"Russia's intervention is a new norm"

"This is not an ideology, but the principle of a political organization in which supporters [parties or leader] perceive themselves as" real "citizens expressing the true will of the people - against elites, migrants or minorities - ethnic, religious, sexual."

So the essence of modern populism is described by political scientists Yasha Munk and Martin Ayerman on the pages of Foreign Policy magazine . An important thing is to try to explain the essence of the phenomenon that they have been talking and writing for several years as the defining the appearance of world politics. No wonder: it is customary to reckon the current US President Donald Trump and a number of European politicians, whose positions have been significantly intensified in recent years - from Marin Le Pen and Hertha Wilders to Viktor Orban and Yaroslav Kachinsky. Most of them have good or even very good relations with the Russian leadership.

Last year, European populists and radical nationalists had reasons for joy. This is the third place in the elections in the Bundestag "Alternatives for Germany", and the participation of the Austrian Party of Freedom in the new ruling coalition, and the victory in the elections in the Czech Republic of the Ano billionaire Andrei Babish , and the high ratings of the Italian "Movement of the Five Stars" and "League of the North". Populists also had problems: the pre -election handshake in the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin did not help Marin Le Pen to become the president of France, and Gerte Wilders and his party performed much weaker than expected, in the elections in the Netherlands .

The balance of the past European political year and the prospects for 2018 in an interview with Radio Liberty are analyzed by the freelance researcher at the Institute of Humanitarian Research (Austria), author of the book "Russia and Western extreme right: Tango Noo Shekhovtsov :

- There are two views on the results of the past year for European politics. One is optimistic: they say, radical populists and nationalists suffered several rather sensitive defeats in the past year. According to this point of view, the populist wave is declining, European politics, as it were, returns to normal. Another look is pessimistic: on the contrary, populists confirmed their strength in the elections in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, they have good prospects in the imminent elections in Italy, they are still firmly in power in Poland and Hungary. Who, in your opinion, is more right?

-I do not think that here you need to look at the situation in the black and white perspective. In each country in 2017, certain processes took place, which were a logical continuation of the processes of the previous ones. 2017, if generally talking about Europe, is generally not the defeat of the extreme right, and not their success. Everything is individual. For example, if in 2016 in Austria, a representative of the extreme right -wing party of freedom Norbert Hofer lost the presidential election in the second round, now his party is a younger coalition partner in the government. At the same time, at the time of Losing Hofer in the presidential election, the Freedom Party was the most popular party in the country, and in the parliamentary elections preceding its passage to the government, it finished only the third. On the other hand, in Germany, the extreme right for a very long time had not been in parliament at all, but they passed in the 2017 elections. I would say that this trend with a rise in the right populism or radicalism began back in the 1990s, and it continues. But 2017 is not indicative in itself.

Emmanuel Macron accepts Vladimir Putin in Versailles near Paris, July 2017

I would have indicated here at one time. The victory of Emmanuel Macron in France is, after all, to some extent, also the victory of the anti-system forces. Macron, being a very pro -European politician, nevertheless, made anti -system positions. Often his criticism of the establishment in France was not very different from criticism from the right -winging "National Front". They just have completely different vectors. I would say that those limited victories that radicals won in various elections in 2017 are an indicator not so much that they become stronger, but that the establishment causes rejection from society. The same people come to power - this causes fatigue. The traditional political elite ceases to respond to new challenges of the era.

- You mentioned Austria, this is a good example. If you recall the times already quite distant, 1999, when the Freedom Party became a member of the ruling coalition for the first time, then the European Union even introduced sanctions against Austria for some time. Now no one is stuttering about anything like that. Is it possible to say that the trend that you said that it has been coming since the 90s has already led to the fact that the ideas and views of the radicals have become acceptable and "decent"? Are we already in the new reality?

I'm not sure that Putin controls all similar processes

- At first a small amendment: the European Union did not impose sanctions against Austria. There was a decision of individual countries - members of the European Union to greatly reduce diplomatic contacts with the government of Austria. These sanctions were lifted six months later, because they saw that they not only do not work, but also exacerbate the situation: the growth of Euro -digital sentiments in Austria was noticed. Now such sanctions are absolutely impossible. But here it is necessary to indicate that Austria President Alexander Van Der Bellen did not accept some candidates for ministerial posts that were frankly odious - those candidates that the Austrian Party of Liberty proposed. Alexander Van Der Bellen and the new Chancellor, the leader of the conservatives Sebastian Kurtz , in principle, did everything possible to reduce the negative effect for the European Union from the fact of the Freedom Party entering the government.

But you absolutely correctly said that to some extent, the ideas voiced by the extreme right became almost the mainstream. They received very serious legitimation. After all, the mainstream itself in Europe moved to the right. Against the background of a crisis with refugees in 2015, even moderate liberal forces realized that we are talking about such phenomena that can no longer fail to notice. That is, there is a trend: many right -centric forces moved to the right, and the extreme right became more or less legitimate.

