East European Perspectives: May 10, 2000

RADICAL POLITICS IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE?????PART V: (Mis)placing in Boxes: Radicals Full Stop
C) And then, there is Zhirinovsky (Part I)



And then, of course, there is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is perhaps the most typical among post-communist leaders who defy clear-cut taxonomization (see the first part of this chapter in "East European Perspectives," Vol. 2, no. 7, 5 April 2000). Those taking him more seriously than I am inclined to do tend to see in Zhirinovsky's advocacy of a world "order" in which Russia would dominate the entire Eurasian continent echoes--and not just echoes--of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (Hanson and Williams, 1999, p. 273). The difference between Zhirinovsky's and Genadii Zyuganov's "imperialism," however, is not one of essence, but one of size. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) leader sees the re-establishment of the Soviet Union as his priority (see below). Zhirinovsky would not content himself with that. For him this is just the "first stage." His "geopolitical theory," said to have been developed at "an early age"--or what he calls the "Zhirinovsky Formula"--has at its core a "clear premise," namely that "the salvation of the Russian nation lies in 'the last bid for the South'--an opening for Russia to the shores of the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 48).

For a start, one takes note that one is again in the "salvation" business. But, according to Zhirinovsky, this is not about Russia's salvation alone. The "bid to the South" is, at one and the same time, a French imperialist-like "mission civilisatrice"--a civilizing mission--in the service of mankind as a whole:

Today, the South is coming undone with uprising and rebellion. Afghans fight against Tajiks, Iranians against Turkmen, Southern Azerbaijan against Northern Azerbaijan. Georgia puts the squeeze on Armenia and is in turn squeezed by Ossetia and Abkhazia. The conflicts in the Middle East may not end for a long time and could even trigger a third world war.

These ancient enemies, who have often fought, are bent on blood revenge and cannot be reconciled. But humanity will not permit this state of constant hostilities on Russia's southern flank...for the world has grown weary and cries out for peace.

When the fighting in the South finally ends, America will be more secure against the communist, Islamic and pan-Islamic threat. The ensuing peace will be a significant geopolitical accomplishment, freeing a tremendous territory to be devoted to resorts and sanatoria that serve the industrial north and people of all nationalities (Zhirinovsky, 1996, pp. 49-50).

Or, again:

We will go down to the South as liberators, to put a stop to violence. We will go where people, surrounded by blood, wake up and go to sleep to the sound of bullets and explosions, where they live amid violence and looting. Russian soldiers will stop this butchery, this violence, this OUTRAGE TO HUMAN CULTURE. And Russian soldiers will themselves come to a stop on the shore of the warm Indian Ocean, establishing there new outposts, settlements, resorts and sentries. With floodlights, Russian soldiers will ILLUMINATE the frontier waters of the Indian Ocean (Zhirinovsky ,1996, p. 68. Emphasis mine).

The Russian soldiers' "floodlights" are not just technical devices to illuminate the surrounding areas. It is "illumination" in the sense of "enlightenment" that Zhirinovsky, a careful chooser of his metaphors, is talking about. It is Russians ending "outrages to human culture." No French theoretician of the "mission civilisatrice" could have put it more powerfully.

At the same time, the "bid to the South" will obliterate the origins of Russia's modern historical misfortunes. "It was the South that spawned corruption when Stalin, who ruled Russia despotically for 30 years, created favorable conditions for Georgia, his homeland. From Georgia the corruption spread to Armenia and Azerbaijan, jumped to the east, to Central Asia, and finally embraced the entire country." Consequently, Zhirinovsky is not even sure that Georgia should be granted the favor to be incorporated in Russia's new empire. Perhaps it should be left out. Not so, however, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, western Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Abkhazia, south Ossetia, with Armenia expected by Zhirinovsky to "want" to remain "part of Russian territory" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, pp. 50-51). He speaks of RUSSIAN territory and this is no mistake. The imperial division of the world is to be preceded by a "sub-division" of the expanded Russian state that will have no room whatsoever for the Soviet Union's federal structure: "Nationality will not be used as a criterion for its political subdivisions. Instead, divisions within the country will be based on territorial principles--guberniia, oblasts, provinces, uezds, whatever name you give them--with no national implications." Furthermore, there will be a "dominance of the Russian language, currency and army--this is an historic fait accompli that makes stability possible in our region" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 49).

