М.Макфол / Б.Бондарев
В основу послания Бондарева легли некоторые его мысли и соображения по поводу инициативы Макфола об учреждении должности специального посланника США по делам русской диаспоры. По мнению беглого чиновника, для того чтобы его план сработал, США должны иметь четкое видение того, «какой исход войны администрация Соединенных Штатов считает для себя лучшим».
Не менее важна по Бондареву и выработка образа будущего России без Путина (привет Чубайсу и его израильскому Центру российских исследований). В этой части экс-чиновник имеет ввиду такое будущее, где «и демократические активисты, и бывшие режимные функционеры могли бы найти себе достойное место». Соответственно, если дать нынешним представителям власти «такое видение», это поможет «вбить клин» между Путиным и «большинством его элиты».
Соответственно, стратегией и дорожной картой для воплощения в жизнь данной концепции мирного сосуществования (как ее величает Бондарев) должны заниматься некие фигуры, которые являются антипутинскими россиянами. Идеальный вариант — микс из антипутицев, проживающих в России и за рубежом.
Объединять их, по предложению бывшего российского дипломата, должна организация, которая будет представлять россиян политически, позиционируя себя как проект альтернативной России — России без Путина. В качестве референсов Бондарев привел партию «Свободная Франция» де Голля и различные Фронты национального освобождения.
Разжевывая свою мысль Макфолу, Бондарев еще раз повторяет, что организация будет играть роль одновременно политического объединения (займется выработкой концепции) и чего-то вроде профсоюза эмигрантов (займется поддержкой русских эмигрантов на низовом уровне). Соответственно, после того как организация разработает и объявит видение лучшей пост-путинской России, ее, организацию, должны будут поддержать США и ЕС. «Таким образом, элита в Москве получит четкий сигнал о том, что организация эмигрантов является серьезной и солидной силой, с которой стоит вести переговоры», — уверен бывший чиновник. Все это, по его мнению, будет способствовать «разъединению Путина с его элитой».
В этом же документе экс-дипломат рассуждает о ключевых проблемах российских оппозиционных сил, среди которых он выделяет следующие:
— у оппозиционных сил нет рабочего плана, все сводится к тезису «давайте дождемся смерти Путина, и тогда мы получим власть»;
— политэмигрантов не воспринимают всерьез, видные российские оппозиционеры пытаются либо отвергнуть, либо обесценить идею организации политических эмигрантов (например, Леонид Волков);
— лидеры оппозиции действуют в устаревшей довоенной парадигме. Подавляющее большинство российских оппозиционных движений — это либо узкие, герметично закрытые коллективы, либо единоличные проекты, которые сосредоточены, в основном, на журналистских расследованиях, продвижении персональных санкций против бенефициаров путинского режима и войны против Украины, а также на пропаганде против Путина. Их информационная война не достигает большинства населения России, так как в основном «они просто вещают для собственной аудитории — уже либеральной и антивоенной»;
— отсутствие конкретного и детального видения и стратегии. Российская оппозиция очень сильно увлекается рисованием «Чудесной России будущего»
— воображаемой картины успешной демократии в России, где все демократические реформы уже проведены, а страна быстро развивается». Тем не менее, нет пока «ни понятия, ни плана, как это будет достигнуто и с помощью каких средств»;
Самое главное, по мнению Бондарева, что российские оппозиционные лидеры не предлагают никакого видения будущего России после Путина его же элите и широкой российской общественности, которая остается аполитичной.
В качестве примеров такого беззубого подхода, автор приводит вопросы, которыми задается беглая оппозиция. Например: «Как обращаться к тем российским гражданам, которые принимали непосредственное участие в войне?», «Как относиться к солдатам и офицерам, которые не совершали военных преступлений?», «Что делать с ветеранами-инвалидами и семьями погибших, должны ли они продолжать получать свои компенсации или все они должны быть названы «преступниками» и предстать перед судом»?
В заключении Бондарев предложил Макфолу свой проект под названием «Перспектива» («Prospective»). Главной его задачей Бондарев видит создание организации русских эмигрантов для представления их политических интересов. Беглый чиновник уверен, что проект будет способствовать «массовому включению лиц в политику». Затем, по его плану, должен быть создан аналитический центр, чтобы все «заинтересованные мыслители» могли начать работать над «наиболее неотложными стратегическими подходами». Бондарев продумал даже процедуру легитимизации своего виртуального детища. Он заранее решил, что за границей для эмигрантов нужно будет провести выборы. Опции, которые должен предложить референдум релокантам — создать организацию или продолжить бултыхаться в киселе самоорганизации.
Такие выборы «можно было бы провести через систему электронного голосования, которая могла бы быть спроектирована со всеми современными технологиями защиты персональных данных, защиты от фальсификации и взлома». Такая избирательная система, считает Бондарев, «не только обеспечит необходимую легитимность, но и позволит выдвинуть новое поколение политических лидеров». Возглавить всю историю с фильтрацией соотечественников за рубежом вызвался сам Бондарев.
Non-paper
The Russian Political Opposition in Exile: Burden or Partner?
Dear Ambassador,
In regard of your initiative to appoint a special envoy of the United States to deal with the Russian diaspora I would like, if you allow me, to share with you some thoughts and concerns on the matter.
You write in your op-ed in the Washington Post that “such an envoy could work on helping Putin critics living in exile to obtain work visas, unblock their bank accounts, and maintain their media or civil society work targeting those still inside Russia”.
These tasks are undoubtedly relevant and in the highest demand. Russian emigration is facing a lot of challenges and difficulties abroad. Problems in getting proper legal status, new jobs, opening bank accounts, renting apartments etc. frequently derive from current anti-Putin sanctions which tend, sometimes, to be mistargeted. So those people who can by no means be associated with Putin’s aggression still suffer from those restrictive measures. I am incredibly grateful for your pointing out at this issue.
I take it rather personally since having resigned in May 2022 from Russian diplomatic service in protest against the Putin unjustified and criminal invasion of Ukraine, I have found myself in a new status - a political emigrant. I was cut off from my country and, moreover, it was no longer possible for me to count on the support of my homeland, especially through diplomatic and consular representations. Very soon I understood we - I mean my fellow Russian exiles - are completely on our own.
I hope that your proposals will be heard, and relevant decisions will be taken in that regard.
Now, let me share some thoughts and considerations from my perspective as a Russian emigre.
Need to hear clear goals
Firstly, in my opinion, Ambassador, to make your proposal work, the US should have a clear vision of what Russia it wants to see or even if it really wants Putin (and his regime) gone in the first place. In other words, what outcome of the war the US administration deems best.
The fact that Ukraine’s defeat in the war, and thus Putin’s victory, would have unfortunate consequences for the United States hardly needs to be emphasized. In a strategic sense, it will undermine the US credibility as a dependable partner. It will also undermine its credibility as manufacturer of modern military equipment, which has not helped against Russian troops armed with far less advanced weapons. Moreover, the US unwillingness to openly confront a nuclear power will undoubtedly create ferment among NATO as well.
Naturally, Putin’s victory in any form will embolden many opponents of the US and the collective West in the world. The US will inevitably face a vast number of acute foreign policy challenges. The only way to avoid this situation is to defeat Putin in a serious, uncontested way.
It is Putin’s regime that is a threat to peace and international security. It is therefore the regime that must be confronted, and the West’s primary goal, if it is interested in lasting peace in Europe, must be the end of the regime, not the mere defeat of Russian troops in Ukraine.
Struggling for people’s minds requires a systematic approach
Fighting Putin can not be focused only on Ukraine and its battles. The Putin regime must be confronted also ideologically. It is no secret that the Russian elite supports Putin's rule mainly because they do not see an acceptable future for themselves after his departure. Today they are effectively threatened both by the Western governments with their sanction policies and the Russian opposition figures, the Navalny Team being most vocal. The regime functionaries understand that only sticking to Putin will help them maintain their level of influence and well-being.
So, the task is to develop a vision of a future Russia without Putin, where both democratic activists and former regime functionaries could find a worthy place for themselves. It is necessary to give them such a vision.
The vision has to be followed by a strategy and a roadmap depicting what has to be done in order to make the vision a reality. This will greatly help to drive a wedge between the dictator and the majority of his elite.
But who should elaborate such strategic vision and plans? And how to make the Russian elite and Russian society believe?
Need for a political organization to represent anti-Putin Russians
The answer is both simple and complex. Such strategy must be developed by people who represent the anti-Putin Russians - ideally both in Russia and abroad. To that end we would need an organization - a political one that will politically represent Russians and position itself as an “alternative Russia project” - Russia without Putin. Rough analogy could be de Gaulle’s “Free France” or various National Liberation Fronts of decolonial age.
