7 May 2022
People are, I know, frightened by Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons. I have suggested that even western leaders have been sufficiently frightened by these threats to be militarily unproactive. This means that Putin doesn’t need to use nuclear weapons, it’s enough to possess them and threaten to use them. However, the massive joint Finnish-British-American-Estonian-Latvian military exercises in SW Finland last week seem to have very effectively shut him up on the subject. This must prove something.
Would Putin use nuclear weapons, whether tactical or not? A spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said yesterday that ‘Russia firmly abides by the principle that there can be no victors in a nuclear war and it must not be unleashed’. That’s clear, then. Not quite. He added: ‘Russia must be ready for any provocations whatsoever from Ukraine and the West’, which surely means ‘ready with nuclear weapons to respond to nuclear provocations’. But ‘nuclear provocations’ have so far come only from the Russian side…
9 May
At the beginning of the war, Boris Yel’tsin’s daughter came out against it, prominent figures resigned from their state posts, hundreds of Orthodox priests signed a petition against it, thousands went on the streets to demonstrate against it, other thousands (including high-ups like economist Anatolii Chubais) simply left Russia in protest. But why didn’t Mikhail Gorbachev publicly express his opinion about it?
I have heard no explanation of this. Gorbachev is now ninety-one and quite frail, but he has always been such a great talker that my guess is he is gagged by some deal that Putin set up, with threats, years ago. In 2016 Gorbachev said he approved of Putin’s annexation of Crimea and would have done the same himself. He hasn’t come out and said this of the Russo-Ukrainian War, so perhaps he actually opposes it.
Curiously enough, Gorbachev may have made an extremely significant intervention just before the invasion was launched. His interpreter and now associate in the Gorbachev Foundation, Pavel Palazhchenko, stated, contrary to Putin’s then narrative, that western leaders in talks with Gorbachev in 1990 made no promises regarding NATO expansion into Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary and so forth, consequently no promises were broken when these countries eventually joined NATO, inflaming Putin’s paranoia. American officials involved in the Baker-Gorbachev negotiations have confirmed this.
But why did Palazhchenko express this outright denial of the Putin narrative, not Gorbachev? If Gorbachev had, he would presumably have been harrassed by Putin for breaking their deal, whereas Palazhchenko was protected by his boss’s stature. Palazhchenko could not have made this contribution unilaterally, I think.
10 May
A prophetic statement?
Yel’tsin explained [1991] that the Commonwealth of Independent States was the only choice on the table: ‘The main task was not to have Russia and Ukraine on the opposite sides of the barricades.’ If Ukraine had its own Army, currency, state borders, ‘there would be no peace between Russia and Ukraine.’ […] Had Russia not agreed with Ukraine, ‘tomorrow our reality could be a trade blockade, closed borders, and economic wars… The worst that could have happened would be a war using nuclear weapons.’
The quotation comes from Vladislav Zubok’s monumental but riveting Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union (Yale University Press, 2021), p. 409. Yel’tsin is a much maligned figure. He was not at all minded to give Ukraine its independence, but in the end was persuaded that it was the right thing — within CIS, which was intended to be as loose as the British Commonwealth. What stands out in this book is the fundamental integrity of most of the political players in perestroika and the collapse, compared with Russia today.
Click the cover to find this book on Amazon.
11 May
I was struck by the body language of those with whom Putin interacted at the Victory Day celebration in Moscow — military, veterans of World War 2, and civilians. They treated him gingerly, but not because they were frightened of him. I swear they weren’t. There was even a smiling sort of gentleness and humanity towards the deranged dictator. I couldn’t make out what it reminded me of, but have now put my finger on it: the last years of Leonid Brezhnev’s rule, when he was a walking invalid, even zombie, yet was treated with almost touching respect. (There is something elementally Russian about this, perhaps Orthodox at root.) Putin, with his livid colour and bloated face, could not possibly be described as a well man. Presumably those closest to him know the truth or otherwise about an impending cancer operation, but as I read it Russians sense he is finished, whether clinically, morally or politically. Perhaps this collective intuition has even caused Putin’s decimated and humiliated generals in Ukraine to play for time. Putin may have committed to a protracted war in Ukraine, but will he live long enough to see it through?