Should Turkey continue to attempt to expand its influence in what Zhirinovsky perceives to be an attempt to establish Greater Turkey, it, as well as Iran "will have to be dismembered" alongside Afghanistan, which, he claims, is an artificial state anyhow. But that is a longer-term project. Meanwhile, "Let them fight each other...the scores of nationalities, tribes, clans and commanders who will make a bloody mess." It would be "only a rejuvenated Russia, once it has risen again" that would be in the position to "stabilize the situation by building a mighty army" that will "press upon the central Asiatic region, leading, in the end, to an opening to the Indian Ocean" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, pp. 51-53).

I have left some details out. What is important is to note that Zhirinovsky's is a plan for a redivision of "influence zones" among the Great Powers, of which Russia must become one again. It is, as he rightly calls it, a plan for "world re-partition." Within its own redrawn borders, Zhirinovsky's vision is Jacobean, not Hitlerite, no matter how much of a Fuehrer he has been turned into by pundits. This is an important point:

Russia, with a shore on a fourth ocean, will end all revolutions and perestroikas and continue the normal development of all its peoples. In such a re-partitioned Russia, everyone, regardless of color of skin, shape of eyes or form of nose, will feel himself or herself a Russian, just as an American considers himself or herself an American, or a European, a European. Under the principle of a SINGLE AND EQUAL CITIZENSHIP for all, Russia will have a single state language and currency, unrestricted contacts with Europe, and free movement around the globe (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 62. Emphasis mine).

Such a statement could never had come from the likes of an Aleksandr Barkashov, the fascist leader of the Russian National Unity. Zhirinovsky is an "inclusive," not an "exclusive" nationalist. He is, on the other hand, miles away from "civic nationalism." This places him closer to radical continuity of the Bulgarian Socialist party, the party of Romanian National Unity, or Vladimir Meciar's Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (see below) sort than to the ethnocratic ethos. One does not have to like Zhirinovsky and what he stands for in order to abstain from transforming him into what he is definitely not--a "genetic" racist.

How, then, is one to account for the publication in the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) youth organ "Sokoli Zhirinovskogo" (Zhirinovsky's falcons) of articles such as that in which, in 1992, a member of Zhirinovsky's "shadow cabinet," neo-Nazi rock star Andrei Arkhipov, discussed plans to establish a new world racial order based on Germans and Russians? Zhirinovsky's then "minister of information" wrote that "only from Russians can Germans find real support in their struggle against the decaying North Atlantic Civilization. Together with Russia, they can take revenge on the U.S. for its 'fervent internationalism.'" Moreover, "Russia and Germany together can support the rapid downfall of the U.S. and establish a more healthy racial balance on the European continent" (cited in Solovyov and Klepikova, 1995, pp. 100-01). Furthermore, Sergei Zharikov, Zhirinovsky's "minister of culture," in an article titled "The Superior Race" in the same year stated that "only one people" in Russia is a "master people," and that, of course, is the Russian people. As for the rest, "these insects will finally realize the reason they were born on this earth and that things are turning bad for them--and they will fall down before those whom they have offended and accused of every sin for so long and with such impunity. They will fall down before the Russian master. And we will not seek revenge. We will simply impose order" (cited in Solovyov and Klepikova, 1995, p. 101).

This, indeed, IS racist. But it is precisely because Zhirinovsky could never become a genuine racist that Arkhipov, Zharikov, and Eduard Limonov parted company with him. Yes, he could embrace for a few moments their pathos, if he felt this was moving the audience. In fact, the two former ministers described how, aware of this side in Zhirinovsky, THEY were manipulating HIM into using their slogans. They would eventually acknowledge that they "dressed Zhirinovsky, the emperor without clothes" (Solovyov and Klepikova, 1995, p. 162). Zhirinovsky is never conscious of a racist implication when promising that he will "follow in Hitler's steps". He knows, however, that the statement will shock--and this is precisely what he is after. It is Walter Laqueur who has best depicted this side of the LDPR leader. Zhirinovsky, he writes, "seems to have realized early on that even negative publicity was better than no publicity. Hence the outrageous, nonsensical statements at the impromptu press conferences, hence the clowning, the grandiose promises, and the blood-curdling threats. Everyone knew that he was at most half serious, but he would always provide a good story for the media" (Laqueur, 1994, p. 255) It is precisely this side (though not only this) in his character that makes me categorize him as a clown. But Stanislaw Tyminski in Poland or Ivan Kramberger in Slovenia, each in his own different way, were no lesser clowns.

