Alexandra Polivanova apologizes after hearing the testimony of a Ukrainian refugee: “I am responsible for everything that happens in Ukraine, our efforts have not been enough.” She lands in Barcelona later than expected, and she goes to the Democratic Memorial dressed in condolences: a long black dress covers her entire body like a slab. The shadow of war trails behind her footsteps like the sway of her skirt.
That black is the only expression of sadness – hers, that of her compatriots and that of her Ukrainian neighbors – that is allowed while she, calmly, tells how Russia has silenced history to mold it at will. Polivanova is Russian, “another hostage of Vladimir Putin.” She is captive of the history of her country, of a dramatic and not-so-distant past that she insists on returning to. “We have never buried it,” she admits, and anyone who listens to her sees cemeteries.
A truth that she, as a historian, has made an effort to materialize in the International Memorial, an NGO based in Moscow that was born in 1987 to pay tribute to the victims of Soviet repression and of which Polivanova was a member of the board of directors. It was, because last December Putin closed the organization, accusing them of espionage for the United States and Europe.
Silence to rebuild… Is it the Kremlin’s modus operandi?
For three decades, the International Memorial gave a voice to the victims of communism in our country, but that doesn’t matter now, so they decide to eliminate it. The internal political international crimes of the Soviet Union are sensitive issues for today’s Russia.
Russia has yet to take responsibility for the Katyn massacre (1940), when the Soviet secret police mass-murdered Polish officers, policemen, intellectuals and other civilians.
It is discussed a lot, because it is recognized by the international community, but Russia has always denied it. In the memorial we have a database of victims of political reprisals, among them, also people who fought for the independence of Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania… But that we include this group, that we consider them victims, and that we point out the USSR as a terrorist state, did not coincide with Putin’s propaganda.
Like so many others, they were accused of breaking the law on foreign agents.
That law was a clear offensive against the memorial. But it wasn’t just the denunciation: hooligans from power came to make noise, Russian television talked about our association as an enemy of Russia… It went from bad to worse, until they managed to suppress the problem.
What evidence did they have?
We received money from outside Russia. It didn’t matter where it came from. The second parameter they questioned was our political activism. We started from the joint dialogue from the point of view of current values. We believe that talking about the past is important because we are heirs to that history, to our dead. The values ??are political, of course, but we were not looking for any kind of political power.
Putin picks up part of that legacy. He talks about returning Russia to its former splendor.
Putin is very interested in history to control it. He has his own version of him. His is a story with a single straight line, without controversy. He does not conceive that others have a different image of the same event. The memorial is independent and has its own criteria. In that sense, we are the biggest danger to Putin.
He said in 2000 that the collapse of the USSR was “the main geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.”
The uncritical attitude towards the USSR is constantly found in the pro-government narrative. Stalin’s very name is found everywhere. He and the Soviet special services are constantly glorified.
Do you see parallels between the Soviet Union and Putin’s Russia?
Russia sees itself as the successor to the Soviet Union. There is a mechanism of repression that covers everything: the cultural sphere, education, politics… They are the same structures, the same elites, the same special services. In other countries the leaders of the rebellion became the new elite, but not in our case. Yeltsin was better than Putin, but he was still from a communist party.
Does the judicial system support the regime?
Putin has found ways to mold the judiciary to his will. He invents laws as it suits him. He established a law to be able to stay in power longer, then the foreign agent law… According to the European Court of Human Rights, the latter violates European law and the Russian constitution itself. Putin is not a criminal per se, but he wants to turn ours into a criminal state system.
What are you going to do now with the organization closed?
The main office is closed, but it is part of a network of associations and we are working on one in Moscow. We do guided tours, people contact us, we offer information… We also have our own archive and we are making a digital copy.
Have you thought about moving the headquarters to another country?
We want to work in Russia, but part of my colleagues have gone to European countries. We keep in touch with everyone. I guess that’s what they wanted to stop, that communication with the outside.
She is also a writer and director of documentary theater projects. How has culture suffered under the yoke of the regime?
Many writers and theater directors have left Russia. Censorship is no friend of art. If you now do something independent in Russia, you can be sure that you will only receive negative comments from the official media. Hooligans will visit you, call the police, and tell you that you are breaking some law.
One of the most notorious cases has been the conviction of his colleague, the historian Yury Dmitriev, who exposed the world to the gulags and the crimes of the Stalin era.
Dmitriev discovered one of Russia’s largest death camps at Sandormokh and built a memorial in the cemetery. There we organized events in many languages, and representatives from various countries met. Yury made that a tradition. When he was arrested, he was recognized as a political detainee by all organizations, and the Russian media began to spread fake news, such as the fact that the victims of the Sandormokh massacre had been Soviet soldiers at the hands of the Finns.
Is it usual for historians to be harassed?
Our memorial has suffered many persecutions before its closure. Dmitriev’s is a particular case, because although historians who divulge the truth are censored, he rarely ends up in arrest. I think all of this is the product of a clash between two visions of the world: a colonial vision with Russia as the dominant country and a decolonial one where victims, marginal groups, local history and identity become important.
