(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
When the profiled NUPI researcher Julie Wilhelmsen was stopped at the Sheremetovo airport in Moscow on Wednesday 22. June this year, it became known that she is probably on a Russian list of Western scientists and politicians with an entry ban to Russia. The list will be compiled in April 2014 in response to the Western sanctions imposed on Russia for the annexation of Crimea. Wilhelmsen could tell that she has consistently been denied a visa to Russia ever since. The visa in June was granted after the ultimatum from the Norwegian co-organizers of a prestigious international conference in Moscow. If Wilhelmsen did not get a visa, the Norwegian delegation would not participate. It didn't help at the border, and Wilhelmsen had to turn around and go home. The entry ban has been issued with reference to her representing a "danger to the security of the kingdom" and is stated to last for five years, until April 2019.
Ny Tid meets a committed Wilhelmsen after working hours outside NUPI's premises to talk about Putin's Russia, the West, propaganda and reality. The occasion is the forthcoming Russian parliamentary elections, as well as what has become known about the sanctions Wilhelmsen has been subjected to from the Putin regime.
The Entry Union is surprising. In the debate around Russia's annexation of Crimea and its conduct towards Ukraine, you have been criticized by, among others, Hans Wilhelm Steinfeld for advocating Russian propaganda, and received support from contributors such as Bjørn Ditlef Nistad and Pål Steigan, who have adopted the Russian reality description. Why doesn't Putin-Russia share this enthusiasm, but instead give you entry bans?
"I have not been given any explanation for that, but I understand that my research into the North Caucasus conflict is dissatisfied. In addition, my many years of critical views and comments on developments in Russia make me suspicious, given the tense mood and paranoia prevailing in Putin's Russia. Everything that is western and independent is manufactured as dangerous.
How is this experienced?
"Obviously it's a stress. At first I thought it would be okay, that I could keep myself updated by reading Russian publications. But I have a need to go to Russia to feel the mood and talk to people. I have no way to do that now. My colleagues are not affected by such an entry ban. "
Behind the conflict between Putin-Russia and the West lie two diametrically different realities of reality, grand narratives, if you want to. Which of these narratives do you think is most consistent with reality?
“I think grand narratives cover a basic need of people, because they provide simplified answers to complex issues. Therefore, the hallmark of grand narratives characterizes all societies. Such narratives are intriguing because they draw the world in black and white, placing all blame and responsibility on one side. In conflict situations that I have researched, the formation of grand narratives is an empirical phenomenon that often escalates the conflict. Such a narrative underlies a particular set of norms and values, and the main question becomes who is the 'worst', who is to blame, who has done it. At this banal level, I think that Western production is the most correct, with Putin Russia as the "worst", judging from the use of coercive power, lies and manipulation.
But that being said – I see it as my job as a researcher to try to free myself from both of these narratives. The problem with grand narratives is that they become so generalizing and absolute, and that everything that emerges that contradicts the narrative is rejected as a lie and something immoral. I feel that Putin-Russia has become a prisoner of its own grand narrative, about a hostile West looking to defeat Russia. I therefore see it as my job to counteract that we, on the western side, go into the same trap and become a prisoner of our own grand narrative of Putin's Russia as a threat to us, instead of coldly analyzing what is actually happening. ”
"Putin has proven to be a frighteningly cunning and pragmatic president, able to build on what is moving in the Russian people."
Stupidity. There is credible evidence and sources – which have been killed one by one – which say that the September 1999 housing block bombs in Russia, which provided a basis for the Second Chechnya War and Putin's presidential power, were a provocation staged by the Federalnaja sluzhba bezopasnosti ( FSB), Russia's security authority. How credible do you find this assertion, and what is the implication for the legitimacy of the Putin regime if it is correct?
"I agree that there is a lot of evidence that it was actually FSB that was behind it. Based on what I have read and heard, it is at least as likely as Chechen terrorists were behind. I also applaud the fact that the Chechens never took responsibility for these terrorist actions, as they have done otherwise, as in the attack on the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow and the school in Beslan. Unfortunately, resorting to such provocations and tricks is part of political practice in several parts of the world, but perhaps especially in Russia.
At the same time, it is important not to fall for the temptation to write a theory that the FSB and Putin are necessarily behind all terror in Russia on this basis. Politics and law are two different things. As for the legitimacy of the Putin regime, the broad popular support for the regime is a fact. The Western notion that Putin rules everything in Russia is damning. Putin has proven to be a frighteningly clever and pragmatic president, who has been able to build on what is moving in the Russian people. The expectation that Western sanctions will lead most Russians to turn against the Putin regime has not materialized. On the contrary, the sanctions mean that the Russian people can confirm the regime's narrative that the West is looking for them. Paradoxically, the sanctions have temporarily strengthened the position of the Putin regime. "
Hope for change? September 18 is the Russian parliamentary election. How do you see the Russian Democratic opposition's ability to win? And how can we from the west support this opposition?
"Russia is a sovereign state and insists on this sovereignty more than ever. Unfortunately, it is not up to us to decide how the country should be governed. In the 1990s, Western states and NGOs had a major influence on developments in Russia. Today the situation is quite different.
Within the Russian narrative, independent NGOs are portrayed as fifth colonists for the Western enemy. This manufacture is now also reflected in new Russian legislation. The registration of all 'political' NGOs with foreign relations as 'foreign agents' has made it very difficult in practice to support these forces on our part. Despite the fact that the Putin regime appears centralized and monolithic, there is still a more reform and west-oriented wing, represented by, among others, the former president and today increasingly marginalized Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. There are also human rights defenders and organizations working on the basis of the Russian constitution. Here I think the hope of change lies, although it does not seem bright at the moment. We should be aware that Russian society has even more nationalist powers that can take over if the Putin regime collapses or is ruled uncontrolled. "
When the Soviet Union disbanded, the liberal West was proclaimed victorious in the Cold War, and Western advisers moved in the 90s into the former Soviet Union to integrate the countries of the West. With Putin, this commute has turned. Could we now be integral to the former Soviet Union?
"I don't quite understand the question."
Take US Presidential candidate Donald Trump, who is Putin-friendly and has signaled that he, as president, will recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea.
"Now I understand what you're thinking. But again, I would be skeptical of the claims that Putin is responsible for everything wrong that happens, for example, in American politics. Here I think we should check our own conspiracy inclinations, and focus on the facts. ”
