The inventor of Putinism had not spoken since the start of the war in Ukraine. L'Express spoke to him.
By L'Express
Never since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has he given a political interview. Nor has he made the slightest public comment on this war that is ravaging the heart of Europe. Vladislav Sourkov, arguably Russia's most mysterious figure, has remained silent. Yet the man who 'made' Vladimir Putin, the shadowy adviser who inspired novelist Giuliano da Empoli to write The Wizard of the Kremlin, has a lot to say about Russia and the man who runs it. It took us some time to approach him - and convince him. This politician, who can be considered the 'architect' of the Russian political system, has distanced himself from the man he served for two decades, Vladimir Putin. No one knows what Sourkov is doing today. In the interview he gave us, he avoided the question.
Why interview Vladislav Sourkov, who represents the exact antithesis of our democratic ideal ? Was it necessary to devote a cover of L'Express to a man who considers Ukraine to be an "artificial political entity" that can only be taken over "by force", as he declared in an interview with the Russian Telegram channel WarGonzo a few months before the start of the war ? Yes, precisely. Giving the floor to the wizard of the Kremlin means, in a way, getting inside Vladimir Putin's head. Although he is no longer in power, Sourkov has no less mastered all the workings of Putinism. And that is how this interview should be understood: a rare document that shows us how Russian power, at a time of high international tension, pursues its agenda and thinks long term, a far cry from the erratic Donald Trump.
This article is available in seven other European languages : French, German, Italian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Polish and Swedish.
L'Express : "There are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen", as Lenin is reported to have said... Is this the case in Europe today ?
Vladislav Sourkov : Yes, in recent weeks, the United States has unleashed a verbal storm on Europe. But for the moment it's just provocation and trash talk. The main thing is yet to come. Washington is emerging from stagnation. They still have to go through perestroika [reconstruction], glasnost [transparency] and new thinking. Soviet perestroika led to the collapse of the Eastern bloc. Will Nato and the European Union collapse in the wake of American perestroika? The question remains. It will be up to you to decide.
The negotiations in Riyadh on 18 February got off to a good start for the Russians. What outcome could be considered a victory for Moscow ?
The military or military and diplomatic crushing of Ukraine. The division of this artificial quasi-state into its natural fragments. There may be manoeuvres, slowdowns and pauses along the way. But this objective will be achieved.
Have Russia's objectives in Ukraine changed since 24 February 2022 ?
Its strategic objectives have not changed, but its tactical objectives have adapted as the strategy has been implemented.
You said : "For Russia, permanent expansion is not just another idea, it is the existential condition of our historical existence". What do you see as Russia's borders ?
I built an official ideology based on the concept of the 'Russian world', which already existed in philosophical circles. The Russian world has no borders. The Russian world is everywhere there is Russian influence, in one form or another: cultural, informational, military, economic, ideological or humanitarian... In other words, it is everywhere. The extent of our influence varies greatly from region to region, but it is never zero. So we will spread out in all directions, as far as God wills and as strong as we are. The important thing is not to get carried away and not to take on too big a piece.
Vladislav Sourkov
© / Anton Butenko / Kremlin.ru
This interpretation leaves little room for people's subjectivity. What if they don't want to be part of this "Russian world" ? Can people be forcibly associated with it ? And above all, why ?
I do not see in my previous answer the shadow of a denial of the subjectivity of peoples. It is Europe that has ignored the subjectivity of the Ukrainian people by supporting two coups d'état in Kiev. In 2014, for example, more than half of Ukrainians spoke Russian on a daily basis, both at work and at home. Less than half of them supported integration into the European Union, and even fewer wanted to join NATO. Against the will of the Ukrainian people, or in any case against the will of the majority of them, the West is trying to force Ukraine into submission, without anyone really understanding why. Even as we speak, European weapons, some of them French, are being used against my country to support the puppet regime in Kiev, which is based not on the majority of the Ukrainian people but on its anti-Russian and pro-Western minority. This is a continuation of Western attempts to colonise Ukraine by force.
"The war in Ukraine will separate the Russians and the anti-Russians or, to paraphrase the Gospel, the sheep and the goats"
Has the return of Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence been a conscious objective of Russian foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union ? In other words, has the annexation of Ukraine been an objective that Moscow has been pursuing, in various ways, since 1991 ?
