What if, in the Ukrainian tragedy, we were all accomplices of Vladimir Putin? The question, which at first glance is gratuitous, accusatory or absurd, can actually enlighten us about our responsibilities and our capacities for action in the face of war. If we consume Russian products, vodka, gas, petrol, aren’t we, in effect, supporting the Kremlin? And if so, shouldn’t they therefore be avoided? The question also applies to a Chelsea match, owned by the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, or for the retransmission of the Bolshoi ballets, offered until recently by certain cinemas. Isn’t attending it tantamount to lending a hand, even indirectly, to Moscow? If so, can depriving yourself of it slow down your war enterprise? These questions can be summed up in one: should we boycott “made in Russia”?
→ EXPLANATION. Tensions around loans of works with Russia
Resorting to this form of resistance emerges as a course of action in certain conversations or on social networks. It is still necessary to know how to put it into practice and if it can bear fruit. In an essay on boycott (1), researchers Ingrid Nyström and Patricia Vendramin define it as “a systematic concentration of individual and voluntary actions leading to the refusal to maintain a relationship (commercial, political, cultural, sporting, diplomatic or even academic) with a third party (…) in order to exert pressure on him.. This definition raises a first question. Can no longer consuming Russian really lead to a « pression » on Moscow?
Products labeled “made in Russia” are indeed rare in our daily lives. There is vodka, but it is not a matter of mass consumption, far from it… Its boycott can therefore only have a marginal economic effect on the revenues of exporters and the Russian State. As for hydrocarbons, which we consume more (2), they raise another problem: how do we know the origin of the gasoline taken at the pump or the gas that heats us? A challenge. It is impossible, under these conditions, to bring them into the field of the boycott.
→ EXPLANATION. War in Ukraine: Europeans remain divided over a Russian oil embargo
There remain the “cultural products” – sports competitions, shows – and the art of living. Boycotting a sporting event involving Russian athletes can make sense. “For Vladimir Putin, sport is a real issue of power, he theorized it as soon as he arrived, explains sports geopolitics specialist Jean-Baptiste Guégan (3). It is a question of restoring pride to the Russians, in particular by embodying a virilism supposed to show that Russia is a world power. » Logically, attending these demonstrations of force amounts to satisfying the ambitions of the Kremlin and depriving oneself of not endorsing them.
Does the equation apply to sports organizations owned by Russian capital? This is the case of AS Monaco, more than 60% controlled by businessman Dmitri Rybolovlev, also its president. “The owner of the club is not the club”recalls Lukas Aubin, associate researcher at Iris (4), according to whom a boycott of Monaco matches would “pulled by the hair”. It would indeed penalize the players, in any point foreign to the conflict. “You must not get the wrong fight, adds Lukas Aubin. Dmitry Rybolovlev, with his business in Europe, sought to distance himself from Russia instead. »
Assessing the degree of proximity of the target of the boycott to the authorities can make it possible to limit the collateral victims. « Roman Abramovitch (the owner of Chelsea FC, Editor’s note) has proven ties to Vladimir Putin since 2000”, says Lukas Aubin. Yet these links constitute a centerpiece in the edifice of Russian power. “The Putin system is based on the allegiance that the oligarchs have for him, explains the researcher. If they have difficulties, they could reverse their jacket. » The rule can also apply to theatres, orchestras, collections of public museums, which maintain the official influence of Russia outside the borders. This is not the case for Russian restaurants and grocery stores whose owners are private, and sometimes even of Ukrainian nationality…
→ DEBATE. Is an opposition forming in Russia?
A boycott of the productions of public cultural institutions would have more symbolic than financial significance. But it could also help to raise awareness in Russian opinion of the ravages of the war in Ukraine on the image of their country and encourage Vladimir Putin’s supporters to revise their support. Unless there is a counter-productive effect: reinforce the Kremlin’s discourse according to which “Russia offers an alternative model, alone against all, misunderstood by the West”, as summarized by Lukas Aubin. But what weight does this rhetoric have in the face of European and American sanctions? A boycott gains weight when it fits into a larger mechanism of state restrictions.
(1) The Boycott, Presses de Sciences Po, 2015, 144 p., €13
(2) In 2020, France imported nearly €4.5 billion worth of refined petroleum products and natural hydrocarbons from Russia, i.e. 75% of its purchases in the country. Nearly 15% of the natural gas consumed in France comes from Russia.
(3) Author of La République du football, Amphora, 336 p., € 20
(4) Author of La Sportokratura under Vladimir Poutine, Bréal, 2021, 360 p., €15