Moscow (AsiaNews) – The forced repatriation of Igor Odintsov, a surveyor from the town of Sovetsk in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in Poland, who had opposed the war and eventually fell into the hands of the Russian authorities, has shocked many, including Lithuanians, due to its brutality.
Only desperation could have driven a 68-year-old man to throw himself into an icy river to escape persecution.
Along with other cases of the deportation of convicted individuals, the myth of escape as a means to freedom is crumbling: the idea that simply reaching the border will lead to a free and just world. The last hope held by unyielding Russians of a safe life beyond their own borders is fading.
The fact that Igor Odintsov opted for this particular method of escape – swimming through the cold from the Russian coast to the Lithuanian one – was driven by his “hope in the power of a legendary tale”, as psychologist Kira Merkun comments.
The public’s main complaint concerns the insensitivity and lack of empathy shown by the officials who make the decision to deport the pacifist Russians under investigation – and not only in Lithuania.
This lack of empathy refers to a complex set of mental and behavioural patterns that prevent people from receiving the support they need in times of difficulty.
Fleeing is not enough; it is necessary to resocialise in a new environment, and this requires that at least one person in the new context, on the other side, confirms the newcomer’s trustworthiness.
In addition to legal protection, secondary social and psychological protection is needed, including self-control, the ability to defend oneself, negotiate and demonstrate one’s importance and usefulness through the example of one’s own life story and the history of one’s group.
The empathy of strangers and the mere hope of compassion are not enough to change the fate of a victim of the regime.
Reports of refusals and deportations are coming in from various countries, but attention is focused on Lithuania, as it was one of the first to respond to the plight of Ukraine, welcoming refugees from the war-torn country and volunteers from various nations. This willingness, however, does not extend to Russians fleeing the country.
Lithuania does not even accept essential specialists holding Russian passports (psychologists, doctors, teachers); it has a long history of understandable mistrust towards Russia. Lithuania was not happy under the USSR; it has a history of violence, and the aggressor and its emissaries are always told ‘no’.
Even before Russia’s Svo in Ukraine, American psychologists had conducted a large-scale study on ‘dispositional empathy’ towards ‘strangers’ in 63 countries.
Previously, it was believed that the capacity for empathy developed in countries with high levels of poverty and collectivism: there, from early childhood, children are taught to share toys and food; however, the study found that Eastern European countries, including Russia, were at the bottom of the rankings, with Lithuania in last place. Russia came 53rd.
The post-Soviet space is permeated by mutual hostility and a lack of tolerance for differences, held together by a bond of mistrust, mutual contempt and control, despite similarities in thought. In psychology, Merkun observes, this phenomenon is known as ‘narcissism of small differences’: the greater the similarity between people and nations, the greater the hostility, with every little thing about one’s neighbour becoming irritating.
In Russia itself, all four primitive psychological defence mechanisms have been observed since the start of the war: ‘fight!’ – at the front; ‘flee!’ – abroad; ‘freeze!’ – staying put and observing passively; and ‘imitate’ – behaving like everyone else in one’s immediate environment.
Some have fled in various directions, abandoning families and pets; others have ‘relaxed’ and distanced themselves from the dangerous situation with a ‘it’s none of my business’ attitude, whilst still others mimic the behaviour of television commentators, striking a ceremonial pose of ostentatious generosity.
As the psychologist concludes, “certainly, one can humiliate and admonish, appeal to empathy, but one cannot rely on it, on either side of the Russian border”.
