Volume 16

Abstract. Dear Readers,

It is my pleasure to present you with the sixteenth volume of the UC Undergraduate Journal of Slavic and East/Central European Studies. This year’s papers span topics that include literary studies, history, political science, and media studies, and they come to us from a diverse collection of universities across the US and the UK. Three come from our own backyard, UCLA, and five were presented at the University of California Undergraduate Conference on Slavic and East/Central European Studies, harkening back to the journal’s original mission to publish the conference proceedings.

The purpose of both that conference and this journal has always been to provide a platform for undergraduate students to present their research achievements using the languages of East/Central Europe and Eurasia. A comforting constant in the last sixteen years of tumult, violence, and change has been the high caliber of work we’ve received from our authors, and this year is no exception. It remains our steadfast belief that the future of our field lies with researchers like the ones represented in the pages of our journal, and we are very happy to share their accomplishments with you.

Some of the papers published in this volume address questions that have dogged scientific study for generations; others engage with and comment on the current state of affairs. Perhaps it was inevitable that in the first issue edited in its entirety after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, all the papers we received addressed the looming question of authoritarian Russia. Ultimately, laying out the ramifications of Russian imperialism so explicitly does not necessarily make them easier to understand, only more pressing. Our authors nevertheless took up the call in admirable fashion and provided the results we now share with you, our readers.

Kyle Tucker (Indiana University) and William Ledesma (Vanderbilt University) examine present-day Russian politics. Tucker’s paper, “The Evolution of Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Doctrine,” paints a portrait of a strategic deterrence program more interested in bluster than abeyance and offers a glimpse into the future of Russia’s nuclear thought. Ledesma’s, “Vladislav Surkov: The (In)visible Hand of Russian Politics and Culture” investigates the Kremlin’s most enigmatic figure to illustrate Russia’s turbulent relationship to civic liberty; in doing so, it adumbrates a theoretical framework for one of the world’s least transparent political systems—no small feat.

The next two papers pursue a more comparative approach in answering how Russia got to where it is today. Juliette Oliver’s (UCLA) paper “Angola Then and Now: Investigating Soviet and Russian Intervention in Africa” details the fight for the “hearts and minds” of Angolans waged by the US and the USSR. It not only elucidates a corner of Cold War history, but contextualizes Russian holistic investment in Africa today. In her paper “Post-Communist Responses to LGBT Activism: A Comparative Case Study of Russia and the Czech Republic,” Alexis Hill (UCLA) sheds light on how and why radically divergent approaches to LGBT activism developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and offers a prescription for a more tolerant world as much as a historical analysis.

Moving away (but not too far) from politics, Anastasia Izmailova (UCLA), in her paper “Resisting Identity Suppression through the Act of Writing in Zamyatin’s We and Orwell’s 1984,” offers insight into the psychological effects of political oppression and the nature of truth and its manipulation through an illuminating comparison of dystopias with anti-utopias. Finally, Georgia Boote (University of Birmingham, UK) offers a note of optimism in her analysis of digitally networked activism during the Free Navalny protests and the new avenues for political participation this activism offers in a country notoriously void of such opportunities.

The publication of this journal is, as always, a team effort, and we have many people to thank. We extend one more hearty congratulations to our contributors, and welcome future submissions from undergraduate scholars interested in East Europe and Eurasia. We express our gratitude to Yelena Furman, undergraduate mentor and so much more at the UCLA Department of Slavic, East European and Eurasian Languages and Cultures. Thanks are also in order for: Ryan Fogle, webmaster at the UCLA International Institute as well as all members of the editorial board, whose help is an invaluable part of the review process. However, it is to Susan Bauckus, our online editor, that we’d like to extend a special note of gratitude. Having worked with the journal since its inception, she is now moving on to a new life in retirement. Without her editorial meticulousness over the years and devotion to quality, the journal would surely be all the poorer. As always, we remember Olga Kagan, who founded this journal sixteen years ago out of a dedication to supporting young and novel scholarship.

Finally, we deeply appreciate the Center for European and Eurasian Studies and the UCLA Office of the Dean of Humanities, whose support makes this journal possible.

Cooper Lynn
Managing Editor

Abstract. The age of online social media has given rise to a new form of protest among a predominantly young userbase. Following the imprisonment of Putin critic Aleksei Navalny, thousands of protestors crowded the streets in January, 2021, while a large online engagement called for Navalny’s release by way of memes, petitions, posts, and reposts. Digitally networked activism, sometimes derisively called “slacktivism,” refers to online protests like these, which lack the immediate impact of in-person protests and generally do not affect the number of participants. However, it is disingenuous to dismiss this form of protest as a “revolution of children”: the highly sophisticated use of online content, which spoke to a deeply personalized approach to supporting the cause of Navalny’s freedom and resisting Putin’s autocracy, reveals a strong sense of agency in an otherwise oppressive political climate. This paper uses multimodal discourse analysis to examine online activity in support of Navalny, primarily on the video sharing app TikTok, to argue for online activism’s legitimacy as a form of political expression.