- Here we say “right”, “radical right” - this is such a familiar term. But many political scientists note that in terms of socio-economic "law and justice" in Poland, the Party of Fides of Viktor Orban in Hungary and some others lead the policy that is traditionally considered to be left: this is economic stirrism, active state intervention in the economy. So, in Poland, a very large -scale program for supporting families with children, stimulating the birth rate has been adopted. In the Czech Republic, the ANO populist movement that came to power begins the rule with a sharp rise in pensions. Populists "eat" voters among traditional leftists. Maybe now in Europe only such "new left" will remain, which, on the one hand, promise everyone to give money, and on the other hand, they come from the standpoint of nationalist, Euro -digital and so on?

- When we are talking about the extreme right or the right populism, it is about the political content of their programs, not economic. Economically, many of them are really quite left. And again, this trend has gone since the end of the 90s. Then both the National Front in France and the Austrian Party of Freedom had a neoliberal socio-economic program. But then they began to notice that their electorate was plagued-a huge number of workers, the so-called "blue collar", these people left the traditional social-democratic and socialist parties. Then the populists changed their economic programs, focusing on these voters. This is an opportunistic solution. And by the way, it does not mean at all that these parties will be successful with such their socio-economic policy while in power. Examples with Poland and Hungary are not entirely successful in this sense, because both Poland and Hungary receive a huge amount of money from the EU, from Brussels.

Flags of Germany and Russia at a rally of supporters of right -wing populists in Dresden

- That is, they Brussels on what the light is scolded and at the same time get money from there?

- Yes, a huge amount of money, just huge. Actually, these subsidies help them to some extent pursue their populist economic policy. Based on only the internal resources of their countries, they could not do this. Therefore, it cannot be said that populists are successful in their economic policy. The European Union, which gives them money, structural funds that are spent on Poland and Hungary in large quantities, is successful.

- Against the backdrop of events around the American elections of 2016 in Europe, they also talked a lot about the possible intervention of Russia in election campaigns in the EU countries. How much, in your opinion, these anxieties were confirmed in 2017? Say, at least in the Bundestag elections, the most important ones, it seems that nothing particularly scandalous happened in this regard.

- Actually, Russia was burned in case with the Berlin “girl Lisa” , who at first was in the disinformation sense quite successful, but then came out sideways: in Germany, society and the establishment began to understand that Russia was really engaged in misinformation. Many have not believed before that moment. If we talk about the elections, there was still support for right-wing populists from the Alternative for Germany not from Russia as a state, but from certain Russian actors who tried to mobilize the Russian-speaking population in Germany.

In addition, there was an intervention in France: Russian media resources attacked Macron. Actually, the invitation of Marin Le Pen to meet with Putin before the elections - this was also a tool of political support at least. But I did not notice, for example, no intervention in Austria in 2017 in the parliamentary elections. Here it seems to me to always look at the national context. Russia has, they probably remained and remain good partners among the mainstream forces-these are social democrats, these are conservatives in different European countries.

Therefore, to interfere in the process, to undermine the friendly ties that they already have, with an establishment, is not entirely useful for Russia. In these cases, no intervention in the election processes occurs. That is, it is always situationally. I think that just such a scheme will remain: there will be interference in certain countries from Russia, but in others there will be - where the Kremlin already has allies among those political forces who, most likely, will form the government. There, radicals do not make much sense.

- In 2018, there are two events that are very important, probably, both personally for Vladimir Putin in the political and symbolic sense. This is, firstly, the presidential election in March, and secondly, in the summer the World Cup, which will be held in Russia. Is it possible to assume in this regard that the Kremlin will not be up to Europe and the activity of the search for political allies in the EU countries, which we just talked about, will decline?

Russia will continue to intervene in European domestic policy

- I don't think so. Firstly, I'm not sure that Putin controls all similar processes. Perhaps he personally does or engaged in some serious things-for example, combinations around the elections in the United States. But in other cases, this is the case of other people. They capture some signal from the Kremlin - what to do and what product they could then sell to the Kremlin, and are engaged in that product. And the product is, in particular, the presence of new allies in the EU countries. Here, other structures act: the foreign policy departments of both chambers of the parliament, and Rossotrudnichestvo, and "freelancers" like Konstantin Malofeev . They will still do this, as they still did it. I do not think that attempts to find new partners in the European Union or weaken opponents, like Angel Merkel, will stop. The situation will remain - this is a certain new norm, it is already necessary to approach this, maybe not so dramatic. Just understand what weak places in European societies are, how to protect them, work with this. And the fact that Russia will continue to intervene in European domestic policy, I have no doubt about this, ”said political analyst Anton Shekhovtsov .