December marks the 30th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian propaganda machine will devote a lot of attention to the event, which may fill the information vacuum in Lithuania, Inga Zakšauskienė, a Cold War historian and disinformation scholar said in an interview with LRT.lt.
As a historian, which Russian attempt to distort history do you find the most brazen?
As a historian, who studies the weaponisation of history, I see that nothing new has been invented since the 20th century. There have always been attempts to manipulate history and facts, but today it is much easier to do so.
During the Cold War period, it was very expensive to organise disinformation campaigns. […] What is new today is the very swift dissemination of messages and the low cost of producing and distributing them.
For Russia, rewriting history and presenting it selectively is not a new thing. One example is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The same applies to the collapse of the Soviet Union – new narratives are emerging, they ignore reality, the stagnation of the economic and political system.
All the reasons explaining the collapse of the Soviet Union are found externally. Russia blames Western countries, and this is the dominant narrative. […] It claims that there was a US plan to destroy the Soviet Union from within and that [American] agents brought about a revolution.
There is also the narrative of the “traitor states” and their role in the collapse of the USSR. The [former] Soviet republics are accused of not appreciating the advantages of being part of the Soviet Union. The biggest “traitor” is Ukraine.
Not the Baltic states?
No, the vast majority of the examined articles blame Ukraine. […] The collapse of the Soviet Union was allegedly the fault of the Ukrainian elite, namely Gorbachev, who came from Ukraine.
[…] Ukraine’s independence struggles are also labelled as fascist and identified with Nazi ideology. [The Russian propaganda] says that Ukraine is a failed state, unable to survive without Russia.
This is probably related to current events? How does propaganda change in response to political developments?
There has been no study on how Russian information policy has changed. […] But I think that when relations with Ukraine were not so tense, it was not demonised to this extent, and the Baltic countries were mentioned much more often. Now, they are clearly pushed to the background.
The dominant narrative describes the Baltic countries as failing, dependent on the West, socially and economically backward.
A lot of attention is being paid to life in the Baltic states after the collapse of the Soviet Union, saying that conditions have worsened, energy dependency and social inequality have become major problems, and that the rights of Russian speakers are constantly being infringed.
These countries are called “traitors” not because they left the Soviet Union, but because they made themselves worse off. They are described as completely dependent on the West instead of being independent and continuing to prosper economically within the Soviet Union.
[…] Facts about the Baltic states are taken out of context, it is said that their secession and referendum were illegal because they contradicted the Soviet Constitution. But, as you know, the declaration of independence had already taken place, and those countries were following their own constitutions in organising referendums and elections. This fact is completely ignored.
What are the other facts that Russia ignores and lies about today?
[Articles] mention a number of politicians who are said to have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The entire Soviet elite is mentioned except for Stalin, who was an ideological god. Gorbachev is singled out as the greatest culprit in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Among the facts where the rewriting of history is evident is Gorbachev's role in organising the August Coup. It is very common in pro-Kremlin articles to say that he organised the coup along with other KGB and army leaders. But in official historiography, you will not find clear evidence of Gorbachev’s involvement.
Gorbachev is portrayed as a weak and incompetent politician. His good relations with the then US President George H. W. Bush are cited as evidence that he may have served as an agent of the West in destroying the Soviet Union.
But these are selectively used facts. Gorbachev was the first politician to be born in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik revolution. In his biography, he even admitted that he grew up listening to Western radio broadcasts.
Compared to the other Soviet leaders, he was certainly different, as he was open and cooperative. In the West, he was perceived as the first person from the Soviet Union with whom it was possible to have a constructive dialogue. And because of this western love, [Gorbachev] is being treated as a foreign agent in Russia.
It is said that insistence on remembering some moments in a country’s history usually disguises pressure to forget something else. What are the things that the Russian propaganda hides when it talks about the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Much more is hidden. First, the other reasons, such as the economic situation and the structural crisis that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union are never mentioned.
Nobody mentions that the system was inefficient, the planned economy did not work, and there were no resources to support it. The public fatigue and the gap between the elite and the common people, who had to queue to buy every product, are also ignored.
There is also no mention of the fact that information from the West was increasingly pouring in through the Iron Curtain. People saw that life was different in the West and that it was not as bad as was portrayed inside the Soviet Union.
The Baltic countries' secession is barely mentioned. When it is mentioned, there are negative connotations, saying that they left illegally, that life there got worse. But the fact that there were strong national movements is ignored.
In the case of Ukraine, [the Russian propaganda] ignores the fact that the vast majority of its population voted in favour of independence in the referendum on December 1, 1991. Such facts are not even mentioned.
How could we explain the continuing prevalence of such Cold War-era stories? Could it be that these stories will soon become obsolete?
Where there is demand, there will be supply. One reason is that many people who remember that period are still alive, and for them, it is part of life. […] The collapse of the Soviet Union affected the entire society. We have been part of this process, and that is partly why people are excited and seek information about it.
The second thing is that our historical knowledge is poor. It is our recent past, but we know nothing about it. There are big gaps in our historical literacy. That is why we accept any narrative that is offered to us.
We need to educate our population. […] If we know that it is the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and that the Kremlin organises disinformation campaigns, maybe we should try to be one step ahead.
We know that it is going to be an event that will attract a lot of attention. But is there enough information on it in our media? If the market is empty, the other side fills it.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
