“It’s not for nothing that they call Pevek the city of romantics and daisies”, local resident Irina Shuvalova tells the camera. Taking part in a documentary for broadcaster Current Time (Настоящее Время), she is wearing both a puffer coat and hoodie in a living-room-cum-greenhouse in the Soviet-built former port town. Nestled cosily within the Arctic Circle on Russia’s north-eastern coast, the city’s panoramas showcase characterless flat blocks, dilapidated industrial enterprises, and – to Irina’s credit – patches of daisies battling against the brutal winds from the East Siberian Sea.
The discovery of uranium and tin deposits in the 1940s made Pevek’s position in the Chaunskaya Bay perfect for the delivery of equipment, but once the mines were closed and the gulag workers had left, industry in the town dried up. Optimism returned when Pevek became the home of Russia’s first floating nuclear power plant in 2020. The New York Times said it could be the ‘power plant of the future’, claiming it would employ 300 people which – although figures are currently unclear – would constitute a significant proportion of Pevek’s population.
And though Pevek seems unremarkable, and the Akademik Lomonosov (as the barge is named) does not look particularly inspiring, this development is an unlikely symbol for the unnoticed regeneration of Russia’s most remote districts.
At this year’s Eastern Economic Forum, an international conference aimed at encouraging foreign investment in Russia’s Far East, delegations from 63 countries including India and China discussed higher education, shipping, and Arctic development with their Russian counterparts. Almost 400 agreements were signed, with 41 involving foreign enterprises. The most notable was a joint deal between a Russian and a Chinese company who agreed to invest 5 billion yuan (£553 million) in the construction of an oil complex to straddle the border between the two countries, making exportation to China easier. Such a project is not only a result of closer cooperation between China and Russia, but is a response to a very practical concern over a decline in European demands for Russian energy.
Russia’s reorientation to the East was articulated more explicitly by the deacon of the Chongyang Institute of Financial Studies, a guest at the conference. Dr. Wang Wen said that Vladivostok could become the next Hong Kong, explaining that “the non-Western world welcomes Russia warmly, with both hands, but Russia must also turn its face to the non-Western world.”
For his part, President Putin showed concordance with his guest’s expectations, saying that “the role of the (Russian) Far East for our country, for her future, for the position of Russia in a multipolar world, is exceptionally important”. This evocation of the ‘multipolar world’ goes beyond a ‘turn to the East’ in describing the Kremlin’s hopes to establish new, more numerous centres of power which will re-balance the world order, bringing about the end of Western hegemony. Whilst votes of abstention and support for Russia at the UN among the global south are perceived as the source of this apparently inevitable process, the Russian Far East offers an increasingly promising launchpad in Asia for collaboration with non-aligned and anti-Western states. In particular, the Far East’s role on the domestic stage is perhaps the more significant compact.
One piece from state news outlet Ria Novosti describes ‘heliskiing’ as “snowboarding down untouched snowy slopes with a helicopter ride up to the beginning of the descent”. This is just one of the many activities you can participate in on a VIP tour of the ‘remote regions’ run by the Cosmos Hotel Group, who are planning to build hotels, chalets, and glamping sites from scratch in Russia’s Far East.
The President of the Russian Union of the Travel Industry told Ria buoyantly that demand for domestic tourism has risen by 30% in the last couple of years. He conveniently omitted the qualifier that Russians are currently prevented from visiting most international destinations by visa bans and a lack of flights abroad. Much like the Chinese transnational oil project, promotion of domestic tourism is yet another solution to the ramifications of the invasion of Ukraine.
Branding the Far East as a thrilling wilderness is a consistent effort that goes beyond state-sanctioned tour group adverts. It has been given a prominent stage at the dazzling Forum-Russia exhibition in Moscow, which is currently showcasing Russia’s regional cultures and landscapes to the capital’s population. One particular event was dedicated to recognising the winners of the ‘Far East – Land of Adventures’ travel competition, where the Grand Prize was awarded to a local who completed a 500-kilometre solo-kayak trip around the bay of Vladivostok. Winners in the ‘Winter Travel’ category, all of whom were from the Far East, respectively completed a seven-day bicycle hike, a dog sled race, and a horse trek along the Kolyma highway (the latter notable for sharing its name with the Stalinist gulag).
Promoting residents of the Far East themselves as courageous and determined is perfectly synchronised to enormous billboards showing Russian soldiers with the defiant text ‘We will succeed in everything!”. The war and civilian life in the East become ever more subtly intertwined.
