Time to read: 14 minutes(s)

Target with the inscription "enemy"

The two weeks since the Crocus attack have only deepened the sense of utter madness: Islamic terrorists, somewhat confused, are repeating, “Honestly, it’s us,” Russian authorities are stubbornly searching for a “Ukrainian trace,” and the former head of Russia’s Interpol, Major General of Police Vladimir Ovchinsky, is on Channel One. saysthat the terrorists were controlled by Western intelligence agencies through implanted chips.

Meanwhile, local security forces are busy with their usual and understandable business: catching migrants from Central Asian countries. And various fighters for the "Russian idea", not particularly concerned with citizenship and religion, in their own way they're sorting it out with people of "non-Slavic appearance".

How will the terrorist attack contribute to the rise of xenophobia in Russian society, which is already not particularly tolerant? Who benefits, and who is orchestrating it? NeMoskva asked experts about this.

— Now that feeling from the 2000s has resurfaced, when Nazi groups were running amok—some of them, as it later turned out, were connected to the presidential administration—when participants in the “White Carriage” protest hunted “non-Russians” in the metro, when migrant traders’ stalls were overturned at the market, when people were simply afraid to go out on the streets on Zenit match days or on Hitler’s birthday… Russia is going in a spiral: we keep returning to what we were trying to escape from., - is talking Journalist Alexandra Garmazhapova, president of the Free Buryatia Foundation. 

According to Alexandra, after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has been busy showing on all television channels what a multinational, multi-religious nation we are, fighting against the Nazis in Ukraine. After all, the "denazification" of Ukraine was cited as the basis for the invasion, but when both Ukrainians and representatives of Russia's indigenous peoples raised the issue of xenophobia and racism in Russia itself, it became clear that the situation is, to put it mildly, not so good. This, in her opinion, was precisely the reason for the outcry over the incident on a St. Petersburg bus, when someone called Stella Kaziyake, a dark-skinned Rwandan woman, a "monkey" and "chunga-changa." The passenger was found, fined, and sentenced to community service, which caused a major scandal. In other words, the state has been trying to do some minimal work over the past two years. But by legitimizing violence against Ukraine, releasing bandits and murderers, and calling them “Russia’s new elite,” the same state legitimizes violence at all levels, especially against the most vulnerable groups. 

— Just yesterday, a Kazakh friend of mine who's been living in St. Petersburg for a long time wrote: "Four guys on the street tried to tell me today how I killed everyone at Crocus. I was lucky enough to run onto a bus. The last time I was in Moscow was about five years ago, but I'm still guilty of all the crimes. I'm Kazakh, but who cares? I still hear them say, 'You'll lose your ear, chump.'"», says Alexandra.

Our government has never addressed the problem of xenophobia and tolerance deeply, because if a society is sufficiently xenophobic, then any unclear situation can be blamed on someone else, says Garmazhapova:  

"We're currently witnessing a classic pattern: Putin can't admit that, in addition to the terrorists, he himself is to blame for this attack, because he ignored all the warnings, from Western intelligence agencies and even Tajik ones. He can't admit that the Russian intelligence services, which are primarily hunting down anti-war activists, are also to blame. But someone is needed to blame. And who could it be? Disenfranchised Tajiks. And a society insufficiently knowledgeable on this issue, xenophobic by nature, easily takes this bait. And if the state had worked with this society for many years, explaining how wonderful it is to have different cultures, it would have been impossible to manipulate people so easily. Therefore, I think the state, represented by Vladimir Putin, has been completely deliberately neglecting this, so that if necessary, it would be possible to play the national card." 

Putin has, after all, backed himself into a bit of a trap, Alexandra notes. On the one hand, he's recently been actively trying to befriend Muslims, placing a heavy emphasis on Chechnya and its "loyal sons of the Fatherland." On the other hand, he desperately needs to shift the focus of his hatred to the Tajiks, who are Muslims. Therefore, we can expect completely illogical, chaotic actions from Putin now, designed for the unpretentious audience—and he's a master at this:

In Russia, unfortunately, there's a gradation from best to worst. If you're an ethnic Russian, you're treated like some kind of higher caste. And in everyday conflicts with people of other nationalities, one of the key arguments is "go back to your Uzbekistan (Tajikistan, China, etc.)." The next gradation is indigenous peoples, not as tough as Russians, but still people with Russian passports. And then there's the category of disenfranchised migrants, looked down upon by both previous groups. Therefore, it's not just the ethnic majority who need to overcome xenophobia, but also indigenous peoples. A guy from Buryatia recently wrote to me about how, after a terrorist attack, his Buryat relatives said, "Now it's scary to be around chinks." He goes on to write: "I don't understand how, firstly, they call them 'churkas,' yet Russians will call them the same, and secondly, how they forget that they once lived peacefully with Muslims in Ulan-Ude." So, those who now allow themselves to insult Tajiks indiscriminately should remember that there's no guarantee they won't become the same enemies tomorrow. Remember how, at the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there was so much hatred directed at "Putin's militant Buryats"? For six months, any crime in Ukraine involving someone of Asian appearance was reported as a Buryat—even though it was later repeatedly revealed that this wasn't the case. And we had to go to the Ukrainian media and explain that among Asians in Russia, there aren't only Buryats, that there are many other ethnic groups. After all, these are people from the Russian army, with Russian citizenship. Does the crime become more serious because it was committed by a Buryat rather than an ethnic Russian? 

Any event of this kind causes significant frustration in many people, which must be directed at someone—Tajiks, Central Asian migrants, or Muslims in general. Some may focus on ethnicity, others on religion. When we read numerous, even completely neutral, descriptions of what happened, it's noticeable that the terrorists' ethnicity, rather than their religion, is most often mentioned. And this is quite typical of Russian society, where ethnic xenophobia is generally much more significant than religious xenophobia, says Alexander Verkhovsky, Director of the Sova Research Center, studying the problems of nationalism and xenophobia.

Will any discriminatory government measures be adopted? They'll likely be adopted not at the federal level, but at the regional or even local level. These could include restrictions on professions, for example, banning migrant workers from working in pharmacies or in public transportation. These are popular measures that have been used many times before. They make little sense, but they demonstrate to the public that the authorities are aware of the problem and are responding to it., says Verkhovsky.

 — And what might change now from the perspective of the average person, if we don't take into account Nazis or some particularly active groups?

 "There might be some local conflicts—not necessarily violent ones, but rather occasional instances of hostility. For example, screenshots of Yandex.Taxi conversations have surfaced online, out of nowhere, where people are complaining about not wanting to ride with a Tajik driver. But I think these are isolated cases—especially since, in Moscow, for example, waiting for a driver named Ivanov rather than Rakhmonov will be difficult. You could, of course, choose another service and pay more, but no matter how negatively people feel about migrants, they're not willing to pay extra for their absence." 

 — To what extent is this process spontaneous and to what extent is it controlled from above?

 People—not all, but many—genuinely dislike migrants. This has been going on for quite some time and can't possibly be a deliberate attempt by a group. On the other hand, the behavior of authorities at various levels is of great importance in this regard. Active anti-immigrant propaganda, with public events fueling widespread prejudice, has been ongoing for three years now. I don't think the authorities can incite xenophobia in someone completely indifferent to the issue of ethnic intolerance. But if someone harbors xenophobic prejudices and is simply embarrassed to express them for a while, then, after the authorities have demonstrated to citizens that it's socially acceptable, their prejudices come to the surface. And xenophobic prejudices are inherent in all (or almost all) of us to one degree or another—the only question is how much we restrain them through internal inhibitions.  

What consequences, in this sense, might the showing of videos of the torture of terrorists – or those designated as terrorists – have? 

 "In my opinion, this isn't about the relationship between Russians and Tajiks. It's about the relationship between the police and criminals. This is a public and likely unpunished demonstration of the fact that 

This is allowed with criminals, which, I think, will lead to more torture. Because the state has sent a signal: it's certainly forbidden, but "a little bit is allowed." And stylistically, it's not much different from the sledgehammer scene the Wagnerites performed—and all the participants in that scene had seemingly perfectly Slavic surnames.  

 — The government is sending a message to society: "The terrorist attack was committed by Tajiks (Muslims, ISIS, etc.), but the main enemy is in Ukraine and Europe." How can the average citizen reconcile this? Who will they hate?

The leadership hasn't yet made a final decision on how to respond to what happened and what picture to present to the public. When they decide, they'll build some kind of propaganda machine, which they'll repeat over and over again. The state isn't calling on us to hate Ukrainians—it's calling on us to hate the "Ukrofascist," "Banderite" regime. In other words, this fight is being waged along political and ideological lines, not ethnic ones. But having abstract notions about where the enemy lies is one thing. Practicing actual conflictual, aggressive behavior is quite another. For example, the number of people who subscribe to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is very high. And attacks on Jews are virtually nonexistent (with the exception of the events in the North Caucasus this fall—but that was more of a local anomaly).

Citizens are currently feeling somewhat confused because everyone is focused on the war, on a known enemy, and the Islamists have been forgotten, says Alexander Verkhovsky. And suddenly, it turns out, this part of reality hasn't gone away. Moreover, if a few low-skilled people managed to successfully, from their perspective, carry out an exceptionally large-scale terrorist attack, it suggests that the people who organized it will try again. And we need to prepare for this somehow.

"After the terrorist attacks of the 2000s—Nord-Ost, Beslan—we noticed in our media monitoring that after such an event, xenophobia levels rise not only toward the group associated with the terrorist attack itself, but also across the board—even toward those completely uninvolved. A terrorist attack or comparable event simply heightens the level of intolerance."

