Jussi Lassila

Aleksei Naval’nyi and Populist Re-ordering of Putin’s Stability

Abstract This essay examines Aleksei Naval’nyi’s political discourse in order to answer the question why Naval’nyi in particular has become the most visible oppositional figure in Russia since 2011–2012. It is argued that the principal reason for Naval’nyi’s success lies in his populist re-ordering of Putin’s eclectic principles of people, patriotism and the rule of law. By simplifying the political space between ‘us and them’ under his anti-corruption activism Naval’nyi has managed to challenge the regime in its own terms. At the same time this straightforward style separates him from Russia’s other political figures who have been unable to provide compelling ideas for larger oppositional mobilisation. In this respect, regarding Russia’s weak political institutions, eclectic usage of political ideas and personalistic political culture, Naval’nyi appears to be a natural alternative.

War and Memory in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

This edited collection contributes to the current vivid multidisciplinary debate on East European memory politics and the post-communist instrumentalization and re-mythologization of World War II memories.

Naming the War and Framing the Nation in Russian Public Discussion

Abstract Fundamental changes in Europe’s political map following the end of the Cold War have led to a new competition of hegemonic interpretations of history and national memory. In particular this has happened in the former socialist Eastern European countries (notably in the Baltic States, Poland, and Western Ukraine) where there has been a big demand to establish a new state identity distancing these countries from the socialist past. For the Russian socio-cultural and political environment the given identity political demand has created a challenging terrain in which symbolic, and irrevocably political, resources for national identity are forced to be calibrated in line with domestic and foreign policy concerns. In this regard, the public usage of “The Great Patriotic War” and its ramifications has been the most notable manifestation, which exhibits the political significance of history in these identity debates. In order to grasp the manifestations of this significance, this article examines the uses of the terms “The Great Patriotic War” (Velikaia Otechestvennaia voina, VOV) and “The Second World War” (Vtoraia mirovaia voina, VMV) in the Russian mainstream media over the course of the last ten years. For this purpose the Integrum databases (Russian-language media corpus of more than 400 million documents) provide a productive tool for specified queries related to VOV and VMV allowing the examination of major themes that these two terms activate in the Russian public discourse. We argue that whereas the VOV signifies the “inner” canonized framework for discussing the war within society, it is the VMV which figures as VOV’s counterpoint in terms of activating “outer” frameworks for the war’s public discussion. In relation to the broader identity political context, the study expands the question of how the era of the Second World War is treated in Russia, and the potential limits of this discussion.

From the Trauma of Stalinism to the Triumph of Stalingrad: The Toponymic Dispute Over Volgograd

This chapter examines the Putin-era debates over the name of Volgograd/Stalingrad, the site of the historic Battle of Stalingrad. The case of the symbolic politics around the name of this city offers rich material for studying the dynamics of triumph and trauma in Russia. While the theme of Stalingrad continues to represent the core symbol of national triumph, it also inescapably refers to the most acute trauma of the state’s past: the Stalin era. The chapter shows how the debate over the name of Stalingrad reveals a twofold, and somewhat paradoxical, dynamic between the state’s bid for hegemony, on the one hand, and the inexorable pluralization of commemorations of the national past in today’s Russia, on the other.

Zakhar Prilepin, the National Bolshevik Movement and Catachrestic Politics

This article examines the Russian writer and publicist Zakhar Prilepin, a visible representative of Russiaʼs patriotic currents since 2014, and a well-known activist of the radical oppositional National Bolshevik Party ( NBP ) since 2006. We argue that Prilepinʼs public views point at particular catachrestic political activism. Catachresis is understood here as a socio-semantic misuse of conventional concepts as well as a practice in which political identifications blur the distinctions defining established political activity. The background for the catachrestic politics, as used in this article, was formed by the 1990s post-Soviet turmoil and by Russiaʼs weak socio-political institutions, which facilitate and sustain the space for the self-purposeful radicalism and non-conformism – the trademarks of NBP . Prilepinʼs and NBP ʼs narrated experience of fatherlessness related to the 1990s was compensated by personal networks and cultural idols, which often present mutually conflicting positions. In Pierre Bourdieuʼs terminology, Prilepin and the Nationalist Bolshevik’s case illustrate the strength of the literary field over the civic-political one. Catachrestic politics helps to conceptualize not only Prilepin’s activities but also contributes to the study of the political style of the National Bolshevik Party, Prilepinʼs main political base. As a whole, the paper provides insights into the study of Russiaʼs public intellectuals who have played an important role in Russiaʼs political discussion in the place of of well-established political movements.