With over 5.5 million views, the russian video titled "Я Русский Оккупант" (Ya Russki Okkupant) has caused quite a stir. Before you continue reading, I recommend that you take a couple of minutes and see this monstrosity for yourself.
The vast majority of non-Russian viewers have (quite rightly) passed this video off as propaganda. Unfortunately, they do so for the wrong reasons. Allow me to explain that there is nothing in this video that is not true. Except, of course, the 'occupant by birthright' segment. Of course, this video could not have risen from the hands of any Kremlin associate. The channel was created by some video editing hot-shot based out of vk (Eastern European social media) who just so happened to think of some interesting (and controversial) ideas for videos. In case you are unfamiliar with youtube, here is a link to this channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCED5DUaqfEGLd6p8PnKoEWw. I will now go through the separate instances of occupations to illustrate that the propaganda aspect of this video is not through what is said, but it seeps through what is not said.
To begin with, Siberia was, as the video states, occupied in 1581. This was the result of a power struggle in the region between Russia and the Siberian Khanate (Sibir). There was hardly any fighting involved in this power struggle, however. Once Russian explorers and landowners began building forts throughout Siberia, the Siberian Khanate basically dissolved itself. Siberia, today, remains a religiously diverse area. By this, I mean to say that the native Siberians were allowed to keep their religion. In addition, Siberia is the location of the JAO (Jewish Autonomous Oblast). This being said, the Russian occupation of Siberia had a significant net benefit for the indigenous population. Fur trading was booming and the rights of the natives were, for the most part, respected. So the Russian occupation occurred pretty much as the video said. The Siberian area was given new life, oppression wasn't a big issue, and everybody benefited.
In contrast with the Siberian occupation, the occupation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) came with far darker tones. The video refers to the Soviet occupation as opposed to the Russian Empire's conquest of those areas from Sweden (who conquered them from Denmark and the Livonian Order) in 1721. To be frank, the video would have gained some credibility in referencing the Russian Empire's occupation over the Soviet occupation, as the Soviet occupation involved mass arrests, a cultural war of 'political religion,' the forced relocation of thousands of Baltic inhabitants, as well as the hand off of Baltic land to Russian workers (All of the Baltic States still have sizable Russian minority groups). Again, nothing said in the video is untrue. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the populations of all of the Baltic nations have fallen dramatically. They have fallen to the point of domestic crisis, in fact.
As the video correctly states, the majority of Baltic emigrants fill cheap labor positions throughout the EU. The conclusion on this one is a complete toss-up. On one hand, the Soviet Union made the Baltic States livable. On the other, the policies of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev were unjustifiably wrong when dealing with the Baltic States. The video was partially correct on this one, but it left out very critical information that, if mentioned, voids the fantasy of a justified Soviet occupation.
Next up on the list are the Central Asian nations. (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan). As with the Baltic States, the video is referring to accomplishments made during the Soviet period. Again, the video does so to the detriment of its argument. The Central Asian Nations were colonized by the Russian Empire and were even a part of the short-lived 1917 Russian Republic. So, they stayed with Russia throughout the most turbulent events of its recent history. The region, however, rebelled against Bolshevik rule and declared autonomy. The new government of the so-called 'Turkestan' was short lived despite its valiant defiance of Soviet rule. After this, the story is very much the same as that of the Baltic Nations. Infrastructure was rapidly constructed and massacres, deportations, and forced migration were commonplace. The end of the story is that the video is, again, only partially correct. Whether or not the average quality of life increase was worth the atrocities is up for debate. Although, you might want to refrain from arguing with the locals, as they know the answer for themselves.
