living out a John Wayne fantasy of liberating the Russkis from the Commies, the Russian government and people were writing something far more like Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov."  Remember the scene where the Grand Inquisitor is speaking with Jesus Christ who has returned to save the people?  As they talk the Inquisitor - who is Russia - explains to Jesus - who is the US - that it is truly the Inquisitor who cares about the people since what the people really want is an easy set of rules to follow in this life, not some impossible set of standards to ascend into Heaven in the hereafter.  At some point, Jesus/the US understands that his righteousness is not really what the masses need and he kisses the Grand Inquisitor to show that he understands the error of his ways. Let the US kiss the Russian government in forgiveness over the spy scandal.  The Americans  were the ones that said the Cold War was over and that Russia was suddenly a democracy.  All the Russians ever said is they would utilize other ideologies - like neoliberal economics and Christian Orthodoxy - to move the people to do the state's bidding.

What the US can learn from Russia

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

I used to be a "Sovietologist."  One of those students of the former Soviet Union who tried to figure out what was going on there and then, sometimes, apply those lessons to here.  Unlike my more conservative colleagues, I was interested in what the US could learn about spending too much of its wealth on the military industrial complex rather than infrastructure.  I was also interested in the neo-political parties that began to form in the 1980s that seemed to signal an end to the Soviet Empire. But, after years of living in Moscow, I returned to the US and began to concentrate on this American life.  If I were going to continue to apply those lessons, they would be more or less the same: the US cannot continue to spend about half of its tax revenues on the military-industrial complex without facing both financial ruin and the end of its Empire.  And when proto-politial parties like the Tea Party appear, the existing and seemingly fixed 2-party system is about to collapse in the same way that the Communist Party lost hold on power. There are even more important lessons to be learned from yesterday's attacks in the Moscow metro, important lessons about the limits of force.  According to press reports, the attacks were carried out by two young women who are part of anti-Russian movements in the Caucasus.  The response of the Russian government in the past has been to increase the use of force and military might to "clamp down" on Muslim extremism.  Although the current Medvedev regime has spoken of addressing the systemic causes of terrorism (like unrelenting poverty), the man-behind-the curtain, Vladimir Putin, wants to rule with an iron fist.

On Monday... some senior members of Mr. Putin’s political party, United Russia, were already suggesting that the government needed to adopt a stern new plan to combat terrorism...Mr. Putin said the organizers of the bombings were hiding but would be captured. He said they needed to be “dragged out of the sewers into the broad daylight. And it will be done.”

Putin's talk represents the problem, not the solution. Russia's wars in the Caucasus have created a generation of young people who live with the effects of violence in their land.  Dead relatives, unrelenting poverty, and a highly-polluted environment that makes the next generation sick and often deformed does not lead to lasting peace.  It leads to lasting war, even if that war can sometimes be contained in the Caucasus. Sound familiar?  Think Afghanistan.  Think Iraq.  War creates enemies- dehumanized others to be "dragged from the sewers."  A few years back I spent some time with a young Chechen man who had escaped Russia's war there.  The young man  was a surgical assistant who operated on both Chechen and Russian soldiers, as needed.  The Russians captured him and tortured him.  Buried him in the ground and burned him with cigarettes.  Surprisingly, this man held no ill will toward the Russian people.  In fact, while he was studying English with a young Russian woman, he was shocked to learn that she thought of Chechens as "animals" and "subhuman."  He was also shocked by the glee with which young Americans went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He couldn't understand how anyone could embrace war as a solution. This young man was right.  War creates hate.  You can subdue your enemy, but they're still your enemy.  The Obama administration might or might not be successful in subduing their enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they will never be successful in creating lasting peace with war. This is illustrated by the words of Chechen rebel leader, Doku Umarov:

If Russians think that the war is happening only on television, somewhere far off in the Caucasus, and it will not touch them, then we are going to show them that this war will return to their homes."

Sound familiar?  It should.  It's the same thing anti-American Muslim groups have been promising to do on American soil for decades.  What the US needs is a policy of peace, not war.  Unless it wants to continue to face the same sort of terror that hit the Moscow metro system yesterday.  War does not equal peace.  That's the only lesson that can be learned from Russia.

Federal Protective Agency ineffective, or is it?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

