Patriotism and cosmopolitanism
The case of the Amnesty International, which recently wrote about violations of the rules of war by the Ukrainian military, gives us an interesting phenomenon to consider. I will not argue about how valid the requirements are for Ukrainians to fight in white gloves, and how correct it is to try to maintain the line of "objective assessment" today. I am interested in something else: I have not seen practically a single Ukrainian who would approve or even be neutral about the Amnesty report. Liberals and patriots, officials and human rights activists all send Amnesty in solidarity to the address of a Russian warship and accuse it of working for Putin. At the same time, the outrage is caused not so much by the content (many did not even get acquainted), but by the very fact that someone decided to condemn the Ukrainian army. In general, Ukrainians today will be on the side of their army, no matter what. This position can be called "patriotic" or "nationalist" i.e. based on a sense of national solidarity. It is clear why this solidarity has escalated right now, but it was there before, such solidarity does not arise all at once.
Against this background, it stands out how easily some Russian oppositionists begin to wish for the defeat of the Russian army and even rejoice at the death of Russian soldiers. It's not that a patriot and nationalist can't oppose their government. Still how can. And against his own army, too, he can - if he is sure that the actions of this army are contrary to the interests of the national project. But for a patriot to oppose his army is not something natural, it is associated with frustration and overcoming some psychological barrier. Other Russian oppositionists easily overcome this barrier precisely because they have never been patriots and nationalists. They had no loyalty to the national community, but only some abstract ideas about justice. This position is called "cosmopolitanism".
Where does this cosmopolitanism come from? From there, that Russia is an empire, not a nation-state. An empire is an empire for that, which should go beyond the boundaries of an ethnic group, a nation, and any other local community. Consequently, the intellectual class of the empire must be the bearer of universal values that can be "carried" to other peoples in the course of expansion. Thus, we get an amusing paradox: an imperial is a latent cosmopolitan. A cosmopolitan is a latent imperial. In this sense, it is no coincidence that, say, US imperial interventions are supported by local cosmopolitans (liberals) almost more than local patriots (conservatives). The main thing is that these interventions take place under the slogan of importing the right universal values: democracy, freedom, and so on. But at the same time, if the imperial believes that politics is contrary to these values, he easily turns into a cosmopolitan who does not have frustration in connection with criticism of his army (which a patriot will inevitably suffer, even if he opposes his army).
In the Russian reality, however, everything is a little more complicated. The doctrine of "official nationalism", now uncovered (I talked about it in detail in my video about Russian nationalism) is not empire or nationalism, but a hybrid of these phenomena. Pure empire is "let a hundred flowers bloom" (under the political umbrella of empire). Pure nationalism - unification, but within the national community. Russian official nationalism is expansion + unification (Russification) if possible. But in any case, we have a funny paradox: the Russian imperial worldview is responsible for both expansion and at least some of the anti-war sentiment.
Mihail Pojarsky 13/08/2022
