Category: Uncategorised

by Vidmantė Krušinskaitė, Vilnius University

After gaining independence in the mid-90s, the Baltic states had no time to waste. Therefore, their acceptance into the European Union and NATO not even a decade later did not come as a surprise. Leaving behind half a century of oppression by the USSR, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are some of the best examples of successful and swift integration into the Western world as we know it. However, Russia, the former USSR, did not leave peacefully. During the years of independence, the region constantly faced cyber, online, and societal interventions from the terrorist state, which inflicted mistrust in local governments and brought up the need to strengthen civil resilience. Fighting Russian misinformation by banning Russian and Belarusian TV channels in Lithuania, as well as partially in Latvia and Estonia, creating strategies and campaigns regarding stopping online misinformation spread like ‘Re:Baltica’ in Latvia, and others worked for a while. However, it all reached a breaking point when Russia started an unprecedented war against Ukraine.

In times of crisis, such as the war in Ukraine, different states might have different approaches to situations, similar to human psychology.

In times of crisis, such as the war in Ukraine, different states might have different approaches to situations, similar to human psychology. The fight, flight, or freeze response to stress is a psychological theory proposed in the mid-XX century that describes how the body automatically prepares itself to fight, flee, or freeze in the face of perceived threats or danger. Even though the level and nature of support varies among countries, with some providing military aid and others providing economic, diplomatic, or humanitarian assistance, the Baltic states have been providing help in all possible ways. In times of political unwillingness and hesitation to do what is right, this puts the Baltics in a compromising situation in which they have decided to do what they did to break away from the perpetrator three decades ago – fight.

One of the most prominent and internationally acknowledged spokespeople regarding the danger of Russia and support of Ukraine is Lithuania’s foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis. The Lithuanian foreign minister has been very open about the potential dangers of Russia on his Twitter and international media outlets, stating that “peace can only be sustainable if Putin is defeated.” Estonia’s Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur has a similar message for Russia, as he recently declared during a press briefing, “Don’t play with us.” Meanwhile, Latvia’s situation is more complicated due to the largest Russian-speaking population in the Baltic states. Latvia has been supporting Ukraine and implementing various cultural reforms that are part of a wider de-Russification effort, aimed at ensuring, maintaining, and developing the Latvian language as the official state language and the common language in society.

The resistance by Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia against Russia is a reminder that if facing a crisis, fighting, instead of fleeing or freezing, is the default way for the region.

The fear of “being the Russia’s next target,” while scaring some, has become a new motivation for the Baltic states to fight for the independence of Ukraine and to establish their identity as members of the free world. The resistance by Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia against Russia is a reminder that if facing a crisis, fighting, instead of fleeing or freezing, is the default way for the region.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the regional responses part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Yurii Kondratyk, University of Tartu

The full-scale phase of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began on February 24, 2022, as a continuation of the first Russian invasion in 2014, is not just a war in its traditional sense – for territory or resources. Rather, it is the existential war of ideologies – good against evil, freedom against slavery, life against death. There is much more behind this war than the control of some land. It is about the right to be Ukrainian, to be a sovereign nation with its own language and the country. The outcome of this war is important not just for Ukrainians, but for the rest of the world. The brave fight against Russia, which is 28th times bigger, is truly inspiring and symbolizes the whole idea of democracy, which opposes the brutality of an autocratic regime and shows us that the freedom and human dignity are worth dying for.

The outcome of this war is important not just for Ukrainians, but for the rest of the world.

Does human nature seek stability and peace or, on the contrary, self-destruction? I don’t have the answer to that, but I tend to assume that stability would be preferred, which is normal, and that was probably why the claims that Nord Stream 2 was a weapon were ignored. That was perhaps why Ukraine was strongly recommended to stop resisting so everything could return to normal, to business as usual. That is human nature – to try to deny everything that can interfere with our unbothered existence.

Let’s be honest, how many people believed that Ukraine could manage to hold and successfully recapture occupied territories? Stop here for a minute. How fantastic is it that, against all odds, Ukraine has persevered? Look at the progress that has been made today, at how united Europe is today, and how far the discourse has shifted from “we need to negotiate with Putin” to the Hague warrant for his arrest. The result of consciousness, the price of which was very high, was paid by thousands of lives “na nuli” – the Ukrainian military term which means the direct confrontation with an enemy. “Na nuli,” in those cold trenches in the ground, is exactly the place where the future is defined.