Personally, I think Russians’ support for Putin’s war has declined to 50-55%. A sure sign is that more irony about him is emerging from Russia, in the form of wordplay and anecdotes. The word pobedobesie has been coined, for instance, meaning roughly ‘fiendish obsession with having won World War 2’, and the subtle ampirator. What Putin aspires to be is a Russian imperator like Alexander III, but ampirator suggests that he is not the real thing, only a piece of the Empire (ampir) Style furniture that he surrounds himself with. Meanwhile, apparently, just as Stalin was known amongst the narod (people) as Riaboi (Pock Face), so Putin is referred to as starik v bunkere (the old man in a bunker).
Mr Putin is 69.
14 May
Some of the visits by western celebrities to Ukraine begin to look like the embarrassing phenomenon of high profile people jumping on the latest band wagon. I do think it’s dangerous for Ukraine, as it trivialises what is a brutal war for independence. Always patient and polite, Zelensky did not seem comfortable during his encounters with Nancy Pelosi or Pierre Trudeau in Kiev; I am glad that, as a skilled actor, he managed to convey at all times that his mind was on far more serious things than celebrity culture. Celebrity visits like Nancy Pelosi’s and Jill Biden’s also risk the impression that Ukraine is going to be americanised. This would be a disaster for it, as it would prove Putin ‘right’ about the U.S. fighting a ‘proxy war’. The whole point about the war is that Ukraine has become a European nation state. As its Foreign Minister said recently, ‘Ukraine is the only place in Europe where people are dying for the values the EU is based on’.
Even in the midst of such life-and-death seriousness, Zelensky retains his comedic sense. Lots of people in its history have invaded Ukraine, he said recently, and Ukraine has always beaten them back. ‘Invaders can’t resist treading on the same rake.’ Brilliant!
16 May
I doubt whether I shall continue this commentary on Ukrainian events in the same form. For one thing, the delay between my writing an entry and it reaching you, the readers, can be a bit too long. But there are other reasons for pausing it, which I can’t reveal until the war is over, but which you may be able to imagine given the origins of Sam&Sam. Naturally, I will post in real time if/when there are dramatic developments.
The anger and disgust that the invasion evoked in me led me to express myself more frankly about Russia and Putinism in these ‘diaries’ than at any time in the past twenty years. I haven’t been to Russia since I was made persona non grata by the KGB in 1981, and I kept everything pretty bottled until February 2022. I don’t think you need (or want!) more from me on those subjects. I think my take on Putin’s Russia is clear.
Slava Ukraini!
ADVERTISEMENT
SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS
‘This meticulous yet nimble book is bound to remain the definitive account of Calderon’s life’ Charlotte Jones, The Times Literary Supplement
‘The effort of detection, it must be said, was worth it. The biography is a delight to read.’ Emeritus Professor Laurence Brockliss, The London Magazine
‘It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian
‘This comprehensive, meticulously researched and highly readable biography, which the author describes as a “story” rather than an academic biography…’ Michael Pursglove, East-West Review
‘A monumental scholarly masterpiece that gives real insight into how the Edwardians viewed the world.’Arch Tait, Translator of Natalya Rzhevskaya’s Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter
‘The book is written with great assurance and the reader always feels in safe hands. I liked the idea of it being a story and I read it the same way I would read a novel.’ Harvey Pitcher, writer
‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking.’ Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18
A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.
A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.
The Isle of Wight Entente of 1909
Click the cover to find this book on Amazon.
If there is one book that I wish I had been able to read when I was researching my biography of George Calderon, it is the one above, published last year.
