Same River, Twice: Putin's War on Women by Sofi Oksanen
In 1944, the Red Army pushed the Germans out of the Baltic state of Estonia. Soon afterwards, Soviet officers took away Sofi Oksanen's great-aunt for interrogation. It was night. When she returned the next morning Oksanen's young relative appeared unscathed. In fact, she had been raped. She could only mutter a few words: 'Jah, ära', or 'Yes, please don't'.
The consequences of her unspoken ordeal were lifelong. As Oksanen relates it, her great-aunt became mute. She never married, had children or a relationship. Nor were the men who abused her punished. After the Soviet reoccupation – which saw Estonia erased from Europe's map – she lived quietly with her ageing mother. Black-and-white family photos and the stories that went with them were hidden.
Oksanen's bestselling novels and plays explore themes such as murder and betrayal during the long decades of Soviet rule. Her parents are Finnish and Estonian and as a child she visited her Estonian grandparents inside the USSR. Her new nonfiction book is a blistering account of how Russia uses sexual violence as a weapon of state power.
Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine took many in the west by surprise. For Estonians, though, it 'felt like a rehash of the 1940s, as if someone insists on pressing the replay button', Oksanen says. Despite a gap of 80 years, Russian practices were the same. They included terror against civilians, torture and deportations. Also propaganda, Russification, sham trials and wholesale 'cultural annihilation'.
Then as now, Russian troops carried out war crimes in areas they occupied, including sexual offences. This was systematic and genocidal, Oksanen argues. Victims were women, men and children. In spring 2022 one Russian soldier, Mikhail Romanov, broke into a house in a village outside Kyiv. He killed its owner and 'raped the woman he had just widowed', as the victim's child sobbed in the next room.
In the city of Bucha soldiers grabbed a local resident, 23-year-old Karina Yershova, in the street. They tortured and repeatedly raped her, then shot her in the head. Those at home in Russia offered encouragement. One Russian serviceman, Roman Bykovsky, rang his wife, Olga, from the frontline. According to a phone intercept, she told him she didn't mind if he raped Ukrainian women, so long as he used a condom.
Ukrainian prisoners of war captured by Russians, meanwhile, suffer hideous sexual abuse. Some are castrated. Others are repeatedly tortured, with electrodes applied to their genitals. This violence is done to degrade targets, to break their resistance, and to stop the next generation of Ukrainian children from being born, Oksanen says. Most men won't discuss what happened. The topic is so distressing it is easier to look away, she says.
Oksanen describes herself as a post-colonial writer. East Europeans went through totalitarianism twice – first with the Nazis, and then for nearly half a century, under the Soviets, she says. Typically, though, the experiences of those who lived behind the iron curtain 'do not find a place' in the west's cultural consciousness. Without a reckoning of Russia's'colonial' crimes, where the present echoes the lurid past, justice is impossible, she thinks.
Same River, Twice is thoughtful, instructive and deeply harrowing. Today's anti-Kyiv Kremlin rhetoric has deep historical roots, she points out. Stalin demonised the Estonians and other rebellious ethnic groups as 'fascists' – an enemy within. The state film industry in Moscow cast actors from the Baltic Soviet republics in the role of Nazis or American spies. Under communism, 'fascist' became a synonym for non-Russians.
In the run-up to his Ukraine attack Putin reactivated this 'dehumanising and racist' language. Russia's president said his 'special military operation' was necessary to free Kyiv from 'neo-Nazis'. The claim is absurd. Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is Jewish. Most of his male relatives perished during the second world war fighting against German invaders. Zelenskyy's defence minister is a Muslim Tatar from Crimea.
The book makes a compelling case that misogyny and imperialism are linked. At the same time as killing Ukrainians, Putin has rolled up women's rights within Russia. In 2017 the pro-Kremlin Duma effectively legalised domestic abuse. Russia's patriarch argued that criminal sanctions for men who hit women amounted to foreign interference. There was, one female deputy argued, nothing wrong with a mere 'slap'.
Putin's regime likes to portray itself as bastion of conservative Christian Orthodoxy. It has restricted the rights of sexual minorities and denigrates feminists as terrorists and extremists. 'Russia is a classic example of a patriarchal authoritarian state,' Oksanen says. In contrast to Baltic and Nordic countries, where talented female politicians become president or prime minister, women are mostly absent from the top levels of Russian political life.
Over the past two months Donald Trump has abandoned US support for Ukraine, dismissed Zelenskyy as a dictator, and repeated Kremlin talking points. His admiration for Putin can be partly explained by ideology. Maga supporters regard Moscow as a useful ally in the battle against 'woke'. With communism gone, Russia uses misogyny masked as 'traditional values' to find like-minded communities in the west.
Oksanen's brave public criticism of Russia has come at a price. Paid internet trolls slate her online and pro-Putin activists have disrupted her book launches. Russian disinformation campaigns have targeted other prominent women, such as Germany's foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock. Oksanen's message: see Russia for what it is and fight back. 'In that resistance I hear my great-aunt's voice,' she writes.