But the more immediate practical function of the competition was articulated by the convenor (a deputy Prime Minister) who praised the winners for the videos which they had to submit as part of their entries, which would encourage others to go “in the right direction, to the Far East”. The promotion of internal travel on multiple fronts seeks not only to provide the remote regions of Russia with economic inspiration, but contributes to the Kremlin’s designs for a more tightly connected, inward-facing nation.
Taken at face value, the prevailing message of the exhibition is one of peaceful harmony between the diverse ethnic groups of the Russian Federation. Great emphasis is placed on the ‘native people’ of each region, and the Chukchi of the northeastern district of Chukotka performed traditional dances, played local instruments and sung in their native tongue to great applause in Moscow. Beaming indefatigably, these members of dance troupes and ‘ethnorock’ bands provide a useful example to be employed whenever the Kremlin wishes to highlight how it not only tolerates but celebrates the cohabitation of different groups within its borders.
Such a narrative is even more chilling when you consider that the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics, as well as the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts have also got stalls at the exhibition, also supposedly demonstrating the Russian value of peaceful coexistence.
Does this suggest a consistency in policy for Russia’s West and East? The misleading ‘We don’t abandon our own’ doctrine, initially used in connection with the campaign in Kherson, arguably extends all the way to the North Pacific, as the Kremlin decides who constitutes ‘our own’ and how they might be enticed or coerced into greater integration into the Russian Federation.
But there is an obvious divergence in practice, if not in theory. So far, the Far East has only invited flattery; Putin voiced his admiration for Kamchatka after visiting the immersive regional stand at Forum-Russia, conceding that he had never seen anything so beautiful. Indeed, Chukotka’s governor (previously First Deputy Prime Minister of Luhansk) stated he hopes to replicate his President’s reaction in others, expecting that acquainting Muscovites with his region could foster greater ‘closeness’ between Russia’s East and West. Opposition to such ‘closeness’ in the sparsely-populated remote East is not on the cards, but the comprehensive vision of the Kremlin’s policies – aiming at greater integration and centralisation with Russia – is certainly worth noting.
For the inhabitants of the Far East themselves, the material benefits arriving in the region will have far more of an impact than the state’s verbal admiration; the governor of Chukotka recently announced plans to open the local ports to cruise liners, a new regional centre for instruction in the mining industry is being set up in Kamchatka, and state media reported just this month that the cheapest mortgages in Russia are to be found in its distant North East.
Whilst extreme remoteness, 69 days of almost complete darkness, and living by the ruins of a gulag may not sound immediately inviting, Pevek and the settlements of the Far East are being positively redeveloped and growing in attraction. Irina Shuvalova contrasts the deprivation of the 90s, when her daughter would peer into an almost-empty fridge and ask for bread and butter, with the vitality currently being channelled into her town. She celebrates the resumption of shipping activities, accompanied by the appearance of brightly-coloured painted murals on the flat blocks which have given Pevek a veritable facelift.
Last month Pevek even made it to the national news, as discussions over the construction of a second floating nuclear power plant have apparently begun. The memorandum quoted in the article was sent by the government to Rosatom (responsible for the initial barge), and lays out the importance of “ensuring the socio-economic development of the region” with a project which could both help in the extraction mineral resources, and provide energy to inhabitants of Chukotka.
Plans for a second floating nuclear power plant in the North Pacific Ocean are not necessarily the key for a dramatic uncovering of Putin’s plans for Russia’s direction of travel, and I do not predict mass exodus from Moscow, nor Vladivostok becoming the eventual state capital. Nonetheless, the efforts going into the regeneration and promotion of Russia’s remote districts are remarkable, and have clearly acquired a new significance since February 2022.
Historically, there has been no strong tendency to report on Russia’s Far East in the media, so the fact that these developments have gone under the radar is, in itself, not a surprise. But the difference between now and the decades that preceded the invasion is that our attention is being actively diverted towards Russia’s western border, away from the vast lands east of Moscow. This is a serious mistake, since it prevents us in the West from grasping just how far-reaching the impacts of the war are on the Russian population, and moreover how the Kremlin is seeking to mitigate them.
Paradoxically, by having our eyes so trained on events to Russia’s West, we risk ignoring what true relevance they have on the entire country, especially in the Far East.