This is Moscow's objective, but it is also Kiev's. In different ways, at different times, with varying degrees of success. In different ways, at different times, with varying degrees of success... In both Russia and Ukraine, since the collapse of the USSR, there have always been many people thinking about bringing our countries closer together or uniting them. Even today, there are still some on both sides of the front. It's natural, we are people of the same blood. Peaceful cooperation was prevented by two Western-backed coups in Ukraine, in 2005 and 2014. In both cases, Ukrainians were illegally subjected to the rule of an aggressive minority, motivated by the legends of a politicised ethnography and the mirages of European integration. This minority led Ukraine into war.
Don't you think that the war against Russia has, on the contrary, forged a Ukrainian nation and an 'anti-Russian' identity, including among Russian-speaking Ukrainians ? In other words, hasn't Russia created what it denied existed ?
Ukraine is an artificial political entity into which at least three very different regions have been forced : the South and East, Russian; the Centre, Russian-non-Russian (sic) ; and the West, anti-Russian. They couldn't get along and never have. The war in Ukraine will separate the Russians and the anti-Russians or, to paraphrase the Gospel, the sheep and the goats. The anti-Russians will not grow up. But it will be confined to its historical territory and will stop spreading across Russian soil. Perhaps one day Ukraine will be a real state, but only within its natural borders, and therefore much smaller.
Europeans are not invited to take part in discussions that affect them first and foremost. What do you think about this ?
"Not invited" means nothing. Nobody invited the Americans either. They invited themselves, they took the initiative. Russia has been saying for years that it is ready to talk. Europe could have responded at any time and opened a dialogue. It did not. Others did. That said, everyone knows that a lasting solution to the conflict is impossible without the participation of the EU. A balanced division of Ukraine will have to include a share for Brussels.
You seem to have a low opinion of the European Union, but you often speak of it as a coherent area. What form do you think political Europe should take ?
The EU was founded in 1992, immediately after the collapse of the USSR. Your Union was built on the ruins of ours. This has gone to the head of your politics. The EU began to expand in a frenzied and, I would even say, imprudent manner. It has put on unwanted weight. It has favoured quantity over quality. The result is a governance structure that is obese, overly collegial, and produces nothing but half-measures. In this context, we have seen the emergence of generations of European politicians whose speciality is half-measures. Now Europe has to decide whether it is a state or not. The member countries have delegated their sovereignty to the EU, but not entirely: another half measure! As a result, neither the EU nor its members are entirely sovereign. We need to get out of this precarious in-between situation, either by returning to the previous state of a purely economic community, or by taking a decisive step towards a sovereign federation. Either way, it will take willpower and a generous dose of good old-fashioned authoritarianism. Many Europeans think like this. The Euro-Putinists and Euro-Trumpists are gaining strength. Perhaps they will revitalise Europe. We must give them a chance to save the great European culture, which is a cousin of Russian and American culture. Otherwise, if you want to get an idea of the future of France and the others, just read Submission by Michel Houellebecq.
"Our victory [in Ukraine] will change us and the West. It will be a new step towards the integration of the Great North", you wrote in September 2023 on the Aktualnye Kommentarii news website. Do you still believe in this "global North" that would integrate Russia, Europe and the United States ?
In the future, the West will become more authoritarian and Russia less so. The proportions of freedom and discipline in our political systems will converge. This may not happen overnight, and it will be achieved at the cost of conflict and tragedy, but it is certain that the United States, Europe and Russia will achieve a high degree of mutual understanding and cooperation. It is a question of the survival of the great Nordic civilisation, to which the Russian, European and American cultures belong, against a background of almost unbearable demographic pressure from the South.
"Liberalism and liberal democracy are not dying. But the idea that they are intrinsically superior to other systems is dead"
Why - and how - should Russia become less authoritarian? Until now, the system has only evolved towards greater authority...
The first objective, the stabilisation of Russia's internal political situation, was achieved during the 2000s. Today, we are stabilising the country's international situation. When this objective is achieved, we will see the first signs of a gradual relaxation of the system.
Could the election of Donald Trump and the rise of nationalist parties in Europe mean the end of what you call Russia's "geopolitical solitude" ?
Geopolitical solitude is a constant in our nation's self-perception. Put simply, it's the notion that we can only rely on ourselves and that we must therefore arm ourselves with patience, bread and weapons. Trump's arrival in power does nothing to change that. This is not about contemporary international relations, but about our national consciousness and unconscious.
What role would China - and the Russian-Chinese alliance - play in this 'Global North' project ?
The basis of China's geopolitical doctrine is the diversity, coexistence and cooperation of different civilisations. This is a very well thought-out and attractive model for world order. The great Chinese civilisation will coexist and cooperate with the great Nordic civilisation. The alliance between China and Russia is part of this inter-civilisational collaboration.
