19

In Conversation: Yevgenia Albats at ANU

A prominent Russian dissident journalist offers in a talk at ANU surprisingly balanced views on political life in Russia today

Tony Kevin

I had the pleasure of hearing Yevgenia Markovna Arbats, Russian independent journalist, political scientist, radio host, and chief editor of the Moscow-based New Times magazine, in public conversation at the Australian National University, Canberra on 5 June. The event was advertised by ANU as a discussion of…

…the interplay between Russia’s domestic politics and its disposition to shape events beyond its borders. Forthright journalist and radio host on Russia’s only remaining liberal radio station ‘Moscow Echo’, Yevgenia Albats has risked controversy and criticism throughout her 20+ year media career. Also holding a PhD in political science from Harvard University, she is one of the most qualified people to talk about her homeland to ever arrive on Australia’s shores.”

The audience was predominantly from Australia’s intelligence and related think-tank communities, emeritus and present, with a sprinkling of academics and diplomats.

Feeling rather like Daniel in the lions’ den, I was pleasantly surprised by Yevgenia Markovna’s talk and responses. I had expected the usual anti-Putin sneers and condescension towards Russia, favoured by Russian emigre and dissident journalists appearing in Western media: people who feed and are fed by Western Russophobia.

Arbats proved to be a more interesting and complex presenter than this. Her main themes as I understood them are worth noting.

She gave a basically optimistic picture of Russia today, long on anecdote, and avoiding many of the usual sweeping negatives. She rejected Western stereotypes of a Russia that oscillates endlessly between phases of authoritarianism and relaxation, and that Russia is now moving back into a more repressive phase.

She noted that all European countries have had cruel and undemocratic histories, to which Russia is no exception. She was optimistic about Russia’s present democratic prospects and rejected the stereotype that the Russian people are unsuited to democracy. She emphasised that Russia is not the Soviet Union and there is no prospect of going back to that repressive model. She noted the growth of volunteerism and local democracy in the regions.

She liked living in Russia and had no wish to emigrate, despite problems with censorship of her journalism. She proudly noted the recent public raising of $370,000 in Russia to help ‘New Times’ pay a crippling fine for failing to register as an agent of foreign influence.

She said Russian political parties were insignificant, it was effectively a one-party state. She blamed selfish and greedy leadership elites for Russia’s present problems as she saw them. Though Putin’s popularity had now declined from its peak after the Crimea annexation, and people felt poorer now, she did not expect any successful popular revolution from below.

She expected Putin to ensure his own safety in a succession plan, as Gorbachev and Yeltsin had done. Political change was likely to come, if it came at all, from power struggles within the governing elite. She hoped that change would be peaceful when it came.

She rejected the stereotype of inevitable conflict between Russia and China. She noted that it is hard for Russian elites to accept that Russia’s economic strength has been overtaken by China’s. She did not see evidence that China has any designs on Russian territory or resources. She noted the difficulties facing Chinese investment in Russia: high-interest rates in both countries, and lack of local labour forces in Russia. She thought that Russia’s natural resources assets would become less significant as the world moves away from reliance on oil and gas.

She did not say much about renascent Russian military power, beyond that it was starving the civilian economy of much-needed high technology, the same mistake the Soviets had made.

Other things Yevgenia Markovna did not speak on, but on which one would have liked to hear her views: problems in Russian-US relations and in maintenance of international peace under the aggressive and erratic Trump leadership; new more fluid possibilities for international cooperation as global structures based on US hegemonic power wane in importance and new structures like BRI and EAEC move into the vacuum; the impact on Russian domestic politics of American information warfare and efforts to foster regime change, through disruptive political actors like Browder and Navalny, especially since the events in Ukraine post-2013.

I was graciously offered the first audience question. I commended Yevgenia Markovna on her surprisingly positive and optimistic picture, rather different from the usual negativity and disdain from Western and Western-sponsored information warriors.

I referenced my background as a former diplomat in Brezhhnev’s Russia and my three recent private visits there, my love of and respect for Russia, including for its leadership elites. To her reply that perhaps I needed to spend more time in Russia to get to know it better, I said that I would love to be able to afford a flat in Yalta or Sochi.

I noted that her own opportunities as a writer, broadcaster and editor in Russia as she had described them today suggest to me that Russia’s present political situation and trends might be better than she assessed them. I did not have time to say that, on my experience, it is hard for Australian writers to find ways to express in print or online contrarian views on the need for greater Western respect for and dialogue with Russia.

As Russia moves towards greater democracy, Australia is sadly moving in the opposite direction: as seen in today’s disturbing news of police raids on Australian journalists’ homes and the ABC. I suggested that our two countries’ present levels of freedom of public expression might perhaps not be very different.

Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat, independent writer and author of Return to Moscow, University of Western Australia Publishing, March 2017.

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: latest, Media Criticism, Russia
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

19 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tony Kevin
Tony Kevin
Jun 19, 2019 1:54 AM

A very interesting discussion, thank you. A lot of good ideas generated here. I agree SPIEF was a great success.