Suella Braverman – the trap for women (of colour) in politics
It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. After being unceremoniously sacked from her position, her divisive reign as one of the highest-ranking ministers in this country has come to an end. She has had her fair share of controversy, to put it mildly. She gained notoriety for commandeering the UK Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – a plan which has just been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. She has since compared migrants to a ‘hurricane’, argued that homelessness is a ‘lifestyle choice’, and accused the Metropolitan Police of left-wing bias for allowing a march in support of Palestine to take place on Armistice Weekend.
Many believe these statements to have been part of a meticulously crafted strategy to secure Braverman’s victory in the next Tory leadership election, rather than reflecting her real views. As Owen Jones shrewdly points out, ‘Her demagoguery was always contrived, like she was rattling through a checklist of clichés for any hard-right chancer who aspires to be prime minister.’ With her attacks on the ‘tofu-eating wokerati’, gender pronouns, and even cannabis (which she wanted to upgrade to a class A drug), it is hard to find a culture war box she hasn’t ticked. This has won her infamy even across the Atlantic; CNN characterised her as a ‘Trump tribute act’ and ‘commander-in-chief of Britain’s culture wars’. However, it is hard to believe that these are her sincere views. With her background as a human rights barrister, Braverman must have known that her Rwandan deportation plan would be unlawful; and given that both of her parents were immigrants to the United Kingdom, Braverman’s extreme views on immigration are certainly questionable. It seems as though she simply wants her soundbites and incendiary rhetoric splashed across the headlines, giving her free publicity and shoring her up to become the next leader of the Tory party.
But one must further question why Braverman has chosen to take such extreme, right-wing stances. I suspect it may have something to do with her gender.
It is hardly controversial to argue that women tend to have it harder than men in politics. Data from the United Nations shows that just 15 countries have a woman Head of State and 16 a woman Head of Government, with women making up only 26.5 per cent of parliamentarians. This is due to a variety of factors. For one, despite quotas for credentials and background, accomplished women are less likely than their male counterparts to perceive themselves as qualified to seek office. But more importantly, stereotypes about women and their roles mean that voters and parties are less likely to support female candidates. An influential study in 2003 showed that views about ‘women’s emotionality or competence’ affect voter support, and that party elites’ decisions to support female candidates may be ‘shaped by their perception of voters’ preferences’. This suggests not only that some voters are sexist, but that political parties may choose to de-prioritise women because they fear that voters simply do not like them.
This may be why Braverman has chosen to do what she has done. Women in politics cannot rely on being ‘quietly competent’ – the game both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have been playing. Instead, they must adopt loud, firm and clear stances, all whilst avoiding a perception of ‘softness’. Just look at the previous line-up of female Prime Ministers – Liz Truss, Theresa May, and Margaret Thatcher. Truss was in office for too short a time to be fully discussed, though she certainly did not help to fight the stereotype of women as ‘incompetent’. May was criticised for being ‘profoundly weak’, with many joking that she embodied the opposite of ‘strong and stable’ – her mantra during the 2017 general election campaign. Thatcher was the only female Prime Minister to have been viewed relatively favourably, but only because she supported policies to the right of her party, earning her the title of the ‘Iron Lady’. In the Labour Party too, many notable female politicians have assumed strong, uncompromising positions. Angela Rayner publicly criticised Jeremy Corbyn when he was leader. Rebecca Long-Bailey vowed to back all strikes, ‘no questions asked’, when running for Labour Party leader in 2020. In a notable recent case, Jess Philips publicly resigned from her post as a Shadow Cabinet Minister after voting against the party whip in support of a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine war. It seems that across the political spectrum in the UK, female politicians have adopted stronger stances than most men in their parties. This is unsurprising in a world where women are still underestimated and viewed as weak, and where women in positions of power have to work harder to prove that they deserve a place in the room.
In this context, I wonder whether there may be more structural reasons for Braverman’s right-wing stances. In particular, her identity as a woman of colour may have compounded the problem, making her adopt an even harsher stance on immigration, lest she be labelled as soft. I do not seek to excuse the horrendous things Braverman has said and done – she embodies the very worst of right-wing British politics, having used ugly, divisive rhetoric to further her own agenda. As a Labour supporter, I disagree with every single policy she has proposed. However, I do wonder whether she would have adopted the same stances, or whether she would have been nearly as vilified, were she a man. I can admit that I have felt less upset and less betrayed when Nigel Farage, a man, has made similarly vile comments on immigration. I am therefore unsure whether or not I subconsciously hold double standards for male and female politicians.
All this hypothesising may be wrong. But if it is true that she has adopted a more radical position because she is a woman in politics, I might be able to find just a tiny amount of sympathy for Suella Braverman.
Image Credit: ukhouseoflords, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.