Russian imperialist appetites go far beyond Ukraine and expand to the former Soviet republics. The article praising Russia’s success, which was published and then deleted on the state-owned news agency RIA.Novosti on 26th February 2022, just two days after the invasion, revealed the true Russian intentions of bringing back the Soviet Union, the fall of which was considered a “terrible catastrophe” and a trauma for Russian society.

There will not be Ukraine without Europe, and there will be no Europe without Ukraine.

Therefore, the Ukrainians fight not only for themselves, but also for the whole of Europe. The resilience of the Ukrainian people as a modern day version of the bible story of David versus Goliath proves the determination to join the European family. But what is important is that Ukraine does not fight alone, but with the strong support of united allies based on an understanding of a common future. There will not be Ukraine without Europe, and there will be no Europe without Ukraine.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the regional responses part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Emīls Reinis Ābele, University of Latvia

When the economic resilience of a state is considered, it is understood as the capacity of the economy of a state to endure external shocks, such as natural disasters or economic crises, and to rebound from them. The relatively small size, location, and historical backdrop of the Baltic states have presented them with a number of difficulties concerning economic affairs in the post-soviet sphere of Europe since their reclamation of independence. This blog makes the case that boosting regional integration can boost the Baltic states’ economic resilience.

One of the main benefits of regional integration is that trade and investment opportunities would enhanced.

One of the main benefits of regional integration is that trade and investment opportunities would enhanced. By establishing deeper economic ties, the Baltic states can increase their foreign investment and broaden their markets, resulting in a strengthened regional economic union that is much more resilient from foreign actors, especially those outside the European Union. Moreover, regional integration can aid in the distribution of infrastructure development expenditures, like those associated with building roadways, railroads, or energy grids, easing the burdens of cost of any individual Baltic state, instead guaranteeing a collective expenditure and a collective gain from said infrastructure projects, which aids in motivating governments to undertake these projects and investors to invest.

In the Baltic states, there are numerous instances of regional integration. For example, the Baltic Assembly, which was founded in 1991 following the fall of the Soviet Union, is a venue for political cooperation among the Baltic states. The Baltic Assembly has made a substantial contribution to the region’s efforts to advance democracy, human rights, and economic integration. Another illustration is the 1994-created Baltic Free Trade Area, which through lowering trade restrictions and tariffs has aided in boosting trade between the Baltic states. Lastly, the Rail Baltica project is a significant infrastructure undertaking that intends to link the Baltic states with the European rail network. It is anticipated that this will spur economic growth and lower transportation costs. So work is being done in this regard, yet there is still much to be done.

Governments, the commercial sector, and civil society organizations must work together and coordinate in order to boost regional integration.

The requirement for strong political leadership and dedication is one of the obstacles to a satisfactory level of regional integration. Governments, the commercial sector, and civil society organizations must work together and coordinate in order to boost regional integration. Other obstacles such as geopolitical conflicts or economic pressures, which might reduce governments’ willingness to cooperate, can have a significant impact on regional integration and the discourse around it. To ensure the success of regional integration, it is crucial to have a long-term vision, a defined agenda, and a firm commitment not just by governments, but by society as well. This vision can help maintain an understanding that these projects are long-term investments so that they do not fall victim to populistic rhetoric, which may challenge or even tarnish the necessity of regional integration projects.

In conclusion, the Baltic states face a variety of economic difficulties that call for creative ideas and solutions. In order to increase trade and investment opportunities, share the costs of building infrastructure, and promote regional cooperation and stability, regional integration should be strengthened. However, for regional integration to be successful, there must be strong political will, dedication, and leadership. Although the Baltic states have made tremendous strides in regional integration, more work is still needed to fully realize their potential as an economic powerhouse. The Baltic states may become more robust and competitive in the global economy through advancing regional integration.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the regional responses part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Pavel Petrov, University of Helsinki

What is resilience and what is its societal dimension according to the Baltic states, where both concepts are so enthusiastically employed in public discussion? To explore common interpretations of these notions, I have investigated several recent documents adopted by the Baltic Assembly (BA), the Baltic Council of Ministers (BCM), and the Baltic Council (BC), a joint platform constituted by the first two. All three of these organizations function, within a shared framework, as forums for interparliamentary and intergovernmental cooperation between the member states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Therefore, their adopted documents are particularly suitable to explore a common Baltic interpretation of societal resilience. In the following blog post, I will take a closer look at cases where societal resilience was explicitly discussed by the BA during last year’s Session.