Zhirinovsky can, however, be also the cunning politician running out of funds in August 1992, courting Dr. Gerhard Frey to fill his coffers and who, aware that his words are heard, declares after a meeting with the German neo-Nazi financier that "we have seen [Hitler] in a slightly distorted form. Of course, some of the deeds and actions of Hitler brought harm to Germany. Some ultraradical statements worked against him, but, on the whole, his ideology does not contain anything negative in it." Note that Zhirinovsky speaks of "harm to Germany." Not a word, on this occasion, of "harm to Russia," not to speak of the Jewish Holocaust. In an interview with Frey's "Deutsche Nationalzeitung" on that occasion, answering a question on whether his family has suffered as a result of the Russian-German conflicts this century, Zhirinovsky replies "One of my thirty relatives--an uncle--was killed in 1941 outside Moscow." And yet in an earlier interview, rejecting the charge of being a "fascist," Zhirinovsky erupted: "For me, fascism is the most repulsive thing. Almost all of my father's family was shot by the fascists" (cited in Solovyov and Klepikova, 1995, pp. 27, 119). And in 1994, when former Premier Yegor Gaidar, now leader of the Russia's Choice party, called Zhirinovsky the "most popular fascist leader in Russia," the LDPR leader took him to court and walked out with a million rubles in damage compensation ( Orttung, 1995, p. 3). Which, then, is the "true Zhirinovsky?" The one that denounces Hitler, as he does in his autobiography, for being a politician who "lured the people to him and into the 'brown' spectrum of irrational, aggressive political life and the resulting violence," or the one that talks to Dr. Frey? All of these, and more, of course. Hitler is what Zhirinovsky's "needs of the hour" compel him to be. If Goebbels is supposed to have once stated "I decide who is Jewish"--Zhirinovsky can be said to assume the prerogative of deciding who is Hitler. And that definition changes as the needs of the hour--and the audience--change. That this does not make him into a respectable politician, there is no arguing. But Zhirinovsky is not out to acquire respectability, but votes. This makes him into an opportunist, but not a racist.

Returning to "the dash to the South": in the best "imperialistic" tradition, Zhirinovsky is calling on the world to, once and for all, reject the idea of "world domination by one power." Imperialist redivision is to him nothing but "regional cooperation," said to signify "an optimal kind of economic and cultural cooperation with no racial, religious, or ethnic conflicts." To understand what he has in mind one must refer back to Zhirinovsky's "Jacobean" world outlook. He means that within the redrawn empires, in which every citizen has "equal rights" provided she/he has agreed to fully assimilate in the dominant culture, there are no "racial, religious, or ethnic conflicts" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 68). This is by no means a "civic" view of the world. It is one in which the "ethnic" has acquired unchallenged recognition, with each "ethnic empire" respecting the other's interests. To the extent that this can be called "ethnocracy" (which I tend to doubt), it is a "cultural ethnocracy."

It is not quite clear with whom Russia is to share in the redivision of the world. At times Zhirinovsky speaks of "Europe" as a separate entity (see below), at other times he says that "our counterparts in Europe are the Germans and the French, who are our allies and friends" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 68). He also speaks of "our great neighbors, China and India." The planet, in what is his most explicit statement so far, is to be divided among Japan and China, which are to take over influence in its "bottom", that is to say Southeast Asia; Western Europe, whose sphere of influence is to be "the south of the continent," that is, Africa (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 70); and there is always "America, with whom we have never been at odds and with whom we've never had a thing to fight over," with whom "we need to have EQUAL and normal relations" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 68. Emphasis mine). "America," that is, the U.S. and Canada, are to get "all of Latin America." It is a division "on EQUAL terms, with no one nation at advantage" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 70. Emphasis mine). Read no one "cultural nation" (see above). World power equality is, indeed, the "leitmotiv" of Zhirinovsky's entire "dash to the South" saga:

