Russian soldiers, stories, the state, and change

How can a person watching videos of civilian life being bombed not feel pangs of emotion? Of deep sadness, fear, and resentment towards those doing the bombing?

For me this is the video (2 minutes 35 seconds in) that best captures this.

I can't watch it without crying. At least until I became desensitised to it.

A man stands on the train platform waving to his family who are boarded on a train leaving the station, heading towards hopeful safety, while he remains on the platform, knowing that he'll have to fight foreign troops, that he'll probably lose his life, and maybe never see his family again.

Why does this video cut so deep for me? Different things speak to us for different reasons.

Indeed, the video speaks to me because I've broken up with an ex-girlfriend at a train station and I've also listened to men on a confidential helpline speak about the fact they are not able to see their children, yet are determined do things to make sure that they give their kids the best chance of having a better life.

The man in the video waves and smiles, as if everything's going to be alright. when of course it isn't. Much is said in social commentary about how men cannot open up or talk about their feelings, as if they should be able to do this with ease.

And yet. At a time so dark - when you're probably never going to see your family again - I think a fake, brave face, one that smiles and waves, that smokes a cigarette calmly, is exactly what is needed. No doubt on the inside this man is broken as any person would be.

What I empathise with most is the outward bravery of a simple smile and wave, while what I imagine on the insight is a whirlwind of chaos, torment, sadness, and resolve.

I cry for this man, for his family, for Ukraine, for humanity.

I try to put myself in the mind of a Russian soldier marching into Ukraine.

The soldier Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to believe in fighting for his country (1). An official in the Russian army, he marched into Germany convinced he was doing the right thing.

The story that he'd been told, that he believed, was that the Russian forces were liberators of Nazi Germany, who were force for evil in the world. Indeed, he thought he was one of the good guys (true enough, nobody could reasonably defend the heinous crimes and philosophy of Nazism).

But it was the state who bundled the soldier Solzhenitsyn into transport and took him to a Gulag - a Soviet prison. He was charged with what the communists called the crime of "enemy of the state"; he served 8 years in various prison and labour camps.

At first he was resentful towards those that had imprisoned him and the people responsible for his incarceration, to his Russian state.

But with time and reflection he came to realise that not long ago he had been marching through Germany as a solider, convinced he was doing the right thing, believing a story told to him by his state.

In prison he realised that had things been different, he could easily have been one of the prison guards doing the repression to others, believing it was the right thing.

And hence his famous quote:

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained

The British-Russian T.V. producer and author Peter Pomerantsev spent years working inside the contemporary Russian media (2). He tells the story of how Putin controls of all the Russian media.

He not only controls everything, but actually sets up debate shows with fake political parties having fake debates to give the sense that there are opposition, but that they're just incompetent.

Workers in the media are allowed complete freedom of expression - they make reality T.V. shows, sitcoms, comedies - so long as they do not seriously question Putin's leadership.

In short, T.V. in Russia is sexy just as it is in the West. But everyone has to play by the rules of Putin.

These soldiers who march into Ukraine - who are they, and what story have they been told by their state?

If the media is controlled by one man and his close associates, how can people think for themselves?

The story Solzhenitsyn tells is that we believe what we do based on the things we've been told by others, the experiences we've had, the circumstances we find ourselves in.

People who do things we don't like - whether voting for Brexit, holding racist or sexist views, or marching into Ukraine - do so not because they are mindless zombies, but because that's the action that makes sense for them, and their experience.

It's very easy to make snap judgements about people who hold different views to us about the world (3), but how is it that you came to believe what you believe?

An honest answer to that question involves the answer: there's nothing inherently special about me or my views about the world, much of it is down to luck (4).

Luck because things that influence my views are my place of birth, parents, culture, friends and interests. To a large extent these things outside of my control; I do not choose my interests anymore than I choose the kind of person I want to friends with.

More honestly leads to the conclusion: let me walk a day in the shoes of another and it would be me who votes for Brexit, holds racist or sexist views, or march into Ukraine.

And yet, Solzhenitsyn's story tells us that just because we believe something today, does not mean things will remain the same, or that I'll keep on buying the idea forever.