Recently the subject of societal resilience was extensively discussed at the pan-Baltic level, when the BA convened on 27–28 November in Riga for its 41st Session and, together with the BCM, for the 28th BC. “Fostering a strong and united Baltic society” was one of the three main topics discussed during the Session, alongside “building a resilient, interconnected and closely coordinated energy systems in the Baltic States.” Further in the preamble, the Session underlined that “the vital role of societal resilience of the Baltic States,” describing it as “a prerequisite for ensuring the preparedness of the society to resist threats of various kinds.” As such, the resolution designated “war, propaganda, disinformation, anti-democratic sentiment, division and others” as pressing issues in the current international environment. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, with such an extensive and heterogeneous variety of challenges in mind, culture was highlighted as being “at the core of societal resilience.”

Resilient societies are considered significant in “strengthening the security situation.”

Societal resilience is also integrated into the BA’s vision of defense cooperation. The resolution calls on parliaments and governments of the member states, as well as the BCM, “to construct a practical response to increase the resilience of the Baltic societies”. Resilient societies are considered significant in “strengthening the security situation.” More specific propositions for societal resilience policy making, touching upon one of the challenges mentioned above, are presented in the part regarding the exchange of information between the Baltic states. There, the BA suggests to jointly agree on a white paper about the strategic goals in media competencies and media literacy in the region to fight disinformation and increase social resilience. To improve media literacy, the resolution encourages states to evaluate the possibility of introducing a joint program for this purpose. To promote what might be considered media competence, the resolution endorses the idea of negotiating a common Baltic information platform serving as a reliable source of knowledge of the events and developments in the region, provided in their three national languages, as well as Russian and English.

Societal, or social, resilience is therefore explicitly discussed by the BA only in terms of defense and information exchange cooperation. Particularly in the latter case, the resolution provides a more detailed perspective on a challenge that societal resilience is supposed to cope with, namely disinformation. Concrete measures for enhancing the common Baltic societal resilience potential in that direction are also suggested. The scope can be extended to include propaganda, which is frequently and closely associated with disinformation and, in the Baltic context – anti-democratic sentiments. Therefore, this could also include divisions, if we assume them as political, e.g., questioning of democratic principles by parts of society.

As previously mentioned, culture is declared to be at the core of societal resilience. With this phrasing, it is only reasonable to expect a certain preference provided for the subject. However, the resolution leaves the statement without any further clarifications or elaborations. Otherwise, culture is discussed in the very last section in terms of cooperation, mixing with measures to minimize an environmental footprint. Still, one can get an idea of culture’s function and place in the BA’s vision of societal resilience by looking at certain propositions. Most noticeably it is displayed in the encouragement to demonstrate the unity, solidarity, and cultural ties between the Baltic states by allocating additional resources to the Baltic Culture Fund, thus securing the continuity and quality of cultural projects financed by it. This might be interpreted as an effort to maintain the resilience of culture itself. Consequently, keeping in mind the BA’s motivation for additional resources, one of the primary roles of culture can be regarded as facilitating the sense of Baltic cohesion as a region and identity as a trilateral community. This, in turn, appears instrumental for a strong and united Baltic society that the BA aspires to foster. Ultimately, media literacy and competence may be included in a broader understanding of culture.

The notion of societal resilience is conceptualized by the BA’s 41st Session as a salient component of ensuring the capability of the Baltic societies to resist a variety of challenges.

Resilience in general and its societal dimension in particular stands out at the top of Baltic cooperation’s agenda. The notion of societal resilience is conceptualized by the BA’s 41st Session as a salient component of ensuring the capability of the Baltic societies to resist a variety of challenges. The majority of these challenges may in fact be considered closely associated with information distribution and consumption, such as disinformation, propaganda, and by extension – anti-democratic sentiments and political divisions. Culture, designated as the core of societal resilience, appears to be regarded mainly in terms of a fixative for the sense of a trilateral Baltic community.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the regional responses part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Anna Lúcia Nagy, University of Tartu

Resilience both on the community level and on a national level requires a high degree of trust in political leaders. In case of a crisis, it is the state which is primarily responsible for organizing crisis management. Therefore, trust from the overwhelming majority of society in the political leaders of a state is an essential prerequisite for societal resilience, and consequently, the resilience of the state itself.

People switch to alternative sources of information if they do not find the official narrative about the crisis convincing.