Bonaparte marched through Europe to Russia; Carl XII led Swedish troops south to the Black Sea; Hitler drove far to the East in his Drang nach Osten. And today, Americans try to impose their influence on all the regions of the world...Indeed, the Americans have managed to achieve dominance all over the world. But worldwide supremacy is a destructive idea. Cooperation among nations to divide spheres of influence on a regional basis is clearly better (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 70).

Zhirinovsky's "imperialist" plea thus turns out to be little else than yet one more expression of Russia's "inferiority complex" vis-a-vis the West. Just like Marxist-Leninist theory has been adopted as an instrument for overcoming the complex of delayed development, so Zhirinovsky is offering a new road--the "dash to the South"--to overcome the status of an "underdeveloped giant." And, as will be shown below, it is not accidental that the "offer" is being launched at this particular time in Russian history.

One must remark, in this connection, the role ascribed by Zhirinovsky to the Russian Orthodox Church within the reborn "empire." In its more remote past, Russia dreamt of becoming the "Third Rome" in which the Byzantine Church would be restored to the role it had played in the "Second Rome," i.e. in the Byzantine Empire. Now, the "dash to the South" is to restore the lost splendor of that earlier empire, with Russian Orthodoxy playing the role once played by the Byzantine Church. Once domination of "the south" is achieved, "We should turn all the houses of God in Anatolia into Orthodox churches, allowing the bells of Russian Orthodox churches to ring out along the shores of the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Istanbul, now a mosque, was once an Orthodox church. Jerusalem would be nearby, the tomb of our Lord, and a holy place to Muslims, Jews, and other Christians (Orthodox and otherwise). Such orthodoxy in the southern region of Russia will be beneficial" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 54). Beneficial to whom? To mankind at large, Zhirinovsky is persuaded. For in its quest for the "dash to the South," Russia is fulfilling not just its own destiny. The "dash" is offering Russia "the historic mission of saving mankind from a third world war" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 68). Having first been expanded from national to colonial dimensions, "salvation" is now undergoing magnification to worldwide proportions. This is nothing less than "messianic."

Zhirinovsky shares with the partisans of radical return an "organic" view of both history and contemporary society. He genuinely acknowledges that the measures he proposes are "not democratic." But, he adds in the best "organicist" tradition, they are a solution comparable to that proposed by a doctor when he deems surgery necessary. After it has been performed, a successful operation and recovery will immediately indicate that the doctor was correct." But for Zhirinovsky, the "body" is national AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL. It is "national" when, addressing his "fellow Russians," Zhirinovsky says "A disease has made its way inside Russia and all our organs are gradually decaying. If not stopped, eventually our nation, like an organism, will perish" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 66). But it is also an "international disease" and here Zhirinovsky departs again from radical return. The "operation" is not to be restricted to Russia alone, it is to include Central Asia, whose restored "health will, after several decades, yield [worldwide] positive results in the next century" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 64). One must note also that, unlike both radical return and radical continuity speakers, Zhirinovsky is not rejecting "globalization." Indeed, his entire "dash to the South" repartition is entrenched on the premises of "globalization." But it is a "globalization" from which Russia must not be allowed to be absent. What one deals with, in other words, is early 20th century imperialism clad in post-modern terminology. Take, for instance, the following statement: "Under this scenario, the United States will gradually depart from Europe to concentrate on aiding the peoples of Latin America--Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile--who are badly in need of technical assistance. For ourselves, we are prepared to pool our resources with the Americans to build joint space stations" (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 55). There is nothing in this statement to even remotely remind of Csurka's "Lebensraum." The "revived, inclusive" Russia is neither to annihilate nations included in its sphere of domination, nor is it to return to a nebulous past of social harmony, as the radical return proponents often have it. It is a Russia that is technologically advanced and can claim its "rightful" place at the "imperialist" table.

