This past weekend Reed saw the rare convergence of some of the most influential scholars of Russia. The event, titled “Understanding Putinism: Illiberal Russia through the Liberal Arts,” was an opportunity for many of these scholars to present work on the rise and effects of Putinism both in Russia and abroad. Presentations focused on a wide range of topics, from an analysis of Putin’s actions regarding Crimea; the role of Putin and Putinism in the media and, more specifically, Russian cynicism towards the reliability of the media; how Russia’s past foregrounded the rise of Putin in Russia; the fear of the return of a pre-Putin Russia; and, perhaps most interesting, the rise of a form of libertarianism in Russia today.
Despite the wide range of topics, one of the underlying themes of the conference was the importance of learning and understanding Putinism in the American liberal arts setting. It is easy to forget the looming presence of Vladimir Putin. The safety zone of our small liberal arts college has granted us the conception that his actions don’t directly affect us. However, Professor Konstantine Klioutchkine from Pomona College said it best when he informed the crowd, “I tell my students: to study Russia is to study ourselves.” This is true both culturally and politically, as many of the tactics central to Putinism affect and mirror a broad range of American perceptions and realities.
In the opening talk of the second day, Williams College professor Julie Cassiday discussed the use of “classical” gender roles, namely machismo, as a tool to reinforce the power of Putin in modern Russia. Cassiday highlighted that a lot of Putin’s perceived strength as a leader was built from a public persona as a “man’s man.” This is achieved in a number of ways, but most notable are the images depicting a shirtless Putin holding a rifle, fishing, and hunting tigers. The public persona presented in these photos is a strong, charismatic man who is “strong enough” to lead Russia.
In this role, Putin has striking effects on American politics and culture. By using “manliness” as a means to fortify Putin’s power, stereotypical gender roles are reinforced in Russia and have effects in America as well. Googling “Obama vs Putin” reveals an embarrassing number of memes comparing the manliness of both men, with Obama falling short of Putin’s standard. By comparing the manliness of Obama and Putin as a proxy for measuring their power, Americans reinforce the idea that you must be a strong man to lead, which is incredibly relevant in an election year with a female democratic candidate, who will likely never been seen fishing shirtless. Not to mention, this is a time in America where gender roles are increasingly being called into question.
Aside from the cultural dynamic between America and Putinism, there is also a literal threat associated with Putinism. UCLA professor Daniel Treisman’s talk “Putin and Crimea: Anatomy of a Decision,” argued that Putin’s decision to annex Crimea was ultimately an uncharacteristic gamble on the Kremlin’s part—one of a series of gambles of late, including Russia’s involvement with the Syrian conflict and a potential conflict with Turkey over the downed Russian aircraft. Professor Treisman located all of these gambles within the context of regions and situations that Putin deemed “strategic assets.” For instance, Putin’s decision to annex Crimea was born of a fear of losing access to the Black Sea via a port on the Sea of Azov; annexing Crimea from Ukraine ensures that Ukraine cannot take Russia’s position on the port away. Treisman concluded this talk by foreshadowing the outcome if the West fails to recognize and anticipate what Putin deems “strategic assets”, and what will lead him to take these risky gambles. The potential scenarios that Professor Treisman predicted included Turkey closing the straits to Russian ships or Russian troops being cut off in Syria. Putin gambling in any of these scenarios would have significant effects for Americans—even at liberal arts colleges—and the entire world.