I have never really been a Russia apologist. Sure, I always felt an affinity towards the Russian people, appreciated Russian culture and have in the past defended the actions of Putin’s government, but my admiration of Russia was not uncritical or absolute. Truth be told, I rarely paid much attention to Russia, other than the odd headline from RT or when the English-speaking commentators I follow would report on Russia. I have occasionally joked about desiring a Russian invasion of my homeland of Canada, but that is more of a comment on the decline of Canada than an endorsement of Russia. In many ways, an invasion by Hungary and Poland would be better for Canada, as they are more western in culture and history. However, since such invasions are highly unlikely, I would settle for Russia, and at this point I think that many of my fellow Canadians would agree. My being Orthodox does of course influence my view of Russia, but I do draw a distinction between the Russian nation, the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church. Often times, the agendas of the state and the Church will be in opposition, and although I would wish for unity between the two, I see the occasional conflict as healthy and an indication that the Church is not a branch of the state, as some critics of Russia and Orthodoxy try to claim. Russia is hardly perfect, and it is not a “traditionalist paradise”. Russia has corruption issues, high levels of alcoholism and abortion, and a low church attendance rate. To Russia’s credit, these issues are being addressed, and the Church is given leeway to protest abortion and provide services for needful women and families.
Recently, I watched Putin’s address to the Valdai Discussion Club (link here). What struck me most about Putin was how sensible he was. That is it. The things he said made sense. Of course, it is fun to see the president of Russia calling out the insanity and hypocrisies of the west, regarding of course his comments on transgenderism and censorship. But it is more than that; in Putin there is a leader who has a clear positive vision for his nation. Putin even seems to have a positive vision of the west and western culture, but that is now being impeded by the west’s adoption of Bolshevism. These are not my words, but those of Putin. During his speech, Putin invoked how Lenin wanted to abolish the family, and that the west is free to reattempt that failed experiment. In fact, there were many times where Putin condemned the October Revolution, stating that “the human cost of revolution is always too high for it to be justified”. He also said that the erasure of western history, the denunciation of “white men” and past leaders, and the abandoning of the western classics like Shakespeare, is shocking and hypocritical. These are things that the Russian president said. How amazing is it that the leader of Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union, is able to denounce the Revolution? Now granted, Putin also praises the Soviet Union especially for its level of social mobility, to which he attributes his ability to attend university. But Putin’s view on the Soviet Union is nuanced, probably too nuanced for the average American or Canadian to appreciate. Putin admits the sins of the Union, for example admitting that the Soviets had concentration camps, but to denounce the entity of that 70 year period of Russian history would be a disservice.
Although I have always liked Putin, I have always been wary of him. My wariness comes not from his past as a KGB colonel, or the accusations of him being a killer, or his treatment of journalists, as on the subject of journalists my views are aligned with those of General Sherman. No, my wariness of Putin came from my general distrust of politicians. I liked a lot of what he said in the past and much of what he did, but politicians are bound to and influenced by forces and powers we do not see. For example, in past speeches, Putin has said certain things that come off as pro-globalism. I justified Putin by saying that “well Putin is a politician, and on certain subjects he has to tow the line or he will be completely ostracized and delegitimized domestically and abroad”. But considering his most recent address, I no longer think that this is the case. I believe that Putin believes in the things that he says and is not coerced or compelled to mention things he would rather not. Putin believes in climate change, which I do not, but Putin is not going to destroy Russian industry and stop producing fossil fuels because of it. Putin states that the covid pandemic is a global issue and that global problems require global solutions, and that “a new world order is coming”, but then he states that any new order must have the nation-state be the central authority, as only the country is able to see to the needs and wants of the nation. International bodies have a place, but only in the service of individual countries and they can never be permitted to rule over them, Putin says. I agree with this. I may not like the language of “the new world order”, but if Putin is using that language to espouse and defend national sovereignty, then I stand with him.
There is reasonableness to the things that Putin says. When asked about mandating covid vaccines or passports for said vaccines, he said that vaccination is a choice, and that mandates would be a functional impossibility in Russia. For mandates to happen, Putin said, it would be up to the individual federal subjects to implement and impose them. Nonetheless, he said such mandates would be impossible as they would be impossible to enforce, because there are those always willing to find ways to circumvent mandates and fabricate documents. Putin does not want Russia to be totalitarian. He does not have the will to implement vaccine passports and Russia does not have the resources to enforce them. It would seem that in Russia, regardless of how bad or tyrannical the state becomes, there is always a place to run, and those in power know that.
RT, in their article on the conference, stated how Putin attacked capitalism and said that this economic system was at its end. This is not 100% accurate. Although Putin said that capitalism was in decline, he did not condemn the system in and of itself. Putin’s quotes can be used to present him as a socialist or communist, as I am sure some conservative pundits in the west have done. What Putin said was that capitalism in and of itself is not some absolute thing, and that due to the actions of certain actors, people were suffering. He did not give a reason for this, saying that it could be due to over-regulation (an old libertarian claim) or other factors. What he did say was that socialism was not the answer to the defects of capitalism, as in the Soviet Union the people suffered greatly because they were denied public property. To call Putin a socialist or communist (as Ted Cruz recently did) betrays how ignorant or blinded by ideology one is.
Putin calls himself a “moderate conservative” and sees his brand of conservatism as defending the traditional values and cultures of a multicultural Russia. Now again, as a nationalist, this type of language appears detrimental, but we must remember that the Russian territory is home to some 193 different ethnic groups. Russia is not multicultural and multiethnic due to an elitist desire to replace the indigenous ethnic population, but instead is the product of Russia having been (and still being) an empire. Empires are by their definition multicultural. This is tolerable so long as the dominant ethnic population rules that empire and has primacy over the other populations. The Russian state must exist to serve in the interests of the Russian people, and if that comes at the expense of some minorities like the Chechens or Dagestanis, then so be it. Governments exist in part to reconcile the competing interests of their populations. In an ethnically homogeneous society, these interests might be political or regional, but in a multiethnic society, interest groups are often based around ethnicity. In empires, there may be a singular ethnicity with primacy, but this does not mean that the other populations are treated poorly. Rather, there is a recognition that if you accept how society is ordered and the purpose for the structure of the state, you are able to retain that which makes you unique and you are able to live a free and good life. I wish Putin could be honest and come out and say things like this, but I do not believe that he is someone who believes Russians should have primacy. He believes in multiculturalism, not in the western sense but in what I assume he would refer to as a “unique type of Russian multiculturalism”. I do not know how tenable this situation is, but again Russia has been a multiethnic empire for over 300 years, and has been multiethnic through wars, revolutions, and collapse. Maybe the primacy of ethnic Russians is so entrenched that despite modern conflicts such as the wars in Chechnya and Dagestan (which were handily resolved), it no longer needs to be spoken of overtly.
Putin sees conservatism as a belief system which protects you from falling into chaos, while still allowing you to develop and make progress. I would not call myself a conservative, as I see conservatism as a moderate form of liberalism. In certain contexts, I will say that I am conservative (usually in relation to a specific issue), but my views are best described as traditionalist. This does not mean I am Luddite either. As a rule, I reject the concept of progress. Progress, by its definition, implies a positive change; it implies that because a product or belief is new or original it, by definition, is superior to that which came before it. I maintain that the majority of all things praised as innovative or progressive have been detrimental to my people specifically and humanity as a whole. Now granted, in scientific fields we have seen “developments”. You may call this “progress” if you like, but in doing so you would be implying that those developments in and of themselves are moral good. Having technology that is more complex than those who came before us does not make us better people. Furthermore, having devices such as iPhones and infrastructure like the internet in the modern age does not somehow vindicate liberal democracy, just as pioneering space exploration does not vindicate Marxism-Leninism. Putin espouses a form of traditional values but seems to believe that a full embrace of tradition would result in stagnation, presumably technological, but probably politically and culturally as well. I would not agree with him on this, but I am sympathetic to his concerns. I think that he is falling into the fallacy of progressivism, in judging traditional societies based upon a perceived lack of technological and scientific developments, but this is more of an error of judgment on his part and not malicious. In the west, we see our leaders maliciously attack tradition and their own people in part because of their continuity with that tradition.
I want to be ruled (or governed) by someone whom I can listen to and respect. I want to be able to listen to my leaders and domestic media without cringing or thinking how better my life and the world would be if they did not hold the positions of power and influence that they do. If all the representatives of my county disappeared, even those whom I do not outright detest, my life would be infinitely better. I have no love for my country and I have not felt patriotism for it in over a decade. Now, I love my nation, my people, but the state, the bureaucracy, the country itself, I could not care about in the least. Putin is not perfect, but because of him I feel more invested in the survival of the Russian state than I do my own. When Putin addresses his people, I believe that he believes what he says. When western leaders speak, if I can force myself to even listen to them, I know that they are lying. For all of the alleged corruption in Russia, when I hear Putin speak I hear truth. Now, detractors could say that Putin is lying, that he only cares about power et cetera. I do not care about complaints such as these because when I listen to my own leaders, I know that they are hypocrites and they do not even hide it. Trudeau does not even feel the need to hide it and he still gets reelected. Even if Putin is a liar on the level of western leaders, his lies are not apparent. If we have to be ruled by hypocrites and liars, I want those who rule me to at the very least attempt to cover up that fact. With Putin, at the very least he maintains the façade of sincerity and truth, and at this point, in this progressive age, that façade is good enough for me.
If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation
Bitcoin: bc1q3q8qaff3d2zllj3yx7jtszrs349xv4av2r8mg3
Ethererum: 0x072E4EE9268AfAA436A8f4BBdAF775b28007eCD4
God, King, and Nation 