I copped a bit of backflap from one of the Australian Putinophobes. He was angry that I had accentuated the positives in Albats’ presentation. But I reported what I heard.

John A
John A
Jun 14, 2019 8:37 AM

“She did not say much about renascent Russian military power, beyond that it was starving the civilian economy of much-needed high technology, the same mistake the Soviets had made.”
Well, as I understand it, the US spends around 750 bn dollars on the MIC and Russia about 60-70bn or less than 1/10th. And this does not include all the NATO puppet spending that together with the US, dwarfs the Russian bill.
So sure, it may well be that the Russian civilian sector is being starved, but surely to a far lesser extent than in the US, where the infrastructure is totally crumbling, homelessness has reached ridiculous levels, healthcare is totally unaffordable for many and the list goes on. The US is far more likely to collapse, USSR style, than Russia. If and when the dollar hegamony is smashed, the sooner the better for the rest of the world.

BigB
BigB
Jun 14, 2019 12:28 PM
Reply to  John A

No, it’s not John …no it’s not. If the dollar hegemony were ‘smashed’ it would collapse the global economy and precipitate a deep recession, and many, many people would die. It is not desirable: and neither is the likely successor economy. World trade is mediated in the reserve currency – which is actually the ‘eurodollar’, not the dollar …but let’s not complicate it. We actually had a collapse of the reserve currency just a decade ago: so we know from living memory what will happen. According to the BIS: it started ‘offshore’ with a dollar shortfall of $2-6.5tn dollars (forget collateralised debt obligations and securitised mortgages – even the Federal Committee concluded this was not a big enough shortfall to cause globalised partial collapse): which caused the trans-national interbank market to collapse – which were deemed ‘Too Big To Fail’ as they were starting to drag whole countries under. Oil… Read more »

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 14, 2019 10:31 PM
Reply to  BigB

All eyes were on the Fed: but it was China that was best placed to bail out the global economy. Which it did by buying up US debt (in the form of Treasury bonds) … Actually, China began significantly reducing their holdings of US T-bills after the 2008 crash, realizing they were over-exposed to the dollar. That was one of the principal purposes of the Fed’s QE: to vacuum up the T-bills the Chinese were quietly unloading on the aftermarket so that US bond yields wouldn’t get too high. The Chinese have since dramatically expanded the use of their own currency for handling current accounts–and they have also expanded the use of other currencies for the same reason: ruble, rial, etc. In other words, the Chinese have worked to decrease their dependence on the US dollar as both a trade medium and and investment medium. BRICS is another example of… Read more »

BigB
BigB
Jun 15, 2019 12:24 AM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

That’s simply rubbish: China significantly expanded it’s holdings …with no drop off until 2016. This was the first graph I could find:

https://images.app.goo.gl/p1gGVMtzYydEai5C7

The share of the RMB/CNY has actually fallen since it was included in the SDR basket. As a share of the global reserve: it’s less than 2%.

https://matasii.com/us-dollar-status-as-the-global-reserve-currency/

De-dollarisation is largely an internet meme that doesn’t stand up to empirical analysis. BRICS was conceived of as an alternative globalisation model by Goldman Sachs – as I’ve shown before. All their ‘alternative’ financial institutions are dollarised for loans – again, as I’ve shown before. Check out James Corbett; Michel Chussodovsky; or Patrick Bond for corroboration (I’m out of links).

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 16, 2019 7:36 AM
Reply to  BigB

I stand corrected.

mark
mark
Jun 15, 2019 8:42 PM
Reply to  John A

The actual military budget for the current year is $1,134 billion. This includes £400 billion that is hidden by sleight of hand, like the cost of producing and maintaining nuclear weapons, shunted off on to the Department of Energy budget.

Jen
Jen
Jun 14, 2019 2:06 AM

I wonder if Russia appears to be a one-party state because its politics might be tainted and distorted by continuous low-level US meddling and biased news media reporting. The way in which certain figures like Alexei Navalny and (in the past) Boris Nemtsov have been built up into fictional heroes by the news media in the West and in Russia (through publications like “The Moscow Times”) might have had the effect over the years of pushing the public into being more supportive of Vladimir Putin than he otherwise would be if the country were left alone, and of tolerating restrictions on the press and other political freedoms that they would not otherwise condone.

One could say that politics in Australia these days also resembles a one-party state as on many issues there is hardly any difference between the two major parties’ stances and policies.

Ivan
Ivan
Jun 16, 2019 6:18 PM
Reply to  Jen

Albats prefers to ignore the communists.

Greg Schofield
Greg Schofield
Jun 13, 2019 11:45 PM

“The audience was predominantly from Australia’s intelligence and related think-tank communities, emeritus and present, with a sprinkling of academics and diplomats.” Diplomats, and have been since 1979 members of the ONI, it is mandatory. So her audience appears to be spooks and some strange. I have no-doubt she made some very good points, considering that spooks have more or less taken over so many university positions in this country that their echoing stupidities has lowered intellectual life enormously. It is not hard to improve on what is taught in politics courses and Asian studies as the lectures of some are little more than declassified security papers. Yevgenia Markovna is a liberal, which is not meant as praise, as has long lost the sheen it once enjoyed and tends to be somewhat realpolitik in its morality. The analysis of Russia or any country using democracy as a concept is worst sort… Read more »

axisofoil
axisofoil
Jun 13, 2019 11:32 PM

I have to wonder if this woman knows the truth about the Magnitsky Act.