And thankfully that really is the case, otherwise things in life really would be too determined; there would be no progress in our personal lives or in history!

I am hopeful that as time goes by more Russians and Russian soldiers will believe in something, something other than Putin.

"200 years ago, everyone lacked democratic rights. Now, billions of people have them"

There are good historical reasons to suggest that things do not have to carry on as they are.

Here's the amount of countries living in democracies over 200 years ago:

Zero

Here's 120 years ago:

Four

70 years ago:

Nineteen

40 years ago:

Thirty-five

Today:

Ninety-six

In most countries around the world who are democracies, they are young. Autocracy is a recent memory. For example, British holiday makers to Spain fifty years ago would have been entering a dictatorship.

Democratic countries have better living standards, people tend to be healthier, have better human rights, and importantly: democratic countries go to war with each other far less frequently with each other than any other form of government (5).

The West is not paradise, innocent, or free from criticism. It is not obvious that other countries around like Russia or China would even want to become like Western democracies.

Why should they? They have their own history and values that are different to ours.

But I am quietly hopeful that because democracy does seem to be best form of government for a country and its people, when compared to all of the other forms, the idea will eventually gain traction in the most unlikely of places.

There is nothing inevitable about history. Things happen - like the massive trend toward democracies - because people in those times and places make them happen (6).

The historic long term trend toward democracy suggests that people living in diverse places around the world - from England to Brazil to Japan and Indonesia - agree that compared to the other ways of living, democracy is the best of a bad bunch.

We feel powerless looking on at the bombings and the horrors of war in foreign lands. How else could it be?

And yet I believe, perhaps naively, that each person is much more important than they realise, or can comprehend. The work we do, the stories we tell, experiences we learn from, and the way we listen and learn from others in our lives.

Russia has a turbulent history, never once democratic. But in the long view of history, modern democracies are young, new, and growing around the world. Could they make headway in Russia one day?

We will look back at the history of Putin one day and feel mistakes were made, a president who is former secret police, who is probably a killer himself.

But England once had rulers who executed their wives, who burned members of the public at the stake; France, who invented the guillotine to make beheading more efficient; Germany, responsible for the Holocaust; Spain's civil war; Belgium's role in the Rwandan genocide; and the recent bloody wars in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Europe used to be a very violent place (7).

The world in general, I believe, has undertaken massive strides to reducing the amount of violence that is tolerated both domestically and internationally.

I would recommend reading The better angels of our nature (2012) for anyone interested in why violence has declined with the broad trends of history, for anyone interested in how bad things used to be, and how far we've come.

For a shorter version of this book, listen to this talk to get a sense of the themes and the trends:

When judging Russia's crimes against humanity we should remember where we ourselves were not too long ago and that change, however unlikely, is possible.

This image below comes from a train station in Berlin. Local people welcome refugees with signs indicating the help they can give.

"At the main train station, volunteers saying which languages they speak seek to orientate refugees upon arrival... One floor has transformed itself into a makeshift welcome centre, with volunteers serving up hot food, handing out warm clothes and shoes and providing toys for children to play with."

"David Henning, 31, said he was giving over one floor of his hotel to refugees. So far, he had welcomed fleeing students who just needed one night's rest before continuing their trip as well as several mothers and children who needed a while to figure out their life"

And that's another historically recent development. The people we care about extends out far beyond than our immediate family, friends, or fellow country folk.

With more communication possible to more of humanity, our circle of sympathy expands.

War seems to bring out the very worst in people, but also the best.

The more we learn about war, reflect on it, study it, talk to people who experience it, read about it, the more likely it becomes - I believe - to reduce the chances of it happening in the future.

And finally:

"The generosity of the Polish people has been revealed in a picture showing abandoned baby strollers, awaiting Ukrainian mothers that might need them"

References

1)  Alexander Solzhenitsyn The gulag archipelago: an experiment in literary investigation (2007/1962)

2) Peter Pomerantsev, Nothing is true and everything is possible (2016)

3) Daniel Kahneman, Thinking fast and slow (2011)

4) Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable (2008)

5) Steven Pinker, Enlightenment now (2018)

6) Thomas Sowell, Economic facts and fallacies (2011)

7) Steven Pinker, The better angels of our nature (2012)