SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home How Three Young Punks Made Putin Blink

PLANK AUGUST 17, 2012

How Three Young Punks Made Putin Blink

MOSCOW—When the sentence came, it was after three hours of Judge Marina Syrova monotonously reading aloud the entire tale of Pussy Riot’s encounter with the law. Three hours from the time she pronounced the three young women guilty of “grossly violating the public order” and of being “motivated by religious hatred,” the judge announced that only a “real sentence”—rather than probation—would be fitting and instructive enough. She quickly handed down a two-year sentence in minimum security prison to each of the defendants, and that was that.

In those three hours, however, with the entire courtroom standing the whole time, we got to hear the entire case all over again. We heard about how the three young defendants—Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Ekaterina Samutsevich, and Maria Alyokhina, handcuffed inside a bulletproof “aquarium”—as well as “two other unidentified people” entered Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior on the morning of February 21, at which point they mounted the steps to the altar, shed their winter clothing, donned colorful balaclavas and began to “raise their legs” and to “hit the air, as if it were an opponent.” We heard about how their clothing was in violation of Church rules, how Samutsevich, “in clear collusion” with the others, took out a guitar and how Tolokonnikova plugged it into an amp “without delay,” about how the place where they stood—the ambon—was not for women, how the Cathedral’s employees tried to stop them, how the Pussy Riot “demonstratively and cynically” defied “the Orthodox world” and tried to “devalue centuries of revered and protected dogmas” and “encroaching on the rights and sovereignty of the Russian Orthodox Church.” We heard about the materials seized in the searches of the defendants’ apartments, materials that, apparently, had “offended God.” We heard about the testimony of the victims, the Orthodox believers so deeply wounded by the thirty-second performance, though we learned that that testimony of one witness—he had seen the resultant music video on YouTube and read an interview with Pussy Riot —was struck, which was a shame because he had been the only one to explain to the court the etiology of the group’s name. (“Do you even know what ‘pussy’ means?” he asked the court two weeks ago. “I do. I brought a dictionary.” The word, it turned out, derived from “pus.”)

Through those three hot, tiresome hours, the three young women listened to the litany of absurdist, pseudo-legalistic, theocratic woe, by turns laughing and rolling their eyes. Alyokhina, the brain, watched attentively, her pale face calm under a poof of dirty blonde frizz. Tolokonnikova, the opposition’s sultry new sex symbol (Ukrainian Playboy has just invited her onto its cover), wearing a blue “No pasarán!” t-shirt, smirked and curled her lips in disdain. Even the shy and awkward Samutsevich laughed when the judge, a prissy older woman, read the full text of the punk prayer “Holy Mother, Chase Putin Away!”, uttering the phrase “the priest blows the prosecutor.” At one point, the unmistakable strains of punk wafted into the courtroom. The members of Pussy Riot who are still anonymous and free had emerged on a balcony across the street from the courthouse and began to rage through their new single “Putin Lights the Fires of Revolution.” Then they made it rain CDs. At the sound of the music, Tolokonnikova’s face lit up and, clasping her chained hands like a victorious boxer, shook them above her head.

When the two-year sentence came in, the girls laughed. When they were first detained and charged in March, all the signs had pointed to seven years behind bars. Putin had apologized to the Orthodox faithful, and the patriarch and Church made a point of staying out of the case, though it was quite clear that they weren’t.

But the Kremlin’s grasp on the story soon slipped. First, the story became a domestic PR-headache. Then, starting in July, Western musicians started glomming onto the case one by one: the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sting, Franz Ferdinand, Bjork, Paul McCartney. Madonna came to Moscow to give a concert, and ended up delivering an ode to the girls, donned a balaclava, and wrote the words “Free Pussy Riot” on her back. Unlike the highly politicized case of oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a man with a shadowy past who had the assets Putin wanted, the case of Pussy Riot had become an easily consumable image of good and evil: Three young women against an Evil Empire. The heretofore little-known punkettes received such unanimously positive international publicity that one began even to pity the Kremlin and the Church a little: They had clearly and severely miscalculated.

As is so often the case with the Russian government, it was Putin himself who dramatized the pathos. Just before Putin’s departed for the London Olympics—halfway through the trial—London mayor Boris Johnson spoke up for Pussy Riot; upon his arrival, Prime Minister David Cameron broached the issue with Putin in their private meeting. Putin took notice of these slights; as swaggering and rude as he is (he’s been late to meet just about every foreign leader, including the Queen), he very much cares about his image in the West. It is where, after all, all his friends and subjects have their money. It is also important to Putin to be the leader of a world superpower, which is what he thinks Russia still is. He cannot be an Assad or a Qaddafi; it is very important for him to be what the Russians call “handshakeable” abroad. And so, while his instinct is often to hit first and think later, Putin knows it’s in his interest to cultivate the image of a centrist. It is not unheard of for him to bow to public pressure, though he will try his damndest to make it seem like public pressure has nothing to do with it.