Abstract. Since the collapse of communism, East European states have seen a surge in political activism, including around LGBT issues. While activism of this kind was difficult or impossible under totalitarian regimes, loosened restrictions on civil liberties have allowed citizens to take a more active role in policymaking. In Russia and the Czech Republic, special interest groups have formed to lobby for LGBT-friendly legislation, protest unfair and homophobic policies, and organizeannual Pride parades. However, the response to LGBT activists in each country has varied. In the Czech Republic, LGBT activists have met a largely tolerant and progressive society and have effected positive change both in terms of public image and through legislation; in Russia, their efforts have, with few exceptions, had little impact.. This paper compares the results of LGBT activism in post-communist Czechia and post-Soviet Russia -. Examining the history of public and government attitudes toward LGBT people in command economies and the effect of LGBT activism after the transitions to market economies, it reveals the factors influencing genuine political progress for the LGBT community in the Czech Republic and those that have prevented change in Russia.

Abstract. This essay examines the parallels between Evgeniy Zamyatin’s novel We and George Orwell’s 1984. It argues that the former is an anti-utopian novel while the latter is a dystopian one. These novels are forms of speculative fiction that imagine the future of totalitarianism based on the two authors’ lived experiences. Both novels feature motifs of surveillance, technology used for ill, and repression of individuality. Each protagonist uses journal writing to understand and question his respective regime, which eventually turns into a form of rebellion. However, We’s ultimate commentary is on the crushing power of the state, whereas in 1984 political repression presents the true antagonist, which is revealed to be human weakness. In this way, We has a hopeful ending, whereas in 1984 mankind is doomed on account of its corrupt nature.

Abstract. Vladislav Surkov, novelist, poet, aide to Vladimir Putin, and recognized éminence grise in Russian politics and culture, has played a shockingly large role in shaping Russia’s post-Soviet narrative and building Putin’s political system. His personal history, however, remains obscure, and his artistic output is understudied. This article compares his role in Putin’s administration with his literary output, as a way of examining his broad involvement in defining the Russian post-Soviet period. Considering a wide selection of Surkov’s output, which includes poetry, prose, philosophy, and drama, as well as secondary literature on Surkov, helps to unravel the man of mystery in the Kremlin and his political program. This analysis of Surkov, his role, and his impact on the Putin regime contributes to a growing body of literature on the writer’s relevance to both Russian history and Russia’s twenty-first century political mechanics. In doing so, it contributes to scholarly considerations of Surkov’s status inside and, since his exit in 2020, outside of the Putin regime. Additionally, it provides insight into Surkov’s intellectual and artistic work, including his concepts of Russian utopia and sovereign democracy, the novel Almost Zero, its stage adaptation, and his post-Kremlin poetry offer particularly insights into his political thought.

Abstract. This paper examines the difference in motivations between the Soviet Union and modern-day Russia for interacting with African countries by looking at the case study of Angola. As a country that gained independence late in comparison to its counterparts, Angola’s early statehood was marked by power struggles between parties of varying political ideologies. The paper analyzes how the Soviet Union gave early support to the communist party, the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), in hopes of putting them in power and furthering communism’s international goals. The Soviet Union’s assistance of the MPLA by way of educational scholarships and military aid helped support the party against the American- and South African-backed National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA), which recognized the USSR’s desire to build relations with the emerging state as an attempt to spread Marxist ideology and tried to thwart it. The paper demonstrates that, as economic strain hit the Soviet Union and the Cold War abated, tensions relaxed between the US and the Soviet Union, and support for the MPLA subsequently ceased. Since then, a strengthening economy and government, in conjunction with increasing competition with the West, has led Russia to look to Africa once again, although this time for economic gain.

Abstract. Since the 1990s, Russia has pursued a nuclear doctrine that defies conventional logic. In the post-Soviet period, Russia has assigned ever more roles to its nuclear arsenal, notably deterrence of a conventional military conflict. This broadened scope has led many to speculate that Russia follows an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine, in which the threat of nuclear conflict ensures national security. This article examines the evolution of this posturing in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries through the lens of “complex deterrence.” In contrast to classical deterrence theory, complex deterrence accounts for many of the salient aspects of contemporary nuclear conflict, including asymmetric military prowess and unconven- tional military tactics such as cyberwarfare and disinformation. Analyzing how nuclear weapons play into Russia’s program of complex deterrence offers insight into how it has employed and may continue to employ its nuclear arsenal in the war in Ukraine. Ultimately, the broad scope and historically deterrent nature of Russia’s nuclear doctrine suggests that the use of strategic nuclear weapons remains unlikely; however, the unpredictable and dangerous methods Russia has used to maintain its influence as a “great power” have the potential to undermine and destabilize global security, rather than help assure it.