Now, for the biggest offender-- Ukraine. It is one thing to occupy the provinces of your enemies, wage war with those who constrain your ethnic borders, or colonize the vast stretches of land on your frontiers. But, to commit planned genocide of your nation's brother (Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus were born out of the same nation-- Kievan Rus'), exploit its people for grain profits, and generally label them as 'untrustworthy' cannot be balanced out by tanks, aircraft, or automobiles (as the video would love to attempt). Granted, the Russian people also suffered from the same crimes of their government, but not to the extent of the Ukrainians. If you want a picture painted for you, then look up the Soviet famine of 1932-33. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Eastern Europe. It produced grain. And it did so long before the Russians conquered Ukraine from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1793-95 (The Poles referred to Ukraine and Ukrainians as Ruthenia and Ruthenians, respectively). Stalin (and to a certain extent, his successors) intentionally starved out Ukraine by harvesting its grain and selling it on international markets (mostly to the US and Canada, ironically), which left hardly any grain left for the population. The non-farming populations of the Ukraine would fall, and more grain could be sold internationally. Horribly evil and brutally brilliant. The video's comparison of post-Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Ukraine is undoubtedly its biggest flaw. While the situation in Ukraine improved over the years in the Soviet Union; the crimes that were committed against the Ukrainian people remained equally numerous. I would dare say that this is one instance, in which, it is not arguable that the video was completely wrong. If the video, again, had chosen to examine Imperial Russia, the situation would not be quite as bad. As it stands, however, this is where the propaganda aspect of this video truly shows its ugly head.
I don't think that I have to comment on the 'occupant by birthright' segment because I think that the narrator was being sarcastic at that point.
As for the rest of the video, I liked the segments about the 'time of troubles (Polish-Lithuanian Invasion & Occupation, failed Livonian War, Succession Crisis, etc.),' the war of 1812, and WW2 which show the resiliency and determination of the Russian nation & people. It was refreshing to get away from the propaganda and actually take a look at why Russia (NOT the Soviet Union) is so awesome (Obviously the Soviet Union fought WW2, but during this time, Stalin loosened his grip on his war against non-Soviet Culture. He even made promises and concessions to reward his citizens if they won the war. The average Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, etc. could look at the promises made and see everything that they wanted their nation to be. This nation, arguably, was a close depiction of where the Russian Empire would have been, had it not been interrupted. Obviously, it was all a lie).
As for 'Western Values' and fake 'Democracy,' I will inevitably address those issues in detail later. So I will leave them alone for now.
The last segment, which involved an email to Barack Obama, was very clever. And, on another side note, it it pretty obvious that the animator (ОКеям Нет--OKeyam Nyet) used the Battlefield 3 Russian Soldier model. I, admittedly, giggled for a little bit upon realizing it.
This video truly is unofficial propaganda, but keep in mind that some of its claims hold some merit. Of course, just about everything, including the nature of this video, is up for debate.
---The 'Putin's missing' Scare---
Normally, I ignore most misinformed tripe about Putin, Russia, Putin's Russia, The New Cold War, etc. that is thrown out of alarmingly self-obsessed news outlets, but this one really got me thinking. No, not about Putin dying, or getting married, or taking a vacation, or affair this or alien abduction that. No. I was worried about who will become president of Russia once Putin is done. Obviously, with its overwhelming popular support, United Russia will remain in majority. In addition, a UR candidate would likely win any election. This brings up Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is hardly known in the west. Imagine Joe Biden, but he speaks Russian. He is a decent administrator but, for the most part, he is the government's public relations guy. Some unfair allegations have arisen that his is Putin's lapdog. The simple fact is that the two politicians are friends. Plain and simple. But back to the point. Medvedev is no Putin. Perhaps he can learn from close observation, but I am skeptical. As for the other options-- unless oligarchs, communists, or incompetent nationalists sound particularly attractive, I would hope that the Russians hunt high and low for another candidate as able and as dedicated to his/her country as Putin has been. I am now legitimately concerned about Russia's future, as no ruler, I fear, can guide Russia to the future that it deserves once Putin is gone. Obviously, by western standards, Putin is a dictator. But that is why he is so brilliant. As I said above with other issues, I will inevitably go into more detail at a later date, but I will go ahead and wrap up. I fear that no other leader can walk the same tightrope between democracy and autocracy. I fear that no other leader can tread between Russia's need to escape the shadow of communism while upholding the accomplishments of that era. And I certainly fear that no other leader has the backbone to set a nation's wealthy few into their place. Before you ask about his foreign policy, I'm afraid that I'll have to put that topic off until later also (But you can check out the book Frontline Ukraine by Richard Sawka if you are itching for information on the subject-- It was written by a Pole so you don't have to worry about untruthful Pro-Russian comments).
As usual, thanks for reading. And, of course, never take my word as fact. If you're interested, look this stuff up yourself and formulate your own opinion. Chances are such that it will be different than mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment