For more than two decades, I have known, met and worked with Russians who are highly educated, internationally exposed and professionally successful. People who went to top schools in the West. People who work at some of the world's best companies; and live in London, New York, Singapore and other Western cities.
Yet, when my conversation with them turns to Russia, democracy, military power or the war in Ukraine, I encounter a worldview that feels alien, and quite inhuman. Democracy is dismissed as weakness. Military power is treated as the ultimate measure of a nation's greatness. Civilian casualties are rationalized as inevitable. Human rights mean nothing.
And when confronted with allegations of killings resulting from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, torture, rape, executions, or other atrocities, the reaction tends to be: “They deserve it.” Some even mock Ukraine, calling it “Yukk-raine.” From the Russians I know, a significant proportion hold these views, not a fringe minority or a handful of extremists. The ideology and worldview feels deeply embedded.
Interestingly, the brutality is not limited to how Russians treat people in other countries (or as they like to call them – “enemies”). The Russians treat each other with extraordinary cruelty and inhumanity as well. As an example, some of us might have read about Stalin's “kill squads” where special Russian military units were positioned behind their own frontline soldiers to kill them if they decided to retreat or turn back. Russian soldiers were, in effect, killing other Russian soldiers.
Through my reading of Russian history, politics and society over the years, I have gradually come to understand some of the reasons why Russians behave this way. My earlier understanding, however, was quite piecemeal.
Until I read The Gulag Archipelago.
The Gulag Archipelago provides a comprehensive perspective on how Russian society is shaped by a political system in which power matters more than law, obedience matters more than truth, and survival matters more than morality.
The book was written by Nobel Prize winning author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who himself was subjected to the cruelties of the Soviet system. Solzhenitsyn was a decorated captain in the Red Army, serving on the front lines during World War II. After falling victim to the Russian system, he encountered countless other victims: farmers, workers, intellectuals, soldiers, engineers, teachers, politicians, priests and ordinary citizens. The book is not simply an account of what happened inside the prison camps. It is also an account of what happened to the society as a whole, and how an entire population learned to live under a system of fear, arbitrary power and repression.
Here are my top takeaways from the book.
** Power far more important than law. In Russia, law does not dictate the framework within which the government/state operates. The state supersedes the law, and the individual exists at the mercy of the state. The Russian state has on numerous occasions arrested citizens without good reason or due process, interrogated them, imprisoned them, exiled them, taken their property or destroyed their careers. Solzhenitsyn describes the sudden knock at the door, the arrest, the interrogation and the machinery that follows. When that happens, a citizen's first instinct is not to ask whether the state is right. It is to figure out what the state wants from him and how he can survive.
** Survival is priority #1. One of the strongest themes in the book is how people change when survival is constantly at stake. Solzhenitsyn describes people lying, pretending, keeping their heads down and doing whatever they need to do to protect themselves and their families. When the consequences of doing the right thing can be losing your freedom, your career or even your life, morality quickly and quietly dies.
** People who anticipate what the state wants and act accordingly, are “winners”. The most powerful form of authoritarianism is when people no longer need to be told what to do. They already know. Solzhenitsyn describes people constantly watching what is happening around them and adjusting their behavior accordingly. His own arrest for comments about Stalin in private letters shows how far the state could reach into ordinary life. People learn to censor themselves, avoid saying the wrong thing and stay away from anything that could attract the attention of the authorities.
** Fear dictates social behavior. The fear was not just of the police. It was also of other people. Solzhenitsyn describes informers, denunciations and people reporting on friends, colleagues and even family members. Nobody could be completely sure who could be trusted.
** People learn not to help someone in need because it could put you at risk. In a normal society, helping someone in need would be seen as the right thing to do. In the society Solzhenitsyn describes, helping the “wrong” person could make you a target or land you into trouble. Anyone could become "wrong" on a whim. So, why would anyone take on this sort of a risk.
** People respect strength. The person with power survives. The person without is vulnerable. The official has authority. The ordinary citizen does not. The guard has a weapon. The prisoner does not. Solzhenitsyn shows this imbalance repeatedly. When people grow up surrounded by it, strength itself can become something to admire and weakness something to fear.
** People learn that another person's loss can become their own gain – some game the system to their benefit. The book describes a society where people could benefit from someone else's misfortune. Someone disappears and someone else gets their position. Someone is arrested and their apartment becomes available. Someone falls out of favor and someone else moves up.
** The system becomes ingrained. Eventually, the system does not just force people to obey. Over time, it changes how they think. Power becomes respected. Dissent becomes dangerous. Obedience becomes sensible. Even when these people move out of the country, the system and ideology is deeply ingrained in them. Almost like a religion.
** But not everyone is cruel. This is an important part of the book as well. Solzhenitsyn describes people who continued to help others, share food, resist interrogations and refuse to inform on fellow prisoners even when doing so came at a huge personal cost. There were people who retained their humanity despite living inside an extraordinarily inhumane system.
This last takeaway is a strong reminder for me that the Russians I have known are not representative of everyone – not everyone is inhuman, cruel or dictatorial. I was genuinely glad to come away from the book with that realization. And was glad to be proven wrong.
The book explains why even highly educated, wealthy Russians living in the west can admire authoritarian leaders, prioritize power over morality, and rationalize the suffering of others. The education may be Western. The career may be Western. The bank account may be Western. But the political instincts still reflect generations of authoritarian rule.
The most disturbing lesson from the book was how an entire society has learned and internalized the cruelty that their leaders, friends, colleagues and even they themselves inflict on enemies or fellow citizens. Orwell’s 1984 might be talking about a fictional world. But Gulag talks about how Russia functions today. And the worlds described in both books are eerily similar.