A quarter of it (pp. 231-336) deals with the visit by Nicholas II and his immediate family to Britain, more precisely the Isle of Wight and its Roads, in August 1909. Stephan Roman examines it in meticulous detail, even devoting a chapter to each day that the imperial yacht was anchored there with its Russian naval escort, Edward VII’s own yacht, and the entire British fleet off Spithead. This visit created such a public furore and interest in Russia that I am willing to believe that up in Hampstead it persuaded theatre manager Alfred Wareing and George Calderon that now was the time to launch the first production of a play by Chekhov in Britain, George’s translation of The Seagull three months later at Glasgow Repertory Theatre. Yet I completely overlooked the Tsar’s visit!
The event exemplifies Edward VII’s ‘facilitatory’ role in European diplomacy before 1914. British Socialists and Liberals, as well as the numerous Russian political exiles, bitterly opposed the tsar’s visit. In Parliament, the leader of the Labour Party, Arthur Henderson, excoriated the autocracy’s human rights record and demanded the Liberal government withdraw the invitation. But it had already been decided that this would be not a state visit, but a family visit by a nephew to his uncle (Edward VII), hence the invitation was not to visit London, but the Isle of Wight…which, conveniently, had been both the British royal family’s playground and ‘the apex of an imperial world’ (p. 19) since Queen Victoria and Prince Albert arrived there in 1844 and rebuilt Osborne House. So whilst the King hosted the visit, the British prime minister, foreign secretary and other prominent figures travelled down to the Isle of Wight to conduct their political business.
The ‘business’ was nothing less than to seal a long-prepared alliance with Russia and France which might deter German expansionism. On the outbreak of war, this ‘Triple Entente’ became a military alliance. So the ‘family visit’ was fantastically important, even though the public did not understand it at the time. The British press went mad with articles about Russian fashion, home life and cooking, ‘there was an equal interest in the […] culture of Russians’ (p. 267), and crowds flocked to the Isle of Wight for a glimpse of the Tsar, his enigmatic wife and their ‘lovely girls’ as William Gerhardie described them (they are now strastoterptsy, a special class of Russian Orthodox saints). It seems pretty clear that it was this stellar media event that led to the British ‘Russia mania’ which is conventionally attributed to the 1911 visit by Ballets Russes, and that the latter was an effect not cause. Like it or not, Russia was now our ally.
This blockbuster is really four stories, each of them absorbingly told. First we have the history of Russian royal visits to Britain and the Isle of Wight since Peter the Great’s visitation of Deptford in 1698. Here, for me, the revelation was how many future tsars had lived in Britain before a single British monarch or Prince of Wales travelled to Russia (in 1994). Then there is Nicholas II’s 1909 visit. This moves seamlessly into the story of the rest of his reign and the tragedy at Ekaterinburg on 17 July 1918. Finally, there is the enclosing story of Stephan Roman’s grandparents’ terrifying escape from the Cheka to Romania in 1922; the whole work is quite rightly dedicated to their memory and ‘the millions of Russians who […] were destroyed by the collapse of the Romanov dynasty’ (p. 392). At a time when an understanding of the longue durée of Russo-British relations could hardly be more relevant and instructive, I thoroughly recommend this book as your holiday reading.
ADVERTISEMENT
SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS
‘This meticulous yet nimble book is bound to remain the definitive account of Calderon’s life’ Charlotte Jones, The Times Literary Supplement
‘The effort of detection, it must be said, was worth it. The biography is a delight to read.’ Emeritus Professor Laurence Brockliss, The London Magazine
‘It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian
‘This comprehensive, meticulously researched and highly readable biography, which the author describes as a “story” rather than an academic biography…’ Michael Pursglove, East-West Review
‘A monumental scholarly masterpiece that gives real insight into how the Edwardians viewed the world.’Arch Tait, Translator of Natalya Rzhevskaya’s Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter
‘The book is written with great assurance and the reader always feels in safe hands. I liked the idea of it being a story and I read it the same way I would read a novel.’ Harvey Pitcher, writer
‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking.’ Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18
A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.
A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.