Such representation would have two main goals: 1) to create a project of a new Russia alternative to Putin's regime, oriented to modern liberal values and aimed at building a working democratic system in Russia after Putin's departure, and 2) to provide support to Russian emigrants at the grassroots level - assistance in legal matters, material support, psychological help, etc. In the simplest words, it should be an organization that plays both the role of a political party and a trade union of emigrants.
The organization of Russians should set up a think tank to address strategic and tactical aspects of anti-Putin policies. Among them would be:
1) The above-mentioned strategic vision of Russia after the Putin regime.
2) Political strategy and a roadmap for the organization to become a viable political force that would be able to strive for power in Russia when the regime weakens.
3) To establish and maintain a link between the anti-Putin coalition and anti-Putin Russian citizens and their movements in Russia. Such communication and coordination seem essential to have a constant information supply from Russia as well as to promote our vision and policies among the Russians at home. Engaging well-connected emigrants or relocated Russians would be advantageous to build communications with various Russian groups which are reasonably not delighted with Putin’s policy and the war.
4) If necessary, the think tank could also provide the expertise on Russia and Russia-oriented policies, based on the knowledge and understanding of the functioning of Russian society.
Approach to Russian elite
So, once a vision of a “better post-Putin Russia” is developed and declared by the organization, it should be supported, in the most suitable way, by the US and the EU - leaders of the anti-Putin coalition and the source of sanctions and pressure on Putin’s elite. Thus, the elite in Moscow will get clear signal that the emigrants’ organization is a serious and solid force worth negotiating a possible off-ramp with. That would be a strong invective for those around Putin to start making moves away from him.
I regularly raise the topic of such a political platform uniting Russians in exile in my social accounts as well as in media outlets, for example, in the Moscow Times. The feedback is quite encouraging, more emigrants are beginning to ask for something that would protect them and help them in current situation.
Challenges the Russian opposition is facing
After over a year of observations I have to say that our opposition forces do not have a working plan how they can act in the current situation. Mostly it is all about “Let’s wait for Putin’s death and then we will get the power”. I am fairly certain that this is the major problem for all Russian antiwar and anti-Putin movements.
Political emigrants not taken seriously
Unfortunately, prominent Russian oppositionists are trying to either reject or devalue the idea of a political emigrants’ organization. For example, Leonid Volkov, a leading figure of the Navalny Team, keeps saying that needs and interests of the Russian emigrants and refugees should not be addressed - “it’s a minority playing no role”. Well, I would not say that about the most politically active and decisive people who Russian political emigrants truly are. No surprise that the Navalny Team has been losing supporters.
Another popular political YouTuber Maxim Katz always speaks for the uniting of all opposition people and forces - only to say every time that it must be initiated by someone else. A lot of the “ranks and file”, including myself, see those statements as a surrogate for long-needed political action.
Opposition leaders are acting in obsolete inadequate pre-war paradigm
Why is this so? The fact is that the vast majority of Russian opposition movements are either narrow, hermetically sealed collectives that do not envision mass participation (e.g., Navalny's Team) or simply individual “one-man projects”, as in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Maxim Katz, Dmitry Gudkov, and many others. They have certain resources and media popularity, but no political team in the exact sense of the word and apparently no strategy or roadmap.
They are focusing mainly on the investigative journalism, the promotion of personal sanctions against the beneficiaries of Putin's regime and the war against Ukraine as well as on the propaganda against Putin. Yet their information “warfare” is far from efficient as it does not reach the majority of the Russian population, I can judge by a number of my relatives, friends, and former colleagues back in Moscow. Basically, they are just broadcasting for their own audience that is already liberal and anti-war.
Lack of concrete and detailed vision and strategy
Another problem is that the Russian opposition is very much into painting the “Wonderful Russia of Future” - an imaginary picture of successful democracy in Russia where all democratic reforms have been in place and the country is rapidly developing. However, you never find any notion or, further, a plan, how this happy state of affairs is going to get achieved and through what means. How does the Russian opposition envisage their own rise to power?
Moreover, Russian opposition leaders do not offer any vision of the future of Russia after Putin to the Putin’s elite and to general Russian public which is still quite “apolitical”. The Navalny Team, for example, is more sincere here promising that “everybody guilty or connected to the regime” will be punished. The criteria for hypothetical repressions and lustrations, though, remain very vague, to say very least.
