Masha Gessen (Moscow, 1967) He left Russia twice. The first time happened when he was 14 years old, in 1981, when his family left the country to seek refuge in the United States. He returned as an enthusiastic journalist to tell it firsthand. unravel USSR in 1991however, pressure from Putin forced him to go into exile again in 2013. ‘New Yorker’ magazine reporter and author of his biography Putin ‘Faceless man’He won the National Book Award for his article in 2017. ‘The future is history’ About the totalitarian shift of Russia. He was the translator of ‘The Americans’, describes himself as a human trance and wrote about suppression of the LGTBI community by Moscow. He was at the CCCB, was invited to the Biennale del Pensament and spoke about the new rise of fascism around the world.
When was the last time you were in Russia?
The week the war started. He was in Ukraine at the end of January. Many Russian friends did not believe that the war would actually begin. It was no surprise to me.
In your last article, you describe the totalitarian drift in your country, based on the stories of Russians born in 1980, one of whose earliest memories was the end of the USSR. Did this generation react differently to the war?
No, because they grew up with the same mythology that permeates everyday speech, schoolbooks, and politics: imperial nostalgia. The only change with Putin is that the Bolshevik revolution was not so glorified. It’s funny how most history books are about the great men of history. Putin is one, no doubt. But in general, I think systems are much more important than people. In ‘The future is history’, I wanted to explain the system to understand why people in Russia make their decisions.
There is a big cliché about the proclivity of the Russians to the iron fist.
In fact, ‘homo sovieticus’ is a sociological model that tries to explain the series of adaptations made by people in Soviet society to have a safer life, both physically and psychologically. Is it as prominent as it was in the 1970s? The fact that 1400 people were arrested in 40 different cities for protesting the war tells us no. There are thousands of people ready to risk everything for this cause, and this was not the case in the Soviet Union, where there was some protest but more widespread.
Is the mass flight after the recruitment announcement an indication?
Yes, there is a lot of intimidation, everyone knows that there are mobile recruiting units waiting for them at the border. Thousands of people claim to be cannon fodder. They feel the implicit threat of the state.
Didn’t Putin calculate well how the public would receive this news?
What happens in a totalitarian society is a real barrier to knowing what people think. It’s not just because people are afraid to speak their mind. The premise that they know what they are thinking is false. Hannah Arendt wrote about it: The difference between a simple tyranny and totalitarianism is that the former only requires certain types of behavior and views, but does not deprive you of opinion. Totalitarianism deprives you of the possibility of having an opinion. The problem is not knowing what the Russians think, it is unknowable. When Putin invaded Crimea, a poll approved of him 86%. Such numbers measure the degree of totalitarianism, which is extremely high in Russia.
And the opposition?
The degree of totalitarianism gives you an idea of the psychological cost of opposition. Consider a woman in a small Russian town. Your son has been hired. How much does it cost you emotionally and mentally not to support the war? What kind of intolerable conflict will you have to face with yourself, your society, your society, your family? Isolationism is often a very high cost for most people. Except for a handful of dissidents, whose cost to adapt is higher than the opposition. But this is usually a small minority.
Do the sanctions work?
The premise that approving Putin’s inner circle will weaken him is false. It’s a classic pattern to try the same thing over and over and expect different results. It had zero effect, creating no visible cracks in the Kremlin or reducing criminals’ loyalty to Putin. It distributes money and power.
How do you think Putin will end?
The most common way for a dictator to step down is to die. Today, Putin is more likely to be in office for life than vice versa. Another way a dictator leaves office is by making a big mistake. The Ukraine war is a mistake, but not the kind of mistake that can bring you down.
Is the nuclear threat credible?
It’s believable because it’s the only way to hold power. The question is not whether Putin is insane, but the kind of world where his actions make sense. Putin is willing to sacrifice excessive human beings and use nuclear weapons because in his mind this is historically correct. Of all the arguments I’ve heard why he wouldn’t, I’m just convinced that Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch said it could isolate him from China.
Isn’t Putin already isolated?
Putin has declared war on the West, and the West is a very small part of the world. Many countries in the rest of the world, China, India, Africa and Latin America support it. The West is too small for him. It seems more interesting to me to ask if China is willing to sacrifice its support.
And NATO?
He told Putin that if he used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, he would also destroy the Russian army on land and the Black Sea fleets. To me, this is the strongest argument ever.