Thus, when the case reached a fever pitch, Putin, speaking from London, said the girls “shouldn’t be punished too harshly.” Let them think about what they’ve done, he chided, and, as always, left it up to the court. The court immediately picked up on the signal, and soon the prosecutor was asking not for seven years, but for three. Some of the victims stopped calling for any punishment. The liberals who had gotten so fired up about the case became even more fired up: Here it was, the taste of victory! Ebullient rumors of probation soon began to circulate around Moscow.

There was some truth in this euphoria, but not enough. Twitter had helped Russian liberals back the Russian regime into a corner in unprecedented fashion. But the system that does not have a reverse gear, a system that admits no mistakes, and shows no weakness (ninety-nine percent of criminal cases in Russia result in a guilty verdict) cannot get a new transmission in one week, or in one case. As soon as the trial began, it was clear that the government did not intend on absolving Pussy Riot.

Still, the two-year sentence was a surprise because it was less than the three many expected, and far less than the seven everyone feared. “In our system, two years is not a real sentence,” says Gleb Pavlovsky, who advised Putin’s successful 2000 presidential campaign. “They probably think they’re being very merciful,” especially considering that the girls have already served nearly six months of it in pre-trial detention. This was, in other words, as much give as the system could give.

Afterwards, supporters of Pussy Riot made their arguments for why it was still not enough. “Putin’s statements that the court could deliver a not-too-harsh verdict were expressed in a verdict that deprived innocent people of their freedom for two years,” defense lawyer Mark Feygin told a scrum of journalists outside the courthouse. “Who in their right mind could say this was a not-too-harsh verdict?” Alexey Navalny, the unspoken leader of the opposition, announced that he was “too angry to comment.” Nearby, a couple hundred very angry people had gathered nearby to protest, and a couple dozen of them were arrested. (One climbed the fence of the nearby Turkish embassy, and the police chased her onto its grounds.) The parents of the Samutsevitch and Alyokhina, who had originally disapproved of their daughters’ performance, now were fully behind them. “They did the right thing, absolutely,” Samutsevich’s soft-spoken, somewhat religious father said afterwards. “They really hit a nerve and showed the Church for what it is.”

And so the conclusion of the Pussy Riot trial served the same function as the performance that was its instigation: a demonstration of the deep contradictions plaguing Russian politics. From the perspective of the government, a sentence of two years is merciful; in the view of the country’s nascent, if disorganized and clumsy, but increasingly conscious, forward-looking middle-class opposition, it is beyond the pale. The original prupose of the trial may have been to cow Russia’s liberals, but the result was the opposite: Those paying attention to the trial—the journalists, the European parliamentarians, the activists, the chattering classes—were outraged, not intimidated, at the thought that three young women would be locked up for two years for singing a silly song.

When Tolokonnikova’s husband and Pussy Riot spinmeister Peter Verzilov emerged from the courthouse after the verdict, he was mobbed by journalists asking him for comment.

“What will happen to your wife and daughter?” one journalist asked. “Who will take care of them?”

“My daughter, wife, and everyone else will be saved by the revolution,” he said blithely. “Only the revolution. And we’re going to make it happen.”

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 12 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12 comments

Yes, they hit Putin. And the Church too. Why both? Sure, Putin uses the Church, as the Church uses Putin. But taking on both simultaneously? American sensibilities sympathize with taking on Putin, but I'm not so sure about taking on the Church. After all, the American evangelical community is a branch of the Republican Party. Three young, attractive women are the Russian spring? What are the men in Russia? Where is Jack Reed?

- rayward

August 17, 2012 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very well-written article. It covered just about everything in the case. Odd that Alexey Navalny should be so angry. He started out in the opposition as an extreme Right-wing nationalist. But he does have a touch of punk in him. And maybe he's just signing on to anything that makes Putin look bad. And, boy, does this make Putin look bad, even to some Russian conservatives.

- magboy47.

August 17, 2012 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Where is Jack Reed?" Jack Reed is dead. He's the only American buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis. But I imagine he's turning over in his grave right now. At the time he died, during the Russian Civil War, he had a bit too much faith in the ability of Russians to change, after a millennium of religious and political orthodoxy. How much longer will it take them to really change? Technology speeds up change, sometimes dramatically. Let us now praise Twitter.

- magboy47.

August 17, 2012 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also don't understand the choice of the young women to do this in the Russian orthodox church. There were surely some members of the church who can sympathize with disagreement, yet it doesn't give people the right to do inappropriate things in the sanctuary. Moreover, the former Soviet Union was very atheist on the front side. If Soviet Union didn't outright persecute the church, it barely tolerated it. At least some of the oldest parishioners can probably remember before 1917, have suffered to preserve the Russian legacy and its history against all efforts to extinguish it, and therefore would be deeply hurt by these follies of youth. I cannot say what the leadership or the courts should have done, but most of us know that there are some things that other people consider sacred (whether we think so or not) and violating them really does hurt their pride and is quite personal. Free speech is important, but even in the US, that doesn't always mean that every display of we have made in our youth was right or remotely appropriate. At the very least, that is something that I don't really see being considered in this article.