BigB
BigB
Jun 13, 2019 9:42 PM

There was a tectonic shift in the established world order last weekend in St Petersburg. The twin themes of SPIEF 2019 were ‘anti-globalisation versus globalisation’ and ‘sustainable development’. The anti-globalisation force was seen to be Trump’s quasi-protectionist and sanctions regime – which is over-extending its jurisdiction globally. The solution – interpolating from VVP’s globalist duckspeak – is a revisionist “rules based global order” under the enhanced efficiency of the WTO – led by Russia and China’s ‘technocracy rising’ digitised trade platform. Russia and China now see themselves as the leading forces in economic globalisation – utilising the potential of the UN. “The technological development agenda must unite countries and people, not divide them.” President Xi put it more directly: “China wants globalisation” or “China supports economic globalisation” …depending on translation. The sentiment is unmistakable. The supporting theme was SDG and Agenda 2030 ‘sustainable growth’ – two antithetical words that do… Read more »

Greg Schofield
Greg Schofield
Jun 13, 2019 11:52 PM
Reply to  BigB

100% in agreement and your post heightens the gap between the shopworn , tattered and generally greasy ‘liberalism’ that is so wedded to neo-liberalism it turns itself in knots and falls back on absolutely empty rhetoric of democracy when it is basically demanding coups to favour western corporations(not really going to win over the populace on thieir actual program, in Russia or anywhere else).

Thanks, the St Petersburg meeting was thrilling, should be what eceryone is talking about — it will be a long wait before their is lecture about it and what brought it about at any Australian university.

Greg Schofield
Greg Schofield
Jun 14, 2019 12:19 AM
Reply to  Greg Schofield

Mistake, wrote 100% meant 50%, I do not agree that globalism means the same thing, rather the reverse, global trade need not impoverish.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 14, 2019 12:52 PM
Reply to  BigB

Or are you going to carry on the pretense of an imaginary Russia/China counter-hegemony and alternative development model? Counter hegemony, maybe – but the development model is neoliberal globalisation.

I agree that Russian and China are pursuing a globalization of sorts, and I also think Russia is internally pursuing a policy of economic liberalism. But do you really believe that China is a liberal economic power? Are you aware, for example, that the overwhelming majority of China’s GDP is actually state-owned? That would include the Commanding Heights, such as finance, resource extraction, healthcare, education, transportation and public works. Or do you simply believe that all globalization is inherently neoliberal, regardless of the nature of the economies it unites?

BigB
BigB
Jun 14, 2019 5:12 PM
Reply to  Seamus Padraig

It’s well worth noting how China’s ‘economic miracle’ started: it was partially colonised along the littoral ‘priority development areas’ by surplus Western dollarised capital from the very late 70s on. China’s miraculous development – from Deng’s reforms to date – was neoliberal and (euro)dollarised from the start. And so it remains: with the two currencies closely tied. David Harvey dedicates a whole chapter entitled “Neoliberalism with Chinese Characterisitics” to detail this in his “Brief History of Neoliberalism”. The SOEs started to become partially privatised from 1983: though Chinese privatisation is still under centralised command economy. Long story short, after waves of liberalisation: as Steve Keen is fond of pointing out – China now has the “biggest private equity bubble in the history of capitalism” …or words to that effect. Liberalisation also involved meeting Lagarde’s criteria for including the yuan in the SDR basket of currencies. Which is part of a… Read more »

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Jun 14, 2019 10:44 PM
Reply to  BigB

Putin is definitely an economic liberal; you’ll get no argument from me on that point. I just don’t regard China as being all that liberal economically (which is a good thing). As far as the US’ trade relationship with China is concerned, it seems most the neoliberalism is on the US end of the equation. The Chinese have merely taken advantage of America’s greed/stupidity to advance their own country and people. As long as the benefits of their export success have been reasonably spread around, I don’t have much of a problem with their development model. In fact, at this rate, they could end up helping several more developing countries, as their own labor is starting to get pricier with respect to the Third World average.

mark
mark
Jun 13, 2019 8:03 PM

Most of the Russian Opposition is of the Gessen Zionist Regime Change variety, fed by Neocon money, worshipping at the altar of all things American, and calling for endless economic warfare against their homeland, if not actual warfare.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Jun 13, 2019 8:42 PM
Reply to  mark

The Atlantacists are certainly a big problem in Russia. I’d go even further than that:
As an alternative theory #11 concerning the alleged Russian involvement in the Skripal affair, we feel it’s all hogwash, however, it’s not completely infeasible that the Russian Atlanticist bastards actually were behind it set up the two guys and working with their other Atlantacist comrades, their aim to comletely embarass Putin, and a lot worse.