Luke Harding's Invasion: Russia's Bloody War and Ukraine's Fight for Survival, shortlisted for the Orwell prize, is published by Guardian Faber
Same River, Twice: Putin's War on Women by Sofi Oksanen is published by HarperVia (£16.99). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts new questions, concerns about politicization of military
WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump's political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that. During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump's political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so,' Trump said to boos about Biden. Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration's crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the 'fake news media,' transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance. Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases. Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops' reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump's speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump's impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.) 'It's a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,' DeWeese said. 'To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that's a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.' DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ. 'I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,' he said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members. Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there. 'It's terrible,' she wrote. 'It's predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it's a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.' The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media 'cheered on the Biden administration' and its policies regarding the Defense Department 'when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.' 'Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,' Parnell said. 'Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.' On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250. 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. 'The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor's presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.' The Army's own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust. The Army 'as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,' says the new field manual, 'The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.' 'Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.' U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says. 'As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,' it says.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Who started the Cold War?
Over a few short months after the defeat of Nazism in May 1945, the 'valiant Russians' who had fought alongside Britain and America had 'transformed from gallant allies into barbarians at the gates of western civilisation'. So begins Vladislav Zubok's thorough and timely study of the history of the Cold War – or, as he nearly entitled the book, the first Cold War. For the themes that underpinned and drove that decades-long global conflict – fear, honour and interest, in Thucydides's formulation – are now very contemporary questions. 'The world has become perilous again,' writes Zubok, a Soviet-born historian who has spent three decades in the West: Diplomacy ceases to work; treaties are broken. International institutions, courts and norms cannot prevent conflicts. Technology and internet communication do not automatically promote reason and compromise, but often breed hatred, nationalism and violence. Historians tend to be wary of drawing direct parallels between the present and the past, and Zubok is too wise to arrive at any glib conclusions. The bulk of this concise, pacy book is a narrative history of the postwar world and the great superpower rivalry that defined it. Yet, as we face a new period of strategic realignments, it's inevitably to the dynamics of the Cold War we must look for a mirror of our times. There are many surprises – one being that Joseph Stalin and his entourage had been expecting their wartime alliance with London and Washington to be followed by a period of cooperation. 'It is necessary to stay within certain limits,' recalled the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov. '[If you swallow too much] you could choke… We knew our limits.' Stalin, unlike his rival Trotsky, had never been a believer in world revolution and indeed shut down the Communist International during the war. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build and maintain a global liberal order, not by the Soviet Union's plans to spread communism in Europe'. Yet nearly four years of nuclear imbalance between Hiroshima and the first Soviet A-bomb test fuelled Stalin's paranoia. And a bloody hot war in Korea could very easily have escalated into a third world war had Douglas MacArthur been given his way and dropped nukes on Pyongyang. Stalin's successor, Nikita Khrushchev, revived international communism as a fifth column weapon against the capitalist world as the Cold War got into full swing. The great power rivalry became the wellspring for every post-colonial conflict, from Cuba to Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador and the rest. Zubok argues that the Cold War was caused by 'the American decision to build a global liberal order' But what is surprising is that, despite propagandists' eschatological framing of the conflict as a fight to the death between rival worlds, there were always pragmatists at the pinnacles of power in both Moscow and Washington. Khrushchev and Richard Nixon, vice president at the time, had heated but cordial man-to-man debates in an American show kitchen at Sokolniki Park in Moscow. Even the arch-apparatchik Leonid Brezhnev became 'a sponsor and a crucial convert from hard line to détente' early in his career, writes Zubok. And the great Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was a surprising champion of jaw-jaw over war-war. Some of Zubok's assertions are puzzling. Rather than the USSR simply 'running out of steam', its collapse was 'triggered by Gorbachev's misguided economic reforms, political liberalisation and loss of control over the Soviet state and finances'. But that formulation suggests that it was Gorbachev's choices that crashed the ship of state – and raises the possibility that had he not embarked on his reform programme the fate of the USSR might have been different. But Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin's economic reformer-in-chief, demonstrated in his classic 2007 study Collapse of an Empire that the implosion followed the iron laws of capitalism. The leaky bucket of the Soviet economy had been kept artificially full by high post-1973 oil prices but began to drain fatally after the Saudis collapsed prices a decade later. The USSR could not feed itself without buying US and Canadian grain for petrodollars. Gorbachev or no Gorbachev, the economy was doomed once the oil money dried up. Where Zubok gives Gorbachev credit is in the relative bloodlessness of the loss of the Soviet empire, a world-historical achievement that has long been ignored by modern Russians. Today, Gorbachev is reviled by his countrymen as a traitor and a fool who allowed himself to be taken in by American lies. Yet it is he who is the truly vital character on which any useful comparison between the first and (possibly) second Cold Wars hinges. The first Cold War was, as the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has argued, born of the 'Thucydides Trap', whereby war emerged from the fear that a new power could displace the dominant one. But Gorbachev envisioned a world where competition for influence and resources would be replaced by cooperation. Rivalry did not have to mean enmity. Zero sum can be replaced by win-win. Sadly, neither Vladimir Putin (who is merely cosplaying as a superpower leader) nor Xi Jinping (who actually is one) have shown anything like Gorbachev's collaborative wisdom. But we can only live in hope that The World of the Cold War is 'a record of dangerous, but ancient times', as Zubok puts it, rather than a warning for the future. Often seen as an existential battle between capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism, the Cold War has long been misunderstood. Drawing on years of research, and informed by three decades in the USSR followed by three decades in the West, Zubok paints a striking new portrait of a world on the brink.
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