What Zhirinovsky DOES share with radical return and radical continuity alike is the "victimized majority" mentality. What he shares with radical continuity in general and with Zyuganov in particular, is the rejection of "colonialism" imposed, as it were, through agents serving foreign interests and, implicitly, conspiracy theories--the latter being, of course, also a prominent trait among the proponents of radical return. It is to be noted, however, that Zhirinovsky's rejection of "colonialism" is confined to Russia's own borders, his entire "dashing to the South" being little else than a justification for Russia's own colonial aspirations. The following warrants extensive citation:

Russia, left as she is today, will perish like the Byzantine Empire. But unlike the Byzantine Empire, which fell to attacks by barbarian horsemen from the east--the saber-bearing Seljuk and Ottoman Turks--Russia is being eroded from within, WITH RUSSIANS BEING TURNED INTO MINORITIES, SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS, CLEANING PEOPLE AND GARBAGE MEN. The complete degradation of the nation culminates in the end of childbearing, the birth of deformed children, and the employment of women as prostitutes in bordellos.

Already deplorable conditions exist among us today where slavery is practiced in the northern Caucasus and RUSSIANS ARE EITHER ENTICED OR DRIVEN OFF BY FORCE into the mountains to be slaves or farm hands of the local bey, or lord. Eventually, if the deterioration continues, the intelligentsia will depart for America, Europe, Australia, ISRAEL, and our people will shrink into a biomass...

My fellow Russians, let us save ourselves from the destruction of our nation, our language, our culture, from being TRANSFORMED INTO REFUGEES AND HIRED HELP WHO WORK AS SERFS OR SLAVES FOR FOREIGN BOSSES. We must quickly put an end to our mindless descent into the abyss while we still number one hundred and fifty million, for every year our numbers dwindle. Within ten years, we may well be fewer than one hundred million; in twenty or thirty years, we may number no more than thirty million strewn across a vast territory. THEN WE WILL CEASE TO EXIST AS A NATION BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE BECOME SO SMALL A MINORITY (Zhirinovsky, 1996, pp. 64-65. Emphasis mine).

No one in the radical return camp would have included Israel into the list of places to which the RUSSIAN intelligentsia may emigrate. To do so is to regard Jews as being part and parcel of the Russian nation--provided, of course, that they feel and act "Russian." Zhirinovsky may have a personal problem with his half-Jewishness, and he is on the record as having made statements that are anti-Semitic. There seems to be nothing to differentiate Zhirinovsky from other anti-Semites when he deplores the fact that "Jews have not been playing the most favorable role as far as all the misfortunes that are happening in this country are concerned. They are in the mass media and are simply infecting the country...That does not make Russians very happy." It certainly does not make ZHIRINOVSKY very happy to be reminded by Jewish journalists about his partial ethnic origin and to have him described, again mostly by Jewish journalists, as a new Hitler. His reaction is one of "aggressive self-defense." But one finds him also saying that Jews "went for the socialist idea, they tried to make a world revolution and have Jews dominate the world. But the world revolution didn't come to pass because they tried to stay here in leadership positions" (cited in Solovyov and Klepikova, 1995, p. 25-26).

One is not sure what Zhirinovsky deplores more: that the world revolution failed because the Jews were, as it were, in power in Moscow, or that they are trying to dominate the world. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that echoes of the "Protocols" are unmistakably recognizable. Still, one would be at a loss to find racist undertones in any of Zhirinovsky's anti-Semitic pronouncements. After all, to bring up racist arguments would be the equivalent of Zhirinovsky shooting himself in the foot. It is not by chance that Limonov, his erstwhile ally, in 1994 proposed a law that would have restricted access to the presidency to "pure-blooded" Russians. "We do not want power to fall into the hands of Rutskoy [who apparently has also some Jewish ancestry], much less into the hands of Eidelstein-Zhirinovsky," Limonov wrote in his appeal to the State Duma (cited in Solovyov and Klepikova, 1995, p. 29).

The "victimized majority" aspect merits further introspection. One must remember that Zhirinovsky is above all a politician in search for a constituency. His "political credo" is made at a time when Russians see themselves flooded by refugees from the "near abroad," when the status of ethnic Russians in the countries of the former Soviet Union has collapsed from that of a privileged minority to one that sees its ethnicity threatened. It is made at a time when crime is acquiring unmanageable proportions. And it is made at a time when Russians find it hard to comprehend how in just a few years their country has lost its proud "world power status." It is to this disoriented and physically insecure "Russian" that Zhirinovsky is appealing, and what he is offering is the restoration of national pride as a means to "national salvation."

Young Russians, I appeal to you. I want to see your proud gaze. Can we allow ourselves to be torn apart from within? We have powerful military space stations...We have the Energia rocket, the most powerful in the world, which can transport any satellite into deep outer space. We have the T-72 and the T-84 tanks. If we started their engines all at once, the planet would shudder. We are destroying a navy that has beaten all others on every sea and ocean...

From the air, on land, from the sea and below; from the cosmos and the mountaintops, these fighting men defend Russia. And the banner of Russia will proudly flutter, will rise up at the border points. To SAVE THEMSELVES, Russians should descend southward (Zhirinovsky, 1996, p. 67. Emphasis mine).

The "externalization of guilt" temptation is, under such conditions, irresistible for a politician obviously untroubled by scruples. If I knew what "populist" means, I would be inclined to describe the environment in which Zhirinovsky raises as a politician as being "a populist's paradise." This explains how a party that calls itself "Liberal Democratic" and has genuine liberal-democratic, that is to say, civic, principles, enshrined in his "birth certificate" (Laqueur, 1994, p. 255; Hanson and Williams, 1999, p. 270), turns into a formation that no scholar writing on postcommunist "radicalism" in Russia can ignore.

Indeed, it is to this segment of refugees from the "near abroad," and to hurt Russian pride, to the even larger segment of those longing for "law and order" as crime thrives, that Zhirinovsky's appeal is music to the ears. And these run into the millions. It is to this segment, to those forced into below subsistence levels--as well as to officers forced to retire from what only yesterday was regarded as eternal Russian territory--that he promises a short, two-year authoritarian government (Laqueur, 1994, p. 256) to cope once and for all with both those who challenge Moscow's greatness in the "near abroad," as well as with those who undermine it within:

Perestroika proceeded without any direction and with no strategic plan for political transformation, no concrete program for economic reform. The government failed to fulfill its obligations; it failed to guarantee, by controlling the output of basic consumer goods, the survival of all levels of society. Nor has it been able to maintain its borders or to prevent the squandering of its precious resources. Speculation and criminality have, as a result, grown at an unprecedented pace.

Looting, pilfering, and dissipation of Russia's valuable resources have been rampant, committed not only by the "Mafia," but by a Russian government which, with maniacal abstinence, has given away, almost for the asking, a third of our natural resources to sovereign states of the so-called "near abroad"...

If our incompetent leadership stops the systematic plundering of our resources, we can raise production sharply and regain our status as a superpower. But to achieve that status again, we must change the country's leadership with free elections and install AN AUTHORITARIAN REGIME that controls from the center.

THIS IS WHERE I COME IN.

We need to gradually reestablish our previous borders--not violently, of course--but through politics and economics, without either bloodshed or military force. By offering the same economic conditions to the countries near to us as we do to those distant from us, we will make two choices clear to the former Republics: Either drag out a miserable existence soliciting crumbs from the world or return to our superpower fold (Zhirinovsky, 1996, pp. 102-03, 112-13. Emphasis mine).

Frazer, G., Lancelle, G., 1994, Absolute Zhirinovsky: A Transparent View of the Distinguished Russian Statesman (New York: Penguin).

Hanson, S. E., Williams, C., 1999, "National Socialism, Left Patriotism, or Superimperialism? The 'Radical Right' in Russia," in Ramet, S. (ed.), The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1989 (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 257-77.

Laqueur, W., 1994, Black Hundred: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia (New York: Harper Perennial).

Orttung, R. W., 1995, "A Politically Timed Fight Against Extremism," " Transition," Vol. 1. no. 10, pp. 2-7.

Solovyov, V., Klepikova, E., 1995, Zhirinovsky: Russian Fascism and the Making of a Dictator (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley).

Zhirinovsky, V., 1996, My Struggle (New York: Barricade Books).