For example, how to address those Russian citizens who have been directly involved in the war? How should soldiers and officers who have not committed war crimes be treated? What to do with disabled veterans, with families of the KIA? Should they keep receiving their compensations or should they all be labeled “criminals” and tried in courts?
That is one important question, among many other, yet unanswered by our democratic leaders who are getting further detached from people. The increasing distance between the politicians and the people they claim to represent is aggravated by the fact that even their supporters have no tools to influence decision-making and the choice of this or that course of action.
These are really crucial points to think about. I hope that the special envoy could also help to facilitate some arrangements within the Russian opposition at least on key strategic issues.
New projects to move forward
Not to be unsubstantiated and following the principle of “criticize - suggest” I would also like, Mr. Ambassador, to share with you my project which, I hope, could be useful in a combat against Putin. I would be grateful if you find time to give your opinion on it.
The main task of the project “Perspektiva” (“Prospective”) in which I participate is to facilitate and finally achieve the creation of the political organization of Russian emigrants for political representation of their interests.
We would do our best to encourage the Russian emigrants en masse get involved in politics. They have to realize the old truth from “The Internationale”: “Никто не даст нам избавленья: Ни бог, ни царь и не герой. Добьёмся мы освобожденья своею собственной рукой ”. Only guided by this simple thought can we have hope for better changes in Russia. Otherwise, there will be Putin 2.0 followed by 3.0 and so on.
To start with, we are going to implement a few projects aimed at our fellow emigrants who need urgent help and support. Then, the think tank mentioned above is to be set up so all interested thinkers may start working on most urgent strategic approaches. Thus, step by step, we hope to guide ourselves and our supporters to the eventual goal of uniting all pro-democratic Russians.
Surely, I do not expect that we will be able to turn scattered and leaderless exiles into an effective organization at once, but someone has to make a first step towards that goal. We are expecting to draw more attention and thus attracting more people to the cause.
Legitimacy
The organization of Russian emigration certainly would need legitimacy. Current opposition leaders argue that it is the lack of legitimacy that makes it impossible to establish political representation. However, in my opinion, there are actually no fundamental difficulties here. It is possible to obtain such legitimacy by holding elections among the citizens who have left Russia - those who need such an organization and those who believe that Russians should organize themselves into a political force to defend their rights and their vision of the future. Such elections could be held via an electronic voting system, which could be designed with all modern technologies of personal data protection, protection from falsification and hacking. Similar electronic voting systems already operate in Estonia, Switzerland, and a few other countries. The election system will not only provide the necessary legitimacy but will also allow a new generation of political leaders to be nominated. Some more political competition would be only to the benefit of democracy in Russia.
I would be happy and honored if these analysis and consideration could be of interest to you, Ambassador. I would also be grateful, if you would express your thinking on the correctness and appropriateness of my thoughts on the matter. To what extent, in your opinion, would such an association of the Russian opposition be of interest to the West? Is there interest for quality expertise on Russia from Russian pro-democratic angle? What other tasks, to your mind, could a Russian opposition organization perform in order to facilitate the eventual defeat of Putin's regime? What, at last, is that the US would like to see Russians in exile actually do?
Your advice on all these issues will be especially important for developing a more complete understanding and for further guiding my activity (and that of some other interested people) in this field.
Most Respectfully, Boris Bondarev. Former Russian diplomat
Самое интересное, что амбициозный креатив снискал одобрение бывшего посла США в России. Макфолу инициатива настолько понравилась, что ее реализацию он решил поручить самому автору, то есть Бондареву. Так что эмигрантскую тусовку можно «поздравить» — фактически речь о признании провала предыдущих попыток сплотить беглых соотечественников за рубежом и появление нового проекта на уже поделенной ниве антироссийского креатива.
Что касается обращения Бондарева к Макфолу в целом, то спасибо Борису Анатольевичу — единственный сотрудник МИД, устроивший демарш против СВО, и тот побежал к архитектору санкций и другу неонацистов Макфолу. Лучшей антирекламы псевдопримирительной риторике катапультировавшейся из России оппозиции и придумать нельзя. Всё на деле оказывается ради организации россиян на борьбу в интересах Вашингтона.
Оставайтесь на связи, еще увидимся.