- wkdawson

August 18, 2012 at 1:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Moreover, the former Soviet Union was very atheist on the front side. If Soviet Union didn't outright persecute the church, it barely tolerated it." And that's one difference between the former Soviet Union and Putin's authoritarian state. Putin himself is most likely a non-believer, but he uses the Church much in the way that Fulgenico Batista, Juan Peron and other Latin-American strongmen did before him.

- AaronW

August 18, 2012 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tacky name for any band. Anyone here want to defend 3 rioting pussies who invade a Jewish synagogue or a Muslim Mosque? Anyone? A few years ago 2 NYC "shock jocks" encouraged listeners to go into St Patrick's Cathedral and copulate. Brilliant. But an invasion of private property. The history of Soviet desecration of Christian churches is long, so if Putin's minions draw a line against further anti-Christian contempt, that's good.

- raygun

August 18, 2012 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Reed, Harvard graduate and pro-Bolshevik author and witness of the 1917 Revolution, was never known as "Jack." He died in Moscow shortly after the Revolution. An urn containing half of the ashes of "Big Bill" Haywood, leader of the IWW and another American, is also buried in the Kremlin wall. Those who express concern about the "desecration" of the Russian Orthodox Church should bear in mind that the tradition of Russian Orthodoxy was always to support the Russian government. The Church was ways an arm of an oppressive and authoritarian State. Even after the communist suppression of the Church in the 'twenties, by the late 'thirties, the Church was once again being used by the Soviet state as a moral prop for "Holy Russia" and Soviet foreign policy purposes. It was once again a cooperative accomplice, even had its priesthood not been so infiltrated and coopted by the secret polic (NKVD/MVD/KGB). One example: the last Soviet-era patriarch, Alexii, had long been on the KGB payroll. Not for nothing was Stalin trained as a seminarian. He knew about the use and abuse of religious faith and of the church as an institution. Putin, the KGB man who runs Russia and convinced George W. Bush that he was a Christian and had a soul, has really cemented the Church-State relationship. In choosing that great post-Soviet nationalist monument, the re-built Cathedral of Christ the Savior near the Kremlin for their demonstration, the Pussy Riot girls were making their point: they were protesting the fact that once again, in time-honored Orthodox tradition, the church was in unholy collusion with tyranny.

- orray2

August 19, 2012 at 7:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"the Church was once again being used by the Soviet state as a moral prop for "Holy Russia" and Soviet foreign policy purposes. It was once again a cooperative accomplice, even had its priesthood not been so infiltrated and coopted by the secret polic (NKVD/MVD/KGB). One example: the last Soviet-era patriarch, Alexii, had long been on the KGB payroll." In the US, there were acrid debates amongst Russians about the church in Moscow --- some willing to recognize it, and some vehemently not. The majority of them were quite anticommunist whether they were willing to recognize the church or not. No doubt that the government has exerted control and "infiltrated" the Russian Orthodox Church. I cannot think Russians don't know that! Yet, what do you do as a Russian may I ask? Like any behemoth institution (including many in the US), there is a lot of dross in the gold inlayed icons. But being controlled and "infiltrated" by the state does not mean that every Russian Orthodox parishioner (and particularly every practicing member who serves in his/her church) is actively pursuing the bidding of the state. Some are there because they want to honor their traditions and their faith. That is where their traditions are. For those people, it does desecrate more than 1000 years of history. I understand that the young women wanted to make a statement to the state, but what does it say to those people who are real Christians in the Russian Orthodox Church? I guess there must still be at least a few.....

- wkdawson

August 19, 2012 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

orray2, You got it exactly right. I was going to comment about how the Russian Orthodox Church has been married to the state since the founding of Russia, in 988, when Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev converted to Christianity, but you said it better than I could. Here in Seattle there are two Russian churches, one a wooden traditional one named after the now-sainted Nicholas II, and another one inlaid with gold and jewels and other such obscenities. The latter was also inlaid with KGB agents, and I'm sure it houses FSB (Russian state security) agents today. I don't feel sorry for Orthodox believers in Russia. Their religious ancestors have knowingly cooperated in the murder of millions in cooperation with the religious state that has been and is Russia's government. Even Lenin, who hated religion, adopted the religious-type fanaticism that has so often been displayed by believers in Russia. And Stalin adopted the the Church's obsession with icons--writ large with those ridiculous three-story-high likenesses of Marx, Lenin, and himself that were displayed in parades and writ small with the many millions of busts and other paraphernalia honoring the gods who ruled Russia under the Bolsheviks.

- magboy47.

August 19, 2012 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...have knowingly cooperated with the religious state that has been and is Russia's government in the murder of millions.

- magboy47.

August 19, 2012 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Here in Seattle there are two Russian churches, one a wooden traditional one named after the now-sainted Nicholas II...." In other words, there are _some_ Russian Orthodox believers who may indeed desire to be faithful to the message of Jesus, not the whims of the state. Russia's history is often very painful and horrifying to read. It certainly was wise of the founding fathers of the US to separate church and state, because what has happened in Russia's 1000 years of Christianity (and Lenin and Stalin and so on) is a very good example of what can easily happen when you don't have separation of church and state.

- wkdawson

August 20, 2012 at 7:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well put, wkdawson.

- magboy47.

August 20, 2012 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close