It's impossible to predict exactly what this will translate into now—whether there will be more attacks on people of Central Asian appearance or on those perceived as such. It's clear that the level of everyday xenophobia will increase, and that there are groups interested in this happening. Neo-Nazis have already expressed the idea that we should seize the opportunity to transform this everyday xenophobia into "conscious racial hatred" of enemies. But these groups are small, and I don't think they'll have much success. We need to wait at least a month and summarize our monitoring data.

"Fear is our protector; it warns us of danger. If we've experienced a misfortune, a loss, or heard about a disaster that happened to someone else, especially a major terrorist attack, we'll try to avoid similar situations in the future, staying away from anything that could cause them." - He speaks Consulting psychologist Inna SokolovskayaBut often this defense mechanism overreacts, with a reserve. And then we begin to fear not only the real threat, but also anything that resembles it. It's like blowing on water, having been burned by milk. And if a terrorist attack is committed (or allegedly committed) by people of one particular nationality or religion, it's likely that other representatives of that nationality or religion, who were in no way involved in terrorism, will then be perceived as a possible source of threat. 

The authorities can, to some extent, prevent such a development. They should warn against such generalizations. They should explain that adults, responsible, and self-aware people can regulate their emotional state, work with their fears, and refine their focus. This message should be heard on television and broadcast through social media. During the tragedy at the Crocus Theater, a young Muslim named Islam saved more than a hundred spectators. This fact could have been emphasized, repeatedly drawing people's attention to the baselessness and injustice of xenophobia. 

But how can we expect such actions from a government that has been deliberately inciting ethnic hatred for over a decade... And now they've even shown us public torture, as if they were bragging about it. After such de facto approval of brutality, is it any wonder that people perceived such a bloody spectacle as a command to "go ahead" or even "go get it!"?

"Anyone the state considers an enemy can be beaten senseless—that, in my opinion, is the government's main message to the population. And the criteria by which they propose defining enemies tomorrow isn't all that important. The main thing is not to ask whether I or someone close to me will be declared an enemy." 

The defense mechanism of generalization is natural, there's nothing pathological about it, explains the psychologist: just as an infected wound is trimmed down to living tissue before being stitched up, our brain operates in the same way, labeling anything that looks like a threat as dangerous—just in case. As a result, you involuntarily tense up, for example, when you see people in traditional Muslim clothing. But beyond these subconscious, innate programs, you also have your mind, your human consciousness. And you can recognize that such reactions are excessive, calm and support yourself, and refocus your attention. Remind yourself that this is only an internal program, which you have something to counteract, because overprotecting yourself isn't the best idea: this defense can consume too much energy, and innocent people may suffer, and we ourselves may lose important opportunities because they seem dangerous to us. 

— What should I do if my loved ones are subject to xenophobia?

Before you do anything, you need to ask yourself: What is my goal? What do I really want? Do I want to spare myself painful conversations? Or do I want to save my loved ones from a grave misconception, help them correct it? If you're concerned about protecting yourself, then you should say it: "I don't agree with this, I'm not ready to listen to it, I don't support such conversations. If you feel that way, that's your right, feel free to do so; you're adults." Basically, you need to explain briefly and clearly that you don't want to participate in such conversations and truly don't want to continue them, leaving others the right to think as they choose. Keep silent or change the subject. 

If you want to help a loved one see a situation differently, it's important to understand: I'm not solving my own problem right now; I'm working for them. And it's worth working for them if they're interested. Otherwise, we're doing what they call "good," which is the same old violence, just wrapped in a different package. Therefore, first of all, you need to find out if the person is open to dialogue. If they're relatively calm, don't yell, don't resort to personal attacks, and respond to arguments, the dialogue can be meaningful. If they're overly tense and emotional, trying to blame or ridicule you for disagreeing, you can try to lower the temperature of the discussion: "I can explain why I think this way, but I don't want to force you to agree with me. If you're ready to talk to me calmly, without yelling, without attacking each other, just to lay out my arguments, I'll explain my point of view. If not, I won't bother you." If that doesn't work, and the other person can't seem to escape their role as an attacking tank, is it worth the time and effort? Unless you really want to let off some steam, but what will happen to your relationship next? 

In my opinion, one of the best ways to dispel xenophobic sentiments is to gain an insight into the lives of people of a different culture. Therefore, films about people of different nationalities and religions are of enormous importance.

At first, they may be repulsive to those prone to xenophobia. But as they see that these are just like other people, with the same problems, the same tears and joys, they will begin to notice the common threads that unite us and stop focusing on cultural differences. After all, xenophobia is based on the idea of ​​the "other" not as a living person, but as an inanimate target labeled "enemy." And when you have the opportunity to see a person, this object-based relationship blurs, and you can hope that some of your arguments will be heard. 

Here are a few films that Inna Sokolovskaya recommends for protection against anti-Islamic sentiments: Watu Wote: All of Us (2017), "1001 Inventions and a Library of Secrets"(2010),"My name is Khan» (2010) and others.