You invented "Putinism". Has Trump adapted it to the United States ?
When Trump was first elected, a number of very serious American media published articles claiming that his teams had used my propaganda methods and some of my political ideas. I don't know whether this is the truth, a half-truth or a post-truth. At the time, the President of the United States publicly declared, and I quote : "The future belongs not to globalists but to patriots"; "The free world must embrace its national roots, which are irreplaceable" ; "If you want democracy, cling to your sovereignty". In short, these are the principles of sovereign democracy as I formulated them in the early 2000s, and which have become the conceptual basis of Putinism. Coincidence? Who knows ? Whatever the case, it is clear that ideologically Trump is closer to Putin than to Macron.
Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) passes by Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the Kremlin administration during a meeting of the Culture and Art Council in the Kremlin in Moscow, 30 May 2007. AFP PHOTO / ITAR-TASS / PRESIDENTIAL PRESS SERVICE (Photo by DMITRY ASTAKHOV / AFP)
© / DMITRY ASTAKHOV / PRESIDENTIAL PRESS SERVICE / ITAR-TASS / AFP
Do you agree with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán that liberal democracy is obsolete ?
I respect the cultural particularities of all peoples, even when they seem incongruous to me. If liberal democracy is a peculiarity of the political culture of a country or group of countries, that is their absolute right. Similarly, if liberal democracy does not suit Russia, that is our right. Liberalism and liberal democracy are not obsolete. What is happening to them at the moment is merely a crisis, they are not dying. But the idea that they are universal and intrinsically superior to other systems is dead.
Can Trump's United States become Russia's ally ?
Trump doesn't strike me as someone who wants to make allies.
Isn't the system of "democracy with a monarchical archetype" that you've invented vulnerable, because it's dependent on one man ?
There is no such thing as an ideal political system; every model has its vulnerabilities. Our model, like all others, has its own risks and codes of self-destruction. It is simply the most effective model for our country. It took me ten years to build it and look at it: it works. We need a tsar. Periods without a tsar always end in disaster for us. Multipolarity is good for foreign policy, not domestic policy.
Why do you think periods without a tsar always end in disaster for Russia? Why can't Russia do without a tsar ?
I could give hundreds of thousands of different answers to this question. I'll just give you the shortest one: I don't know.
Is the Russia of today the Russia you imagined in 1999 ?
Yes, 99.9%.
As well as political authoritarianism, the Russian system has added a conservative, even reactionary dimension - the role of the Church, laws on non-traditional sexual orientation, etc. Do you see conservatism as a means of mobilising the Russian body politic ?
All the changes to our political system since 1999 have always been based on conservative and relatively traditionalist ideas. I was already talking at the time about the mental matrix, the archetypes of our national consciousness, which cannot be ignored. The Russian liberals of the late 1980s and early 1990s made the mistake of thinking that Russia was a blank page on which they could build anything and everything. They forgot that Russia has existed for a thousand years, that its foundations were laid long before us, and that these foundations not only define our possibilities. They also dictate our impossibilities and set clear limits to any future state construction. Political tools are not as important as we like to think. Politics is first and foremost the domain of emotions and passions, and is only then about tools. It always comes down to the question of power, which is the oldest, darkest and most irrational aspect of human nature. Political tools help to ride the waves, but they don't create them.
What is your answer to the question posed by the Russian writer Ziamatine : "Is it better to have happiness without freedom or freedom without happiness ?"
Asking the question in these terms leaves me no choice. Jean-Paul Sartre said: "Man is condemned to be free". Condemned! So I choose freedom, with or without happiness.
What freedom can exist without political freedom ?
For me, freedom has absolutely nothing to do with politics. For me, a film director who, in a liberal democracy, dares not cast a great actor because he has been 'cancelled', because of slanderous denunciations, is a slave. For me, a white man who kneels before a black man because a white man once hurt a black man is a slave. For me, a company director who recruits someone to a position of responsibility, not because they are the best, but because they are transgender, is a slave. Yet all these slaves have, at least on paper, all their political freedoms.
What activities have you been involved in since leaving the Kremlin ?
I live my private life, which I never talk about in public.
Does this mean that the active phase of your political activity is over? Have you created everything you wanted to create ?
As I said, the system I helped create is 99.9% what I imagined. I don't yet know how to deal with the remaining 0.1%: is it a slight variation on the plan that is of no importance, or is it a major oversight, a mistake on my part? I'll think about it...
Alexandru Nicolae, profesor de lingvistică al Facultății de Litere București
