Rubles Thrown Away?

At first glance, one might say that Russian intelligence officers are wasting their effort and money here. In Slovenia, at least by their own account, no one supports Russia’s aggression against Ukraine or President Putin’s policies. Even one of the candidates in the European elections indignantly denied any sympathy for the Kremlin vozhd, delivering his indignant denial right after a touching farewell to a freshly expelled Russian spy. The choice of farewell gift went straight to my heart. To paraphrase the old Slovenian children’s rhyme: I’m just a little girl, I don’t know how to give wishes, so I give you a kiss and a little saber. Perhaps, as a reward for the effort invested in Slovenia, the expelled Russian snoop will get some Gauleiter post—or whatever the administrators of occupied territories are called in Russian occupier-speak—in Ukraine. There, with the gift from his Slovenian pals, he will be able to sabrer champagne from occupied Crimea, and the unruly local population too. His party colleague and leader denied any Russophilia even more indignantly, right after the publication of a video in which he summed up all the talking points from the Kremlin crib sheet on the causes of the special military operation. Resnica (Truth). Nomen nyet omen.

Politicians who appeared on the recently exposed Russian propaganda outlet Voice of Europe also deny any harmony with the Russian president’s policies. Unlike the first group, they have some weighty arguments for their claims. They can in no way be accused of supporting Russian aggression. From the very beginning of this story, they have supported Ukraine. At first glance the whole affair is therefore illogical. Why would a Russian propaganda outlet invite someone who supports Ukraine? To get to the bottom of it, we probably need to put the question slightly differently. Why would a Russian propaganda outlet invite someone despite their supporting Ukraine? Some may think it was an attempt at balanced editorial policy and a presentation of different views. Who knows. The Kremlin has traditionally shown little sympathy for balance. Independent thinkers are quickly shown the door. Some only get as far as the window.

To understand the cost-benefit analysis—as economists would call it—of what publishing these interviews brought the Russian propaganda machine, a broader view is needed. Was anything said in these interviews, besides support for Ukraine, that brings grist to the mill of Putin’s policies? Let us recall that from the very beginning Putin has explained and justified his platform of power, his attitude toward the world and also his aggression against a neighboring country by the need to defend the Russian nation and its traditional values from the destructive decadence threatening from the West. The populist wave that in recent years—with Russian help and under Russian influence—has swept over many Western democracies builds its march to power on talking points written in the Kremlin. On stoking fear and hatred of others and those who are different. Migrants, sexual minorities and women who think for themselves are to blame for everything. Sound familiar? Culture war played to a Russian score is the remote control with which Putin—so far very successfully—creates social polarization and steers us exactly where he wants us. Into the self-destruction of everything that distinguishes an open democratic society from nationalist authoritarianism and the prison in which the Russian vozhd has locked up his fellow citizens.

The picture is similar on the other side of the political spectrum; there, too, no one supports the aggression and Putin’s policies. And they, too, have quite a few arguments for their claims. At least regarding the culture-war themes with which Putin snares their political opponents on the right. On the aggression against Ukraine, they support neither side. They are for peace. And they don’t like the Americans. On both counts, it is hard not to agree with them. Who isn’t for peace? And we all know the US has a great deal to answer for. There is probably no possible path to more peace and stability in the world that would not require criticism and correction of American policy toward most crisis hotspots, starting with its attitude toward Netanyahu’s killing of the Palestinian population in Gaza. But it is one thing to be critical, even condemnatory, on the basis of arguments (of which there is no shortage), and another to hold an a priori ideological dogma that in Pavlovian anti-Americanism has found a plug for every logical and ethical dead end into which the inevitable conflict between their noble-sounding slogans and reality leads them. At the extreme poles of the political spectrum, two mirror logics have been established that feed each other. For some, migrants, feminists and sexual minorities are to blame for everything; for others, the Americans, NATO and the West. Putin doesn’t care. Both suit him.

Without the anti-American ace up their sleeve, the credibility of the “peace” theses collapses like a house of cards. They are for peace. To end the war, we must stop helping Ukraine. Because more weapons have never brought peace. I am convinced that they themselves understand that a peace achieved through Ukraine’s surrender would bring victory to Putin. Since this cannot logically be denied, such an outcome must be ethically justified, or at least relativized. The Americans were to blame for the war anyway. Their support for the Maidan revolution, Victoria Nuland, blah, blah, blah, NATO enlargement and so on. The complete repertoire of “arguments” explaining why Russia actually had no choice but to “protect its interests by armed means,” as President Putin explained a few days ago at the congress of “independent” Russian trade unions.

The thesis of the responsibility of the victim, who prolongs the war by resisting the aggressor, is also, to put it mildly, questionable. This should be especially true in Slovenia, which, at least for now, is still for the most part proud of the courage and sacrifice we showed in the fight against fascism. The Slovenian nation did not fight the German occupier by holding hands and singing kumbaya. The moral predicament revealed by the analogy between the Slovenian and Ukrainian national liberation struggles cannot be dispelled by the fact that we Slovenians were fighting fascism. Because the Ukrainians are doing that too. How else to describe the imperialist, authoritarian, militarized and violent ideology of the Kremlin despot? I would particularly like to hear an explanation from people who otherwise never hesitate to stick similar labels on people who, by any serious criteria of fascistoid conduct, do not (at least for now) come up to Putin’s knees.

With such discourses, of which there are many and ever more in the Slovenian public space, many will think that the stories about Russian intelligence rubles are not entirely made up. Who knows. So far I have seen no evidence that anyone here has been paid to take part in the Russian propaganda war. Besides, there are evidently enough candidates willing to play the role of useful idiots for free. We can think what we like about Putin and Russian intelligence, but they know us better than we know ourselves. With surgical precision they identify our frustrations, fixations and delusions and then simply push the buttons; we do all the rest ourselves. Why waste rubles when in the end the Slovenian mentality prevails? I don’t need a professional for this; I’ll fix it all myself.