The black February by Ekaterina Shulman (part 1, how did we get to this)
You know, sitting like this and waiting drives me mad. I'm against this war; it's shameful and painful to understand that your own country started it.
So i decided at least share with you some words of my favourite Russian political expert Ekaterina Shulman. She is my bright star in this dark time. I understand that the translation isn't any good, it's just... mostly for me to keep my sanity.
Today is the 27th of February 2022. We decided to change slightly the format of our traditional monthly stream but still carry it on. We do not know whether we will have such an opportunity in the future, whether YouTube will be available in Russia, whether we will be available for each other in Russia, whether we will keep the Internet itself, whether we will meet the last Saturday of next month, and what we will do at that moment. Nevertheless, while we had this opportunity, we decided to use it and look at each other. Well, now you can see me, I can only imagine you, but I hope there is at least someone there.
A year ago, we carried out the first stream. We have not known back then that it would become regular. Its goal was to raise money for those organizations that provide informational and legal support to protestors. It was 2021 with its mass protests in Russia and mass reactive repressions. With your help, we raised a huge amount of money back then. We divided it into three parts, for three organizations. By the way, we are going to address this question later, because all three organizations function, so we are going to mention them when we start the part with practical advice. After that, we decided to carry out this practice on monthly basis, and it carried out like that until now. You know, there is this popular Internet mem āThis escalated very quicklyā. It was quickly indeed.
So, I gathered your questions for this streamā¦ how they say, āOpen comments in your Telegram channel and imagine yourself the speaker of the parliament.ā There was an incredible amount of them, but I easily divided them into three groups. The first one, āhow did we get to this situation?ā, the second one, āwhat will be next?ā, and the third one, āwhat should we do?ā or, more accurately, āwhat can we do?ā. The third group is practical and not philosophical. We will try to address all three groups, although we keep in mind that we cannot make nor definite prognosis, nor long-term plans, nor hundred-percent recommendations. Since our last meeting, our life has changed, and those changes will affect us for a long time. We cannot return to the previous state. We are going through a tunnel, and there we can rely only on each other, on our patience and strength. No more resources left.
As for the first question, āhow did we get to this situation?ā. Obviously, political experts, and historians, and all other social scientists will address this question and answer it differently for long and long decades. Obviously, for us it is the key point of this century, it is a turning point, although we do not know yet where this turn will lead us. Well, if researchers and readers of researches are left, then those researches will start to appear one day. And I think they will.
We have one problem and that problem lies in our mindās nature. When something happens, we think that all previous events logically and inevitably have led to it. We connect all scattered dots in a stern straight line. However, we have to be aware that if something other happened, it would seem logical and inevitable as well. Why do I pay attention to it? Because the seemingly incontrovertible thesis āeverything has led to thatā, āit couldnāt be any other wayā diffuses accountability (like many popular theses). If something was inevitable, one could think that those who started all that are not so accountable, they are just wax in Doomās hands, historyās hands, etc., as well as we are. That is not how it works.
Everyone should be accountable for their actions, as our poet Grigory Oster said. Largely, it were actions of politics that caused the twentieth centuryās tragedies; they applied such instruments as mass terror, aggressive war, and genocide to achieve their political goals. If they had not had done it, it would not have happened. Looking back, we hardly could say that holocaust was inevitable after all centuries of German history and everything led to it. Of course, there are such opinions and researches, there are quite convincing stories. But I would ask you to look back and think whether it is convincing for you. Is not the idea that people with power use it however they want more convincing?
If anything, the lack of a check and balance system at one specific moment and one specific place makes something like this possible. The lack of a check and balance system and not all course of history. It seems that the final conclusion (if there will be someone in the future to conclude anything out of it) will result in a well-known fact: a high concentration of power is extremely dangerous. If it does not lead to some kind of catastrophe (although, we see that it happens over and over again), it does not mean that it is safe or effective at the very least, that it could be used for a good cause. Well, maybe a long time ago it was possible; maybe, once there was a place for enlightened absolutism and authoritative modernization. But even in peaceful times, we liked to remind: there are dozens of authoritative leaders who led their people to war and poverty against one and only Singaporean leader Lee Kuan Yew who managed to carry out authoritative modernization. In most cases, we see only authoritarianism without any modernization. If we live through it, then the next task for humankind will be a building of a new system of international relationships and additional check and balance mechanisms, including intrastate mechanisms. They should prevent the creation of political models resulting in such consequences.
I won't promise I continue this project. I have to admit, it's mostly for me.
