Russophobia is a way of turning specific pseudo-facts into essential one-dimensional values, barbarity, despotism, and expansionism in the Russian case in order to justify stigmatization and ostracism.
Andrei Loginov’s Proposal
Mr. Loginov wanted to enshrine the concept of “liability for Russophobia” in legislation, calling for a legal mechanism to prevent the creation and dissemination of false information and propaganda against Russia. The government has prepared a positive draft of the official response to the draft law on criminalizing “Russophobia” for foreigners abroad, proposing to introduce a new article (136.1 “Russophobia”), into chapter 19 of the Criminal Code.
The 1st part of the article will address the liability for discriminatory actions committed outside Russia by foreigners (including public officials) against citizens of the Russian Federation, and against a stateless person, or non-Russian citizen residing in Russia. The 2nd part will address Responsibility for public calls for discriminatory actions.
Fergus Eckersley’s Denial
On the other hand, there is the usual “diplomatic” rhetorical denial from the West.
The UK Political Coordinator at the UN Fergus Eckersley, once stated in a 2023 UNSC meeting: “We do not suffer from Russophobia. There is a long history between our countries. We fought together in two world wars. Our country profoundly respects the rich cultural heritage of Russia “.
However, no number of “diplomatic” statements can obscure any fair onlooker’s vision, as we are all witnesses to the global anti-Russia campaigns, which certainly did not begin in 2022.
John Gleason’s Study
In reality, it’s not “public opinion” that pushes governments to form a negative opinion towards another country, even in the most “ostensibly” democratic societies, it’s the other way around. Governments and their propaganda apparatuses, form and shift public opinion and its citizens’ sentiments to endear or antagonize them towards other countries, creating enemies or allies in the process.
In his 1950 study on the topic titled “The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain: A Study of the Interaction of Policy and Opinion”, John Howes Gleason, Professor of English History and Chairman of the History Department at Pomona College in California, US, laid out the case that British Policy -towards Russia that is- was not seriously affected by public opinion, as he clarified that British “statesmen” who formed the policies, were customarily steps ahead of the public when it came to their sentiments towards Russia.
As a matter of fact -although being cautious not to belittle the significance of the public- Gleason viewed that the attitude shifts of Russia herself, definitely likely had more effect on British policies than British public opinion.
Guy Mettan’s Schism
In his book published in 2017 with the title: “Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria”, Swiss Parliamentarian and Author Guy Mettan, argues against Russophobia writing: “Russophobia is a way of turning specific pseudo-facts into essential one-dimensional values, barbarity, despotism, and expansionism in the Russian case in order to justify stigmatization and ostracism”.
He also focuses on the schism of the Church, as King of the Franks and the Lombards, Charlamagne, was coronated as the 1st Roman Emperor in Western Europe in more than 300 years. His mere crowning, aside from his introduction of reforms to Christian rituals and liturgy, which were denounced by the Eastern Orthodox Church of Byzantium, to diminish and undermine “Byzantine” influence over “Rome”, and the rest of the European West in general.
A schism that started initially religious with political aims, and later turned purely political “using” a religious veneer. While Byzantines and Russians were grouped under one category in the eyes and propaganda of the “West”. This category was named “Oriental style despotism”, as the Western Catholic Churches kept reprimanding Byzantium and Russia for their so-called “Caesaropapism”. The West was trying to ostracize their Orthodox nemeses in the East, by trying to contrast them to the presumably “enlightened” and “democratic” system of governance in Western Europe.
Mettan cites a very clear example, showcasing that before the Schism, Western Europeans did not hold any negative views or stereotypes against the Russians. As he reminds that when Henri I, King of the Franks (1031 – 1060) was widowed by his 1st wife Matilda of Frisia, He travelled around 2000 miles eastward, to marry Anna Yaroslavna, better known historically as Anne of Kiev, the Princess of Kievan Rus, turning her into Queen of France.
She ruled France after her Husband’s death during their son Philip’s infancy. Anne later got remarried to a French Nobleman called Ralph IV of Valois, and founded a monastery called “Abbey of St. Vincent” at Oise in Upper France.
John Hackett’s Fiction
The following quote is attributed to Peter the Great, Tsar of all Russia (1682 -1721), and the first Emperor of all Russia for the last 4 years of his life (1721 – 1725). The quote goes: “I strongly believe that the State of Russia will be able to take the whole of Europe under its sovereignty… you must always expand towards the Baltic and the Black Sea”.
This cited quote, is extracted from a 1978 fiction novel titled: “The Third World War: The Untold Story”, by Australian-born British General and Author, Sir John Winthrop Hackett.
A fiction where the Soviet Union launches a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom, which retaliates with a counter-nuclear attack on Minsk, Belarus, consequently triggering a loss of control of the USSR over the Warsaw Pact Republics. While food shortages in Russia, trigger an internal revolt and a military coup d’état. While another coup d’état initiated by the “Ukrainian Nationalists” overthrows the Politburo, inducing the fall of the Soviet Union, and bringing the end of World War III. Does this sound familiar and a little RAND-ish?
Arguably, the entire historical narrative of a “threat” to Europe’s sovereignty, emanating from a purported expansive “doctrine” of Peter the Great, is no less fictional than the aforementioned quote.
Michał Sokolnicki’s Memo
There is a recurring emergence of a plan for the subjugation of Europe by Russia. This phenomenon started in 1744, because of the Russian Chancellor, Alexey Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who called his foreign policy doctrine “The System of Peter the Great”, to legitimize it in the eyes of Princess Elizabeth, Peter I’s daughter, 20 years after her father’s death.
Alexey’s doctrine did contain the idea of Russian dominance over Europe, through strengthening Russia’s alliances with Britain and the Netherlands and bolstering control over the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The only European country antagonized in this doctrine was Prussia.
53 years later, a Polish General and Politician called, Michał Sokolnicki, decided in 1797, to send a memo to the French Directory under the title “Aperçu sur la Russie”, a.k.a. “Testament of Peter the Great”, based on Alexey’s doctrine. Sokolnicki’s memo gained traction in 1812, when Napoleon Bonaparte, decided to use it as an integral part of his anti-Russia propaganda campaign.
In the same year, Napoleon ordered a political essayist called Charles-Louis Lesur to write a memoir titled “Progress of the Russian Power, from Its Origin to the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century”, where the “will”, “testament”, or “system” of Peter the Great was included, to justify Napoleon’s war against Russia.
Since then, this memo has been cited by many historians, and it was even commented upon by none other than Karl Marx himself. Marx wrote: “The policy of Russia is changeless, the polar star of its policy – world domination – is a fixed star“. Adding: “Peter the Great touched this weak point when he wrote that in order to conquer the world, the Muscovites needed only souls“.
In 1912, a Polish Historian also called Michał Sokolnicki, weirdly the same name as the Polish General who sent the memo to France, confirmed that the original Michał, did not make false claims in his memo when he claimed he had found a Russian document detailing the plans of Peter I to dominate Europe.
Needless to remind, the “Alexey Doctrine” was written 20 years after Peter the Great’s death, and everything started from there.
In my view, after witnessing what Jeffrey Sachs called ”childish propaganda” during his recent visit to the EU Parliament, and what Glenn Diesen called on X “barbarian at the gates of Europe.. deliberate instrument of propaganda”, I guess Andrei Loginov’s “liability for Russophobia” proposal is justified.
Tamer Mansour, Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher
