LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Thursday, March 16, 2023

INTER-IMPERIALIST RIVALRY

French brewery attack flags Russia's tussle for influence in Africa

Barbara DEBOUT
Thu, 16 March 2023

On a night in early March, arsonists attacked a brewery owned by the French drinks giant Castel in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic.

Hurling petrol bombs, they set fire to beer crates stacked inside the MOCAF brewery's fortified storage yard.

But this was not some random assault by firebugs.

Footage from security cameras, say sources familiar with the incident, shows a planned operation by four men wearing fatigues resembling those of the Russian mercenary group Wagner.

The attack, they say, bears the hallmarks of a ruthless campaign to carve out Russian influence in the CAR, a country poor but replete with valuable forests, gold and commercial minerals.

France and Russia have long been wrestling for influence in CAR, a country wracked by poverty and plagued by a nearly decade-long civil conflict.

But until this physical attack on French interests, the confrontation had been largely limited to anti-French trolling, seeking to poison relations between the CAR and its former colonial power.

In December 2020, Facebook removed troll "factories" and other sources of fake news allegedly controlled by entities linked to Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, as well as accounts reportedly linked to the French military.

Last December, France pulled its last troops out of CAR.

It ended a deployment that had continued since the country's independence in 1960 and helped to stabilise it after a civil war erupted along sectarian lines in 2013.

The pullout came on the heels of a French withdrawal from the Sahel state of Mali after its junta forged a close alliance with the Kremlin and brought in paramilitaries described by France as Wagner men.

But in an apparent sign of warming relations, CAR's President Faustin Archange Touadera met this month with Emmanuel Macron in Gabon during the French president's most recent Africa trip.

That meeting occurred just days before the Castel brewery attack on the night of March 5.

"The Russians are concerned about a possible rapprochement between Touadera and the West, and are going to do whatever they can to stop it," said Roland Marchal, an Africa specialist at Sciences Po university in Paris.

- Brewery target -

Earlier this year, Castel and MOCAF, a major local employer, were hit by smear campaigns on social media and in the streets.

Castel presented a favourable target.

French anti-terrorism prosecutors had opened a preliminary inquiry into "complicity in war crimes" over a suspected financial deal with CAR rebels to secure production sites of the firm's sugar refinery SUCAF.

Signs saying "Castel = Terrorism" or "If you buy Castel, you're paying your own murder" were carried by a few dozen protesters outside the brewery in mid-January.

A senior Castel executive in France, who requested anonymity to discuss the security risks, said there was an attempted intrusion before the March 5 attack.

"On January 30, during a curfew, three white men got out of an unmarked car and approached (the brewery) carrying a ladder before fleeing when security personnel approached."

"The same night, a drone flew over the brewery," the executive said.

- Lightning attack -

Video footage of the March 5 attack went viral on social media, and was confirmed to AFP by MOCAF, the French group's local subsidiary.

Ben Wilson Ngassan, a communications consultant for MOCAF, said "around 30" petrol bombs were thrown in "a premeditated operation, a lightning attack (that lasted) five minutes, tops."

A well-informed European source said the footage bore clear signs that the assailants were Wagner.

They had "quite an athletic build," had a military comportment, wore military fatigues -- a familiar sight in Bangui -- and had Kalashnikov assault rifles slung over their shoulders, the source said.

Russian paramilitaries have been in the country since 2018, when they were brought in to buttress CAR's beleaguered military.

Their numbers were increased by hundreds in 2020 to thwart rebels who advancing on the capital as a presidential election unfolded.

A UN rights expert as well as NGOs and Western capitals have accused Wagner mercenaries of carrying out crimes against civilians. The group also operates in Mali.

But France also suspects Touadera of buying Wagner's support against rebel insurgencies by providing it access to diamonds and the country's other natural riches.

- Intimidation? -

A diplomat in Bangui called the brewery bombing the latest attempt to intimidate Western businesses in the CAR.

It came as a rival beer called Africa Ti L'Or appeared in markets and bars across Bangui.

The new brand is brewed by a firm called the First Industrial Company, owned by Russia's cultural attache in Bangui, Dmitry Syty, according to the weekly Jeune Africa.

Syty is "one of the pillars of the Wagner network in CAR," according to the All Eyes on Wagner investigative consortium.

He was reportedly injured last year by a letter bomb, which Prigozhin blamed on France -- a claim that France dismissed as Russian "propaganda."

- Blame game -

Social networks and pro-Russia media outlets have attributed the brewery attack to Central Africans or disguised "mercenaries" paid by France to make it look like a Wagner attack.

The Ndjoni Sango news site, a staunch supporter of Russia's presence in the country, even announced the arrest of seven "suspects" and attributed the attack to the Fulani ethnic group.

The claim "is fake news," an official in CAR's security forces told AFP.

On March 9, police detained eight foreigners, including four French nationals, at a popular restaurant and hotel in Bangui while purportedly searching for the "inflammable liquid" used in the brewery attack.

All were released without charges a few hours later.

There are no signs of any progress in the inquiry into the brewery attack.

"We are examining all documents before making any arrest," Bangui's chief prosecutor Benoit Narcisse Foukpio told AFP on Tuesday.

bdl-gir/js/ri

US candidate for UN migration chief vows 'new vision'
Issued on: 16/03/2023

International Organization for Migration (IOM) deputy director, Amy Pope, is running for the agency's top job against her own boss © Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP

Geneva (AFP) – The International Organization for Migration has an antiquated way of approaching its mission and desperately needs renewal, the UN agency's second-in-command with designs on the top job told AFP.

Amy Pope, the IOM deputy head acknowledged it was "a bit awkward" to be running to unseat her boss Antonio Vitorino.

"It's not ideal in some ways, but it's really about the future of the organisation," the 49-year-old American lawyer said this week.

IOM, which is due to hold leadership elections in mid-May, finds itself in the unusual situation for a United Nations agency of having a director-general challenged by a subordinate over what typically would have been a shoo-in second term.

Vitorino, who served as Portugal's deputy prime minister and defence minister in the mid-1990s, took the IOM reins in 2018, breaking decades of US leadership at the organisation.

Pope insisted that her decision to run against her 66-year-old boss -- only the second non-American to run IOM in its seven-decade history -- was not about putting Washington's pick back in charge.

No 'retirement job'

"I think the nationality matters less than the frame of mind and energy levels and strategic vision and willingness to work really hard," she said.

"This is not a retirement job."

Pope, who has spent most of her career focused on migration issues, including within the administration of former US president Barack Obama, only started working at IOM a year and a half ago.

She said she had been "really excited" when she landed the post as deputy IOM chief, in charge of management and reform.

But she said it soon became clear to her, and to Washington, that "if we were really going to make progress, there needed to be new leadership".

While the organisation, which serves the needs of an estimated 281 million migrants worldwide, is "very, very good at providing immediate support during humanitarian response," she said, in other areas, "There is just a lot of room for improvement."

Pope, who if she wins would be the first woman to lead IOM, called for finally "taking the organisation... into the 21st century".

'Stuck in old ways'

"We're still kind of stuck in old ways of looking at migration," she said, insisting "real vision" was required to bring about a much-needed culture change.

She called for a broader focus on the impacts of climate change on migration, which she dubbed "one of the most significant challenges for our generation".

In the face of such threats, she said IOM could do far more to leverage its massive amounts of data to detect and address problems before they spark large migration flows.

She pointed out, for instance, that drilling boreholes in search of water in communities regularly affected by drought or building more stable shelters to withstand storms help people remain in their communities.

"We need to flip the conversation," Pope said. "We can and we should begin to do interventions on the front end."

If you only look at the people trying to make dangerous crossings of the Mediterranean or the Channel, she warned, "You have missed about 10 interventions that could have happened along the way."

She said more work needed to be put into establishing regular migration channels, making it possible for people to move legally and safely.

'Value of migration'

Pope said communication especially needed to be dramatically improved at IOM, whose current chief has become notorious in Geneva for avoiding the media.

"There is a sense within the organisation that we need to be afraid of the story of migration," she said.

Instead of shying away from the issue, the response to the rampant anti-migrant sentiment seen in many countries should be leaning into the story, she insisted.

IOM should focus on telling stories "humanising" the people in need, she said, but also "telling the good news stories of migration".

"There is overwhelming evidence about the value of migration for economies, for rebuilding cities, for strengthening innovation and entrepreneurship," Pope said.

"I think it is critical that we as an organisation lead with that."

© 2023 AFP

BAD PRESS; IT WAS TROTSKY'S FAULT
70 years after Stalin’s death: How Western propaganda has rebranded the Soviet dictator from villain to hero, and back again

The Georgian Bolshevik has been portrayed as a mass murderer, a vital friend, and a dangerous tyrant, depending on the mood of the day

70 years after Stalin’s death: How Western propaganda has rebranded the Soviet dictator from villain to hero, and back again

Joseph Stalin died on the 5th of March 1953. The Soviet leader was one of the “big three” winners of World War II, and his life, political career, and the effects of his policies have been extensively researched by Russian and Western scholars. 70 years later, the Georgian remains a problematic political figure in Russia, and many other former Soviet states, and his legacy is frequently at the center of fierce debates. In the West, the condemnation of Stalin’s policies is now absolute, but that has not always been the case.

The problem of Stalin’s legacy

The decades of Stalin’s rule over the largest country in the world were filled with terror that led to millions of deaths. After the Bolshevik revolution and the civil war, the Soviet power struggle went on for years and contributed to the subsequent instability of the country. Following the Ukrainian-born Leon Trotsky’s political defeat in 1927, Stalin consolidated his power. Trotsky had wanted a world revolution; whereas, Stalin intended to build socialism in one country. He introduced the collectivization of the agricultural sector, which involved the repression of kulaks (private farmers) and led to famine and the deaths of millions.

The wave of political repression from 1936-1938, also known as the Great Terror, is one of the most significant elements of Stalin’s legacy. In the West, this period is usually seen through the prism of British historian Robert Conquest, who has been accused by others – such as American historian J. Arch Getty – of constant extrapolation of casualty figures and of omitting the beginning of the purges under Lenin. These figures are constantly reviewed by historians, but the West has focused more on this period than on anything else. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Stalin’s policies were extremely harsh.

He has also been held responsible for causing forced famines in Ukraine, southern Russia and Kazakhstan, which killed millions of people.

The way in which Stalin conducted the war against Nazi Germany would also be a source of criticism, after the war’s conclusion. The leader had ruthlessly sent millions of soldiers to their deaths following his “not a step back!” proclamation in order to break Hitler’s war machine.

His approach inflicted the greatest amount of damage on the Axis armies but at a tremendous cost. Such a sacrifice of life was anathema to Western leaders seeking reelection even during wartime. According to many historians, including Gil Meron, this was a major factor in the Allies continual postponement of opening a second front in Europe and one that enraged Stalin, as evidenced by his correspondence with Churchill. Essentially, the sacrifice made by the Soviets was both welcome and appalling from the Western point-of-view.

Who is India's National Security Advisor and why did Putin decide to meet him one on one?

Currently, Stalin is known in the West mostly for his brutality, and few academics and writers have taken the time to explore the man, the era, and the circumstances during his time in power. However, historians such as J. Arch Getty and Matthew E. Lenoe are more pragmatic in evaluating the leader’s role in the events of the 1930s and 1940s. Likewise, Karl Schlögel’s book ‘Moscow 1937’ provides a more complete picture of Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union. These researchers thoroughly describe the events of the purges and political oppression, but also note the unprecedented modernization and technological progress that occurred in tandem during the period.

When Stalin won his political battle against Trotsky, the country was already completely shattered following the Bolsheviks’ merciless seizure of power, the subsequent civil war and Red Terror. The country had never been an industrial power and understanding that an important war was coming, Stalin famously explained the situation in a speech to industrial managers in 1931: “We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed.”

As a general rule, historians work without a moral bias and a political figure is usually analyzed according to the state of the country when he came to power versus when he left. The industrialization of the Soviet Union led to disastrous casualties among the population, however it did modernize the country. As Isaac Deutscher said, (though the quote is frequently attributed to Winston Churchill) “The core of Stalin's genuine historic achievement lies in the fact that he found Russia working with the wooden plough and left her equipped with atomic piles.”

Stalin’s image before and after the war

What Western historians and journalists write today about Stalin is one thing, but one should not forget how the Soviet leader was seen at the time. For many in the West, the Russian Revolution and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” were a shining light in the East, a promise of better days, a real source of hope. And for a long time, Stalin was the incarnation of this light. Hence the nickname “Father of nations”, that Soviet propaganda and communists all over the world gave him. The weight of communist parties in countries such as France or Italy, controlled by the Communist International (Komintern) was a trump card in the hand of the USSR to propagate a favorable image of its leader among Western populations. The fascination was such that European communists were reluctant to engage in resistance against Hitler until Stalin gave a green light, following the beginning of Germany’s invasion of the USSR. But the masses were not the only ones to be fascinated by Stalin and what he incarnated.

Fyodor Lukyanov: China is finally stepping up to its role as a superpower. This will change the world

The work of the genius German publisher and communist activist Willy Münzenberg had a supreme influence on intellectuals and poets all over Europe. Playing on the primordial fascination with this new economic model being built in the USSR, he monitored and/or created many “useful idiots” (or “fellow travelers”). Some, like André Gide or Arthur Koestler, went on to be quickly disillusioned, but it was not the majority. With the appearance of popular fronts in Europe and the turmoil of the Spanish civil war, many left-wing intellectuals maintained their position for a long time while enjoying an excellent reputation in elite circles. Louis Aragon, Jean-Paul Sartre, Louis Althusser, New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, Pablo Neruda, Ernest Hemingway, André Malraux, Romain Rolland… quite a lot of respected voices. Because of their left-wing sensibility, anticolonial stance, pacifism or idealism, they fostered a positive image of Moscow, and, consequently, of Stalin. Arthur Koestler’s novel “Darkness at noon”, which depicts the politico-psychological process of the 1930’s purges, was not followed by many of these intellectuals. Jean-Paul Sarte, for example, later moved from Stalinism to Maoism.

Furthermore, people, such as the “Cambridge five” or physicist Klaus Fuchs, actively spied for the USSR. And it was to fight for a cause, not for money. Their contribution to the reinforcement of Moscow’s power and the creation of the first Soviet atomic weapons can not be underestimated. On yet another level, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had been sincerely impressed by the Soviet leader, with whom the American president had a courteous correspondence. An Ifop poll conducted at the end of World War II showed the majority of the French population believed that the Soviet Union had won the war, not Western powers. Stalin’s popularity was at its peak and he was arguably the most powerful man in the world.

In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev – who himself had an important role in the political oppression of the Great Terror – made a move which ultimately had an enormous influence on Stalin’s image. During the 20th Party congress, in order to consolidate his own power, the new leader of the USSR denounced the crimes of his former boss and the cult of personality he enjoyed during his reign. His speech and was a shock for communists in Europe who were now more divided than ever, but liberals could only rejoice. The USSR’s two main assets in Western Europe were subsequently fragmented. The Italian communist party sought domestic political integration, while the French communist party was paralyzed. The Congress triggered the beginning of a crisis of confidence regarding the Soviet Union. In a way, one can look at Krushchev’s political maneuver against Stalin’s image as the first blow to the entire Soviet structure.

Chinese peace plan: Can Beijing find a way to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict, despite open hostility from the US and NATO?

Stalin’s reputation would continue deteriorating as dissidents published books in the West, and his former Western intellectual admirers were denounced for their blindness. Furthermore, it is true that Stalin won a political victory over Trotsky, but the latter is better judged by history. Trotsky is now considered more as an intellectual and a victim, regardless of the atrocities he committed when in power – particularly in his Ukrainian homeland – and his ideas have not vanished. Irving Kristol, the “godfather of neoconservatism” in the USA, was a former Trotskyist, and the political views of the architects and proponents of globalized financial capitalism mesh with Trotsky’s internationalist views. Whereas Stalin, with the disappearance of communist parties as propaganda tools and the fall of the Soviet Union, has simply become another bogeyman. It is still possible to encounter Western Stalinists, but those are usually Marxist intellectuals with no influence on the broader public.

Stalin and Western rhetoric towards Russian leaders

Ivan the Terrible has been considered a monster for many centuries, because of his ruthlessness in internal politics, but also down to how he conquered vast territories and became a threat to the West’s own imperialism. The fact that he was a very important reformer is somehow ignored. Peter the Great, was no softer, but on the contrary, he is considered an interesting personality mainly because he opened “a window to Europe” and incorporated Western elements into Russian civilization. When it comes to Stalin and Trotsky, Western views favor the internationalist. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, with their wish to adapt to Western standards, are also considered “good” Russian leaders. Currently, the Western position has moved in the other direction with Vladimir Putin in power, who stated with his Munich speech back in 2007, that the times of a weak Russia were over.

The Georgian is maybe the only one who has managed to be the object of both praise and loathing from the West. Stalin had become a problem for liberal democratic propaganda during the war. Just as Soviet agitprop had to justify its sudden alliance with capitalist countries, the Anglo-Saxon media had to explain why Stalin was a great statesman and a good ally. Pro-Soviet movies were produced, on the personal request of the American president, and the feature film “Mission to Moscow” was created in order to justify the purges. Stalin was twice named Time magazine’s “Person of the year” within three years, and even the publication of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” was postponed. A positively biased campaign was actively nurtured around him.

Only progressively, during the Cold War, did the narrative change. However, it was very difficult to put Stalin in the same basket as Hitler, since the war had cost the USSR the death of roughly 27 million people and gave it a place at the table of victors. Traditionally, victors are the ones who write and rewrite history, but 70 years later, the West is more confident in its capacity to rewrite the story of the 20th century. And Stalin is more often now presented as an accomplice of Hitler who helped him organize chaos and terror in Europe.

Something which is clearly nonsense.

This apparently incoherent attitude is better explained if we examine the power structures in liberal democracies. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the West has developed a system in which strong incarnations of power are not desired. By 1900, according to the American philosopher Sheldon Wolin, the US was already living under an “inverted totalitarianism”, that is to say a system where corporations and lobbyists rule while the government acts as a servant. In his famous 1928 book “Propaganda”, Edward Bernays explained: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

If Bernays’s conclusions are correct, it implies that the Western system doesn’t need statesmen and political reformers with a vision for specific nations but administrators and managers with short mandates. Angela Merkel’s 16 year tenure marks a notable exception in contemporary liberal democracies. However, Merkel has working as part of the European Union, with its sophisticated institutions, and heavy bureaucracy. This may explain why the length of her time in office has never been criticized, whereas the West frequently expresses its concern towards men like Putin or Xi remaining in office for long periods.

However, as various crises have shown, liberal democracies temporarily embrace "strongmen" when it fits the political agenda. Pierre Conesa, a French specialist in geostrategy, is the author of ‘The fabrication of the enemy’ and ‘Hollywar: Hollywood, weapon of mass propaganda’. He explains how Western messaging resorts to a fickle cinematographic process of demonizing its enemy and presenting its side as heroic. Stalin fits this pattern, as he is the only man in the Kremlin who was ever treated as a dangerous man, then as a hero, and eventually rebranded as an incarnation of evil.

By Matthieu Buge, who worked on Russia for the magazine l’Histoire, the Russian film magazine Séance, and as a columnist for Le Courrier de Russie. He is the author of the book Le Cauchemar russe ('The Russian Nightmare').

'Jiving today, accused of treason tomorrow': How Russian jazz survived communist repression to celebrate 100 years

October 2022 marks a significant anniversary for a music genre that has traversed a difficult path

The history of Russian jazz began 100 years ago. While it has forged a unique path, the art form that evolved in the country has deep connections to that which thrived around the world. However, the path of this ‘bourgeois art’ was not easy in the Soviet Union, and it survived persecution only thanks to the musicians who were its faithful adherents.

In October 1922, the Russian musician, poet and choreographer Valentin Parnakh performed in Moscow for the first time with his ensemble called 'First Eccentric Orchestra of the Russian Federated Socialist Republic – Valentin Parnakh's Jazz Band'.

Parnakh had heard the music in Paris and became so fascinated that he purchased a set of the required instruments and brought them to the Soviet Union. His first – and subsequent – performances were great successes, especially among artists from the avant-garde. The concerts also inspired other musicians to try out the new genre.

Four years later, in 1926, Soviet audiences had the chance to encounter authentic jazz. American pianist Sam Wooding and his orchestra visited the country together with the Chocolate Kiddies show and performed in Moscow and Leningrad (the Soviet-era name of St. Petersburg). “[It was] the first country I’d ever been in where I was considered a human being,” woodwind multi-instrumentalist Garvin Bushell, who performed with Wooding, recalled later.

Several images from those performances can be seen in the silent film 'A Sixth Part of the World' directed by Soviet cinema pioneer Dziga Vertov. The episodes are featured in the part where the director condemns slavery and capitalism.

The same year, the ensemble of Frank Withers, together with saxophonist, clarinetist and the world’s first jazz soloist Sidney Bechet, also toured the USSR.

Saints, dog dictatorship and supercops from St. Petersburg: 600 years of Russian comics

Jazz pioneers

It was a time of cultural exchange. In 1926, the Soviet agency tasked with promoting education and culture sent musician Leopold Teplitsky to the US to study local music. He worked in the orchestra of Paul Whiteman, often called the King of Jazz. They were the first to perform George Gershwin’s 'Rhapsody in Blue'.

Back home a year later, Teplitsky founded the 'First Concert Jazz Band' in Leningrad. The group, which performed in concert halls typically designed for classical music, was a great success.

Leonid Utyosov called Teplitsky "the first of the domestic musicians who showed the playing of jazz." Utyosov himself was the main jazz star of the USSR in the late '20s and '30s. Having assembled the band 'Thea-Jazz' (a portmanteau of Theatrical Jazz), he created a popular musical trend that acquired the scale of a theatrical performance.

In 1934, Utyosov and famous actress Lyubov Orlova starred in the first Soviet musical comedy featuring a jazz musician as a main character and a soundtrack with plenty of jazz compositions. 'Jolly Fellows', with tunes composed by Isaak Dunayevsky, became a sensation, and was Joseph Stalin’s favorite movie.

The film was even released in the US under the name 'Moscow Laughs'. Legend has it that even Charlie Chaplin offered his praise of the film.

“Before this film, Americans knew Dostoevsky’s Russia, now they have seen a big shift in the public psychology. People there are laughing loudly and cheerfully. This is a great victory. It is more persuasive than bullets and speeches," he is believed to have written.

‘Unbending of saxophones’

However, jazz was nevertheless a controversial phenomenon in the USSR. In spite of the success of Utyosov and others, many perceived the genre as a manifestation of bourgeois culture that was inappropriate for a socialist state.

In 1928, renowned Soviet writer Maxim Gorky published an article called 'About the Music of the Fat,' in which he blasted the new music genre as something belonging to “fat” capitalists who have no clue about real culture.

During the Second World War, however, jazz orchestras performed for soldiers right near the battlefield, although some of those forays ended tragically. For example, in 1941, the State Jazz Orchestra of the USSR was performing near the frontline when the musicians were surrounded by the enemy and most of them ended up being killed.

Utyosov, whose military songs are now considered classics, also performed concerts during the war. His music (which included more than just jazz) was in the Soviet mainstream until the mid-60s, and he himself became one of the immortal legends of the Soviet stage.

However, not all performers were so lucky. In 1930, Teplitsky was accused of espionage and jailed for three years. He was not the only jazz musician to have been persecuted. In fact, a lot of musicians were arrested and jailed in the '30 and '40s, although not necessarily because of their musical careers.

With the beginning of the Cold War, the ideological battle against ‘Western values’ intensified, and jazz became one of the targets. What became known as a time of the ‘unbending of saxophones’ spawned phrases such as “Today he’s playing jazz, tomorrow he’ll betray his Motherland” and “There’s one step from saxophone to a knife” (the latter one attributed to the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev). Thus, the art form remained repressed until the mid-50s.

Back to the stage

However, the years of the ban were unable to erase jazz from the Soviet cultural landscape. In 1956, the jazz orchestra of Oleg Lundstrem, which had not been allowed to be based in Moscow, finally got a chance to relocate to the capital. It should be noted that in 1994, the Guinness Book of Records recognized the Lundstrem ensemble as the oldest continuously existing jazz band in the world.

Jazz was given a new push in 1957, when Moscow hosted the World Festival of Youth and Students. This was a time of renewed cultural exchange, which inspired a whole new generation of musicians.

How could it survive the years of oppression? According to Igor Butman, a legendary saxophone virtuoso and head of the Moscow Jazz Orchestra, we should thank the enthusiasts themselves.

Musicians just had a belief: They believed in their art, in their talent, in the improvisation, they couldn’t live without their music.

“Jazz is a universal language: People can talk to each other, because they know certain styles, they know the music. A jazz musician is quite dangerous for ideology – what if he decides to play something not featured in the score, some kind of call?” he told RT.

According to Butman, officials soon realized that there were challenges far more dangerous, such as rock music. So, jazz was rehabilitated to serve as something of a counterweight. Jazz clubs started to emerge in different cities of the USSR, and American jazz stars such as Benny Goodman and Duke Ellington arrived to tour the country.

Naming all the jazz musicians who became legends of the Soviet stage would be a daunting task. Georgy Garanian, Nikolay Levinovsky, Igor Bril, Alexey Kozlov – these are just a few of the names, but there are many more.

“In the USSR, there was always political pressure on jazz musicians – the ideology changed from allowing [perfomances] to denying [them], from support to oppression,” Butman explains.

After the USSR collapsed, jazz received a strong impetus for development, as musicians could travel, study and perform in international ensembles. The ideological effect vanished, the state started to support jazz, so now we see new stars emerging.

In modern Russia, Butman is without a doubt the number one jazz personality. He has performed with Chick Corea, Grover Washington Jr., Natalie Cole and many other global stars. Last year, Wynton Marsalis and Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra performed together with Butman and the Moscow Jazz Orchestra in Moscow.

Butman also plays a key role in promoting Russian jazz. Music festivals organized by him are held all across the country every year, which he and the musicians from his orchestra headline. He also supports up-and-coming talent by participating on the jury of jazz contests and heading up the Jazz Academy in Moscow.

Rich tradition

Is there anything in particular that distinguishes Russian jazz? According to Oleg Akkuratov, a virtuoso pianist and soloist with the Moscow Jazz Orchestra, the country's style is influenced by Russian culture and derives a lot from this rich tradition. “You can find a lot of features of Russian traditional music in it,” he told RT. “Playing jazz, you can do almost anything: You can include parts of classical music or cite well-known Soviet songs. That’s why jazz can be understood … by almost everyone in our country.”

During his career, the 32-year-old musician has performed with opera singer Montserrat Caballe and participated in a concert at the residence of the Pope with the UNESCO choir. In 2018, he took second place at the prestigious Sarah Vaughan International Jazz Vocal Competition in the US.

While touring, Akkuratov adds a unique touch to his performances – he sings in the language of the country where he’s performing. The same goes for various Russian regions that have their own traditional languages.

Foreign languages are helpful in understanding other cultures and the roots of their folk music, he says. Common features can be found everywhere, no matter which country's music you are listening to

“You can listen to a jazz standard, and suddenly discover a part or an intonation that reminds you of a Russian folk song,” Akkuratov says. “And it’s not because somebody is copying someone else. It’s because music culture is universal.”

Russian jazz as a world phenomenon

Even the current tense relations with the West are not able to halt the cultural exchange that the art form makes possible. The Moscow Jazz Festival, held this summer in the Russian capital, brought together musicians from countries such as Serbia, Brazil, Türkiye, and India.

“No culture is a stranger to jazz,” Butman, who helped organize the event, says. “It’s sometimes a matter of stereotype, to think that jazz belongs to one particular culture. There are brilliant Turkish musicians, Indian musicians, for example, Ravi Shankar, who performed with the Beatles and John Coltrane. And one of the most distinguished jazz pianists in the world, Joey Alexander, is from Indonesia.

Russian jazz is for sure a global phenomenon.

“Look at the success of our musicians on the world stage. We see it now, and in ten years, we will see even more. Young people want to play jazz, they are not afraid of becoming jazz musicians.”

The Moscow Jazz Festival was just one of many events held across Russia this year to celebrate the 100th anniversary. On October 1, a stunning concert was held on the main stage of the iconic Bolshoi Theater in Moscow.

What will Russian jazz be like in 50 years, on its 150th anniversary? “It will be a good one,” Butman says. As for predictions, we will have to wait and see!

Akkuratov believes that the musical landscape is changing so fast that it’s hard to say for sure. “For now, I’m very happy that we have such a massive celebration of the 100th anniversary of Russian jazz. It’s great that we are doing so much to promote our art in the country and abroad.”

By Anastasia Safronova, RT editor