Recent crises have clearly shown the importance of trust in state authorities. It greatly affected the willingness of the population to cooperate with the authorities during the Covid-19 pandemic regarding observation of safety rules during lockdowns and the rate of vaccination in any given society. This correlation was quite visible, for example, in the case of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia, where there was a significantly higher willingness to get vaccinated. Those Russians whose overall confidence in Estonian state institutions tends to be high were more willing to receive a vaccination. Particularly, confidence in state authorities has been a crucial factor in coping with disinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic and in the context of the war in Ukraine. People switch to alternative sources of information if they do not find the official narrative about the crisis convincing. All in all, following overwhelmingly the official media channels or, on the contrary, alternative sources of information is also about having or not having confidence in state authorities who convey the official narrative. Therefore, the degree of trust in state officials also affects the success of fighting disinformation. As the war in Ukraine has shown, in case of a crisis, it is crucial that political leaders provide a satisfactory evaluation of the situation and strategies on how to deal with it. The degree of trust in the political leadership also affects how successfully the latter can manage crises. If the official narrative of the events becomes the dominant one, it means that society can respond to the crisis in accordance with the goals set by the state.

One can say that populist leaders, or even authoritarian regimes, sometimes receive a very high degree of trust from society. No doubt, in this case, these states with populist or authoritarian leadership are indeed very resilient – at least against external challenges, if this trust lasts. On the other hand, well-functioning democracies with a low degree of trust in political leaders might be much less resilient. This implies that democratic states with deep cleavages are at a disadvantage compared to non-democratic states with more united societies, at least regarding resilience. Divided societies are less resilient since they are not able to have a unified response to crises, and as a result of a shock, are more likely to collapse. A well-functioning state can enable the society to overcome ideological or ethnic cleavages and unite it for collective interests.

Therefore, mutual trust between state authorities and the population is a precondition for successful cooperation, which, in turn, enables both the state and the society itself to become more resilient.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the democracy in crises part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Georgs Binduks, University of Latvia

Illiberalism is an ideological phenomenon that directly opposes liberalism and its values. It poses a great threat both to democracy and world peace. In politics, illiberalism often manifests as “illiberal democracy,” which in a way serves as a transition point between liberal democracy and an authoritarian regime. Leaders in this kind of governing system want to be officially seen as leaders of a liberal democracy. In reality, there can be a high level of corruption while a select few hold the majority of power and tend to oppress free speech, which is detrimental to liberalism. Such practices inside the national government alienate both civil society from government and the country itself from other democracies, such as trade partners or member states of a common alliance.

Democracy, which is based on human rights, freedom, rule of law, and government accountability to the people, is the main enemy of illiberalism.

Democracy, which is based on human rights, freedom, rule of law, and government accountability to the people, is the main enemy of illiberalism. Illiberal governments often restrict freedoms such as freedom of speech and the media, destroy political opposition, and weaken the judiciary. They gradually become more corrupt and concentrate power in the hands of one person or one political party. Such actions reduce the transparency of democratic processes and the efficiency of governance, as well as weakens the trust of citizens in state institutions.

Illiberal states can use their influence to spread authoritarianism and destabilize the region or even the entire world.

Furthermore, illiberalism poses a serious threat to international peace. Democracies are often based on principles of cooperation and peaceful solutions that limit the possibility of conflict. However, the spread of illiberalism may undermine this stability. Illiberal states can use their influence to spread authoritarianism and destabilize the region or even the entire world. They can threaten human rights, aggressively spread their spheres of influence, and promote hostility towards other countries. A prime example of this is Putin’s Russia and The Russian war in Ukraine.

The rise of illiberalism in Russia also poses challenges to international organizations and cooperation between institutions, such institutions being the EU and NATO. If states practicing illiberalism do not pay due respect to international laws and norms, they can threaten international treaties and agreements and destabilize global trade and security mechanisms. This can be observed with regard to current inflation in Europe and destabilized unity between all involved countries internationally.

In order to reduce the threat of illiberalism to democracy and international peace, it is important to strengthen democratic institutions and the protection of human rights, both at the national and international levels. It is also essential to promote education and awareness of the importance and values ​​of democratic processes. The international community must be determined to defend and promote democratic principles and ensure that illiberal tendencies are detected and effectively countered.

In conclusion, illiberalism threatens the basic values ​​of democracy and can lead to conflicts between countries as well as develop citizens’ mistrust of government and political nihilism. This can undermine the social capital of said country and eventually promote unlawful activity, as well as negatively impact all neighboring countries. It is especially important to take this into account, as we currently live in a globalized and digitalized world where everything is shared on the internet. To preserve and strengthen the principles of democracy and international peace, we need to raise awareness before it is too late.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the democracy in crises part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Sintija Landsmane, University of Latvia 

Resilience is one of those concepts that is widely used, but not everyone is immediately able to define, describe, explain, or even fully understand. Resilience can come in many forms. For examaple, a resilient state; a resilient democracy; a resilient tree in the plant world, rooted in the desert sand; or a resilient human being at the crossroads of complex circumstances.

I have long searched for ways to describe resilience myself so that my message could be fully understood. There seems to be no better explanation than a strong comparison with things that are easier to grasp. How can we talk about the resilience of democracy when the explanation of resilience is complex and democracy itself is debatable? I will therefore take my message from the fertile lands of the Baltic states to the Sahara desert and the Atlas Mountains, where the argan trees testify to resilience and are evident.

A resilient democracy is one that can adapt and respond to challenges while preserving its core principles and values.

Let’s start with the most obvious part – the top of the tree. The argan tree has a broad crown; the impressive diameter of the branches can reach up to 70 meters. The top of the tree protects the trunk from the sun and wind, providing refreshing shade for those who need it. In the same way, the visible part of resilience refers to the democratic system’s ability to withstand and recover from external or internal threats such as corruption, political polarisation, or disinformation. A resilient democracy is one that can adapt and respond to challenges while preserving its core principles and values.

The iron trunk of a resilient democracy is democratic principles such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.

The trunk – the argan tree is also known as Ironwood because of its particularly hard wood. For the crown of democracy’s resilient branches to protect society, democracy’s resilient branches must also be anchored in a strong trunk. The iron trunk of a resilient democracy is democratic principles such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.

The Roots – the root system of the argan tree has an amazing capacity to absorb the water necessary for its survival. Root depths can reach up to 35 meters, allowing the tree to survive between 150 and 400 years in harsh climates. The roots are the beginning of everything and the most important. In the early 20th century, when Latvian enthusiasts traveled abroad to prove the existence of the people that had been oppressed for 600 years, hoping for a nation-state, they carried with them folk songs, fairy tales, the Latvian language, and a sense of history. The self-preservation of the people of the Baltic states is based on language, ancient traditions, and rituals, just as the roots of the argan tree have sunk deep into the desert sand to survive the harsh climate.

The fruit of the argan tree is similar to a plum, but has a bitter taste and is not edible. To extract the most valuable product of the tree – argan oil – the fruit is dried and then the dried pulp of the fruit is separated from the argan nut with a stone. The light brown argan nut is then cracked with a stone, without damaging the kernel, which is about the size of 2-3 pumpkin seeds. These kernels, called seeds or almonds, are used to extract precious oil. In this comparison, I would like to point out that the fruit, the bitter part, is the nation-state, which we have gained, then lost, and then regained at the crossroads of the world wars. The fruit also includes human division, populist blows, corruption, disinformation, and security threats. When you take all of these difficulties away, you get the most precious thing – democracy, – for which the public is willing to fight.

During the Singing Revolution in the 1990s, when Baltic societies begain their eventually succesful attempts to gain independence from the Soviet Union, people believed in the concept: “Pastalās, bet brīvi!” (Wearing only folk-style leather shoes, but free). It is important to remember that if you take out all the inedible parts of the argan fruit, there is still a seed inside, from which the most valuable things can be extracted: a resilient democracy, freedom, peace, and unity. So let the argan tree root and let’s continue rooting together!

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the democracy in crises part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

by Anna Shitova, University of Helsinki

Political scientist Ekaterina Shulman famously stated that ordinary Russians are ‘the new oil’ for the Kremlin. In this argumentation, Shulman implies that the state’s treatment of its young men – sending them to the frontline in Ukraine with barely any training – can be easily compared to its use of oil and gas – as if they were an inexhaustible resource. This text will present a similar claim – Putin’s regime has routinely, from its very beginning, stripped its citizens of their personhood and treated them as if they were life forms without identity. This is crucial to understanding the Russian state and its current tactics in Ukraine.

Putin’s regime has routinely, from its very beginning, stripped its citizens of their personhood and treated them as if they were life forms without identity.

Prominent Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, when analyzing modern societies, made a distinction between bios (“qualified life” in Greek, which refers to a person’s legal existence) and zoē (“bare life,” referring to a person as a natural being). Zoēpolitics, therefore, indicates the process of reducing a person or a group of people to their natural state. Through this process, a person can end up becoming a homo sacer – someone who is banned from society and forcibly reduced to one’s mere physical existence. This person can be killed with impunity, in the same way Jews and other minorities were murdered in concentration camps under the Nazi regime.

Zoēpolitics is patently present in Russia’s current war in Ukraine, but the process started much earlier – during Putin’s first term as president. Elements of zoēpolitics can be seen, for example, in the visual promotion of Putin’s image as an “alpha male” at the top of the “biological hierarchy.” In terms of domestic policy, the “purification of the Russian nation,” or more concretely, the traditionalist, pro-nuclear family, anti-LGBTQI+, and anti-Western policies, are all the result of zoēpolical thinking from above. Those who do not adhere to the Kremlin’s notion of “patriot” (e.g., a liberal queer person) are treated as if they were dangerous bacteria inside an otherwise healthy organism.

Zoēpolitical thinking can be recognized in the discourse surrounding the invasion of Ukraine as well. “Protecting” Russian speakers in Ukraine from “neo-Nazis” can be analogized to protecting one’s offspring from predators. During Putin’s address to mothers of soldiers fighting in Ukraine, he said that it is better if a man dies fighting for his motherland than of alcohol and drugs – as if they were a resource that could either be utilized efficiently or wasted. Lastly, a Russian soldier can be reduced to homo sacer and killed with impunity by both, a Ukrainian and a fellow Russian soldier in case of insubordination, for example.

Overall, zoēpolitics – the phenomenon of reducing people to their natural state – is present on both policy and discourse levels in Russia. It can take different forms, from less extreme (e.g., Putin presenting himself as a “nature-loving alpha”), to the overt dehumanization of citizens. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it turned out that the distance from zoēpolitics to thanatopolitics (“the politics of death”) is very short. Putting the theory aside, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a suicidal move in almost every possible sense. Deaths on the frontline, low birth rate, brain drain, and the absence of any kind of long-term strategy, have made Russia an actual dying state.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the democracy in crises part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Joris Charlie Poure, University of Tartu

Resilience is a beautiful thing… right?

If the Baltics are anything to go by, yes: it is. There is something incredible in a people remaining united through belief, a hope that things will be better. To have them resist and continue on their path, on their stance, despite profoundly difficult circumstances. This was the core of Baltic societies that were finally able, in the nineties, to choose their paths and realize themselves fully (or to be on their way to doing so). Resilience unites people, unites society, makes the state… resilience builds a nation.

But, in an ironic twist of fate, it can also be the herald of something sinister: resilience can unmake a nation. “Impossible” might be the gut-feeling answer to this claim, but perhaps the example of Hungary and of the work undertaken by Viktor Orbán and his party makes this first illogical-sounding claim more tangible. The resilience of the Hungarian people could be their country’s biggest hindrance in the future.

The crisis, a controversy-stricken leadership, and rising prices opened the regal way for the future prime minister to utilize the country’s resilience in the face of difficulty for enormous political gain.

Ever since the nineties, Fidez and its leader Orban, have changed a lot. What started as a tiny, pro-European party, with some degree of leftist and liberal ideas early in the 90s, has now become an identarian behemoth following their landslide victory in the 2010 elections. To get there, Orban has been smart: he has felt the pulse of Hungary and understood what people wanted most, especially at times when Hungarian society’s resilience was being tested following the events of 2008. The crisis, a controversy-stricken leadership, and rising prices opened the regal way for the future prime minister to utilize the country’s resilience in the face of difficulty for enormous political gain. Just like in the nineties and before, when Orban spoke for more proximity with the West, the people listened and acted.

Since then, Hungarian resilience has been the basis for a narrative profiting the government: a state and people with few real allies, resisting the East but facing the West, trying to remain who they truly are – believers in God and a proud people of mothers and fathers. Not bowing down to the ideologies of Brussels. The idea is clear and Orban has made it obvious for a while: Hungary has been resilient, often forcing Brussels into concessions with Poland’s help. But has that resilience made them stronger? No.

Their rejection of immigration and their hostile policies towards the educated masses like doctors and journalists bit back. Hungary has not been doing well since 2018. Many people left and many will leave. Immigration could be the answer, and immigration scholarship has shown that it does not hinder resilience but has a positive impact. This resilience expressed by the people and the political establishment might be impressive, but it hurts their nation’s economic and perhaps societal resilience in the long term. Resilience damaging resilience may sound wrong, but society’s resilience to what they see as “hardships” is hurting Hungary’s state resilience potential.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the democracy in crises part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

Text and photos by Maria Roivas

When visiting Tallinn in July 2022, I coincidentally ran across the Russian embassy on one street in the old town. The area in front of the building was filled with touching protest signs and slogans, symbolic pictures, and people stopping by to contemplate what was happening in Ukraine. Also, there were some angry Russian tourists trying to tear down the protest signs, after which the police came and told them to calm down.

What was happening in front of the embassy, can be understood as ‘conflict transportation’ – a term used in peace and conflict studies to describe how a conflict raging somewhere else can be reproduced and transported in various ways to new sites and locations. The transportation of conflicts can be “discursive, symbolic, physical, or social” (Jensen & Féron, 2021, p. 19), and causes tensions between groups and individuals. In this case, the contestations were happening between those who oppose the war and brought discursive and symbolic messages against the war to public places and Russians who told the police that there should be “no space for politics” in front of the Russian embassy.

The right to protest is a fundamental part of democracy and, by using this right now, people demonstrate their willingness to act and that they care about events in Ukraine.

After this experience in Tallinn, I travelled to Riga. I wanted to see what the surroundings of the Russian embassy looked like there. There was a huge picture of Putin’s face looking like a skull across the street from the embassy. There was also underwear covered in blood to represent rape as a horrible war crime committed by the Russian army in Ukraine.

The right to protest is a fundamental part of democracy and, by using this right now, people demonstrate their willingness to act and that they care about events in Ukraine. By political protest, I mean an individual or collective action to address some kind of issue(s). Those working in Russian embassies have to see these signs and slogans daily. People creating these signs and gathering for demonstrations can feel that they at least somehow contribute to opposing the war and Russia’s actions in Ukraine. I took part in a demonstration in Helsinki right after Russia invaded Ukraine. Even though I was shocked, sad and horrified, gathering with around 10 000 other people and shouting “нет войне” together in front of the Russian embassy made me also feel powerful and hopeful in that moment.

These are only some examples that have been taking place in front of embassies this year. In Poland, protesters brought household goods, like toilet seats, microwaves and washing machines, to decorate the front of the embassy, referencing the alleged looting of household goods by Russian soldiers in Ukraine (Grigorev, 2022, April 14). In Lithuania, attention was drawn to the rape victims of the war. Eighty women put bags over their heads, tied their hands behind their backs, smeared their bare legs with fake blood, and stood in silence for 20 minutes in front of the Russian embassy (Balčiūnaitė, 2022, April 19).

The symbolic role of protests and conflict transportation is crucial in opposing the war.

Conflicts can be transported to other locations, but at least in these cases, there is space and possibility to protest and no worry about imprisonment or persecution. I think these examples exhibit many good things about the democratic societies in which these forms of protest are occurring. The symbolic role of protests and conflict transportation is crucial in opposing the war. No matter what the angry Russians said in front of the embassy in Tallinn, these public spaces are exactly the place for politics and voicing opinions.

Maria Roivas is a master’s degree student in Peace, Mediation and Conflict Research at Tampere University. She is specialising in Russia and Eastern Europe through ExpREES studies at Aleksanteri Institute. At the moment, she is writing her master’s thesis on the meaning of home and sense of belonging to the displaced Ingrian Finnish diaspora.

This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Tartu intensive course students. The blog series analyses the impact of crises on the politics of history, challenges of democracy, biopolitics and energy security. This blog is belongs to the challenges of democracy part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

 

Sources

Balčiūnaitė, S. (2022, April 19). Protest Outside Russian Embassy in Vilnius Draws Attention to

Ukrainian Rape Victims. Lithuanian National Radio and Television. Retrieved from https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1676291/protest-outside-russian-embassy-in-vilnius-draws-attention-to-ukrainian-rape-victims

Grigorev, A. (2022, April 14). Polish Anti-War Activists Get Creative in Russian Embassy Protest.

Radio Free Europe. Retrieved from https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-embassy-protest-warsaw/31803046.html

Jensen, C. S. & Féron, É. (2021). Diasporas and Conflict Transportation: Challenges and Creative

Practices. TAPRI (Tampere Peace Research Institute).