According to a Government Accountability Office report, you can fairly easily get past the security at federal buildings with all the materials you need to build an explosive device.  Better, you can then assemble that explosive device inside and walk around the building with it and apparently no one will bother you.  Why?  Because the guards are too busy napping or worrying about that bottle of water you're trying to sneak through. Federal Eye - GAO: Major Security Flaws at Federal Buildings. Security at the federal buildings is run by the Federal Protective Service, which, probably coincidentally, is a name taken on by one of the KGB's successors in Russia.  Of course, this would not be the effective government agency of a James Bond movie, but the bumbling and ineffective Keystone Kop-like agency of an absurdist samizdat novel. Even for those of us not going through security at federal buildings regularly, we are well aware of the Keystone Kop antics of the TSA at airports.  Okay, admittedly the TSA manages to confiscate about 13 million illicit items a year, but since most of those items are lighters and handcream in a 4 ounce bottle, such security is not terribly effective at things like finding weapons (Unless you count things like sewing scissors and Swiss Army knives which aren't terribly good for killing people anyway.  Think about how difficult cutting someone with a dull pocket knife would be.  Much easier to just snap their necks with your hands.  But I digress). Which leaves us with the question why?  Why are we spending billions of dollars a year for extremely ineffective security in our airports and federal buildings?  The answer has more to do with the KGB than you might think. Fear is a highly effective state to keep a population in.   People who are afraid of attacks at airports and federal buildings don't really have much time to question what the state is doing to "protect" us.  Clearly there is a threat, why else would they be taking my  hand cream from my suitcase?  Clearly there is a threat, why else would I have to go through this metal detector just to go into my local passport office? We ritualistically enact our vulnerability as a nation state and as individuals each and every time we go through one of these security check points.  In this way, we are reminded that we "need" protection.  Military invasions are justified.  Defense expenditures are reasonable.  Violations of civil liberties understandable. In other words, the function of federally-run security is not to keep weapons out as much as to keep us in.  In a state of constant and perpetual fear of attack and invasion. So the next time you get pulled out of line and told your child's sippy cup is suspicious, remember to feel vulnerable in the face of total security.

Federal Protective Agency ineffective, or is it?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

According to a Government Accountability Office report, you can fairly easily get past the security at federal buildings with all the materials you need to build an explosive device.  Better, you can then assemble that explosive device inside and walk around the building with it and apparently no one will bother you.  Why?  Because the guards are too busy napping or worrying about that bottle of water you're trying to sneak through. Federal Eye - GAO: Major Security Flaws at Federal Buildings. Security at the federal buildings is run by the Federal Protective Service, which, probably coincidentally, is a name taken on by one of the KGB's successors in Russia.  Of course, this would not be the effective government agency of a James Bond movie, but the bumbling and ineffective Keystone Kop-like agency of an absurdist samizdat novel. Even for those of us not going through security at federal buildings regularly, we are well aware of the Keystone Kop antics of the TSA at airports.  Okay, admittedly the TSA manages to confiscate about 13 million illicit items a year, but since most of those items are lighters and handcream in a 4 ounce bottle, such security is not terribly effective at things like finding weapons (Unless you count things like sewing scissors and Swiss Army knives which aren't terribly good for killing people anyway.  Think about how difficult cutting someone with a dull pocket knife would be.  Much easier to just snap their necks with your hands.  But I digress). Which leaves us with the question why?  Why are we spending billions of dollars a year for extremely ineffective security in our airports and federal buildings?  The answer has more to do with the KGB than you might think. Fear is a highly effective state to keep a population in.   People who are afraid of attacks at airports and federal buildings don't really have much time to question what the state is doing to "protect" us.  Clearly there is a threat, why else would they be taking my  hand cream from my suitcase?  Clearly there is a threat, why else would I have to go through this metal detector just to go into my local passport office? We ritualistically enact our vulnerability as a nation state and as individuals each and every time we go through one of these security check points.  In this way, we are reminded that we "need" protection.  Military invasions are justified.  Defense expenditures are reasonable.  Violations of civil liberties understandable. In other words, the function of federally-run security is not to keep weapons out as much as to keep us in.  In a state of constant and perpetual fear of attack and invasion. So the next time you get pulled out of line and told your child's sippy cup is suspicious, remember to feel vulnerable in the face of total security.

Obama negotiates more death in Afghanistan with Russia ' s help.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="Image by tsevis via Flickr"][/caption]

It's official.  President Obama is a diplomatic genius.  What else can explain this fact:  on Friday the White House announced that Russia will now allow up to ten flights a day through their airspace so the US military can more effectively wage war in Afghanistan. Russia to Open Airspace to U.S. for Afghan War - NYTimes.com. Wow!  Russia and the US can both agree to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan.  Such diplomacy.  Such historical sweep.  Such lunacy. If only we had leaders in the US and Russia who were interested in diplomatic goals such as a more peaceful world.  Instead, we have a slightly more stylish and charming version of Dubbya and Putin (well, Obama's more stylish and charming; Medvedev not so much).  In fact, Obama's diplomacy in Russia is so similar to Dubbya's that the Russians are not really seeing the change. Obama continues to anger not just the Russian leaders, but also many ordinary Russians with his continuation of Dubbya's insane star wars-style missile defense shield over Eastern Europe. Obama is also making many Russians cranky by continuing Dubbya's habit of criticizing Russia's wars of Empire (in Georgia for instance) while waging his own.  If the US wants to lead by example and tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia, Ukraine, and other former colonies, then Obama would have to end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the continued talk of interference elsewhere. It's that whole glass house thing.  The Russians, both the politicians and the people, can hardly take the White House's calls for military restraint seriously given that Obama has continued pursuing these wars with such enthusiasm.  If being able to fly over Russia to kill Afghanis is what Obama considers a major diplomatic victory, then he, like the Russians, believes diplomacy is not about making peace, but pursuing imperial interests. Oh, and pursuing corporate interests as well.  Obama has been trying to cut a deal to get Russia admitted into the World Trade Organization and if that works, then Obama's status as diplomat extradordinaire will be secure. Meanwhile, real opportunities are being lost to lead by example.  Sure, the US is a military Empire the likes of which the world has never seen, BUT we still have something like freedom of speech- unlike Russia, where such freedoms were never really established, and under Putin and his puppet Medvedev, are disappearing.  According to Oleg Kozlovsky, the Russian state recently increased state control over speech by controlling not just journalism, but history as well.

Russia now has its own little Ministry of Truth. Dmitry Medvedev issued the decree to create a new body with a long but meaningful name: the Presidential Commission for Prevention of Falsification of History to the Prejudice of Russia’s Interests. This Commission will monitor “attempts to falsify historical facts and events” that may undermine “the international prestige of the Russian Federation” and coordinate efforts of government institutions of “adequate response to… and neutralization” of such attempts.

Surely Obama could at least press the Russian government on freedom of speech issues (since here the US doesn't look like a giant hypocrite)? Admitedly, the US government has ignored the  Constitution, regularly tortured prisoners held without trial, waged endless war without provocation, and generally behaved like a bully.  But we the People also record all this with an unprecedented amount of freedom and multiplicity of media. I suppose as long as Americans can talk about what's going on now and what has gone on in the past, we have something to celebrate this 4th of July.  Not American militarism, Emprie, hypocricy, or corporations.  But truth, justice, and the hope, however small, that being able to resist tyranny with a written declaration is possible.

Obama negotiates more death in Afghanistan with Russia ' s help.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="Image by tsevis via Flickr"][/caption]

It's official.  President Obama is a diplomatic genius.  What else can explain this fact:  on Friday the White House announced that Russia will now allow up to ten flights a day through their airspace so the US military can more effectively wage war in Afghanistan. Russia to Open Airspace to U.S. for Afghan War - NYTimes.com. Wow!  Russia and the US can both agree to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan.  Such diplomacy.  Such historical sweep.  Such lunacy. If only we had leaders in the US and Russia who were interested in diplomatic goals such as a more peaceful world.  Instead, we have a slightly more stylish and charming version of Dubbya and Putin (well, Obama's more stylish and charming; Medvedev not so much).  In fact, Obama's diplomacy in Russia is so similar to Dubbya's that the Russians are not really seeing the change. Obama continues to anger not just the Russian leaders, but also many ordinary Russians with his continuation of Dubbya's insane star wars-style missile defense shield over Eastern Europe. Obama is also making many Russians cranky by continuing Dubbya's habit of criticizing Russia's wars of Empire (in Georgia for instance) while waging his own.  If the US wants to lead by example and tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia, Ukraine, and other former colonies, then Obama would have to end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the continued talk of interference elsewhere. It's that whole glass house thing.  The Russians, both the politicians and the people, can hardly take the White House's calls for military restraint seriously given that Obama has continued pursuing these wars with such enthusiasm.  If being able to fly over Russia to kill Afghanis is what Obama considers a major diplomatic victory, then he, like the Russians, believes diplomacy is not about making peace, but pursuing imperial interests. Oh, and pursuing corporate interests as well.  Obama has been trying to cut a deal to get Russia admitted into the World Trade Organization and if that works, then Obama's status as diplomat extradordinaire will be secure. Meanwhile, real opportunities are being lost to lead by example.  Sure, the US is a military Empire the likes of which the world has never seen, BUT we still have something like freedom of speech- unlike Russia, where such freedoms were never really established, and under Putin and his puppet Medvedev, are disappearing.  According to Oleg Kozlovsky, the Russian state recently increased state control over speech by controlling not just journalism, but history as well.

Russia now has its own little Ministry of Truth. Dmitry Medvedev issued the decree to create a new body with a long but meaningful name: the Presidential Commission for Prevention of Falsification of History to the Prejudice of Russia’s Interests. This Commission will monitor “attempts to falsify historical facts and events” that may undermine “the international prestige of the Russian Federation” and coordinate efforts of government institutions of “adequate response to… and neutralization” of such attempts.

Surely Obama could at least press the Russian government on freedom of speech issues (since here the US doesn't look like a giant hypocrite)? Admitedly, the US government has ignored the  Constitution, regularly tortured prisoners held without trial, waged endless war without provocation, and generally behaved like a bully.  But we the People also record all this with an unprecedented amount of freedom and multiplicity of media. I suppose as long as Americans can talk about what's going on now and what has gone on in the past, we have something to celebrate this 4th of July.  Not American militarism, Emprie, hypocricy, or corporations.  But truth, justice, and the hope, however small, that being able to resist tyranny with a written declaration is possible.