The wily man, a character that manifested into all the main figures in the book, is an intriguing personality.
The wily man reconciles with the reality that it is easier or even profitable to adapt and please the ruling class, thus strike up compromises so as to work within the system as a loyal object. In exchange of their compromises on principles and moral values, they are free from the consequences of the open expression of defiance against the state, and even are awarded with benefits and conveniences in careers and daily life.
“There are no benefits in resistance, and too many in conformity”
The compromise somehow allows them to work inside the system but rebel within the given space of freedom as a small personal victory.
“if you’re stuck inside an unjust system, isn’t cheating it a bit here and there for your own purposes an entirely rational, even virtuous, response?”
“The wily man, Yuri Levada writes, “not only tolerates deception, but is willing to be deceived” and, what’s more, “requires self-deception for the sake of his own self-preservation.”
It is a survival strategy coping with the arbitrary and capricious rules from the regime. The act of wiliness entails the betrayal of one’s conscience, willing to turn a blind eye on the state’s dirty act in the expense of the sufferings of others.
In this book, the author Joshua Yaffa interviewed a handful of these prominent wily men/women, which prop Putin’s regime up in exchange for freedom within boundaries to do things they themselves deem worthy (researches, charity, rescue children, making provocative arts, etc). He sought to “understand the impulses behind these compromises, and how they function in practice”, so as to comprehend the living condition under the Russian State.
Holding apolitical stance is a must in order to win over resources needed for their causes, the interviewee usually insists.
What have they achieved through compromises?
Konstantin Ernst got to air some controversial TV shows and managed to hier outspoken directors to film a few documentaries, some were eventually censored.
Heda Saratova overlooked the Russian repression on Chechnya to mobilize state-funded flights and brought back dozens of once radicalized ISIS deserters, whose extreme beliefs were somewhat developed under such repressive environment.
Modern day bishops and patriots have to forgo the killing of 80% of orthodox priests in Stalin era and become a faithful supporter of the Kremlin regime to “preserve” the church.
Oleg Zubkov felt into the anti-Russian propaganda, leading him and other liked minded people to vote for Crimea return to Russia. The whole annexed Crimea then run into a big recession and the indigenous Tatar populations faces the risks of ethnic cleansing.
Perm’36, once a camp hosting Soviet political prisoner, is re-purposed for a more comfortable narrative. Rid of the message that the original Perm’36 museum symbolize: the reflection about Stalin era’s white terror and the demand of free speech, now the site serves as a silent memorial and storage of the prisoner records: millions of victims but no criminals.
The most impressive is the case of Elizaveta Glinka. She allowed the Kremlin to use her reputation to paint itself as a benevolent humanitarian, helping war victims in Donbass, even though it was Russian bombing that kill a lot of civilians. In exchanges, Glinka gained safe passages in war zones, unlimited medical supplies, priority transportation and aid from army, and hospital facilities.
“Why should I distinguish what troops are whose when I’m busy transporting wounded children through several checkpoints in an old jeep?” She insisted to be apolitical, holding a matching narrative with Kremlin, overlooking the infiltrated Russian militias.
Through compromising, these people extract some small profits from the state; they carry a pragmatic attitude to preserve one’s resources, be it for personal or collective well-being. The whitewashing they contributed reinforces the power of the Russian ruling circle; by permitting the autocracy, these wily people predispose other citizens in Russia and neighboring vulnerable countries to more war, suppression, and tragedies.
The wiliness is a sense of surrender that all kind of resistance is trivial; instead we join them for a “practical life” - a life promised with materials and comfy. As described before, wiliness stems from a pessimistic view that one cannot live without the given system.
Such attitude can be observed nowadays in other countries as well, since we seem to be so powerless to create changes. Can we imagine changing or even abandoning what we feel so familiar to: our current government system, the capitalism narrative of growth and progress, the so-called “rule of law” that doesn’t seem fair at all, or even our identity.
I think it is a critical moments to re-imagine these possibilities: what life will look like once we are independent from all the constrains imposed by external forces, refusing to to make compromises that betray our mind. It is not about giving up our safety for some abstract ideals, but about adapting to a corrupted and arbitrary regime - a task bound to fail.
“If the system has its sight on you, no amount of previous compromises will help you. And so maybe all the previous compromises aren’t worth it” – Michael Idov.