REMEMBERING RUSSIAN TRUTH, OR CRAFTING CONFLICTING FUTURES BETWEEN “PRAVDA” AND “ISTINA”

This paper aims to make a contribution to the semiotic research on the theme of futurity in post‒soviet Russia, by bringing together various approaches that deal with the problem of futurity and anticipation, con-ceived as an activity that is based on the process of modelling an (un)desired future (Parn 2021, p. 108). This article discusses the ways in which the problem of futurity and anticipation impacts the topics of debate in contemporary Russian epistemology, which in turn is leading to a major conceptual shift in the dynamics of a whole set of trends in modern Russian culture. I argue that the conceptual potential of an “epistemological style” does actually define the context of ongoing discussions in Russian philos-ophy, where relativistic and weaponized interpretations of history have influenced contemporary practices of future-making, thus emphasizing the relationship between truth claims1 and recursion in the Russian epistemological tradition (Lotman 1985). As I will show, a “memorial orientation” towards the future is complemented by the resurgence of an eschatologi-cal quest, which offers a direction forward based on the narratives of national memory. This network based approach (Latour 2013, p. 71) to anticipation allows drawing connections between culturally mediated forms of anticipation and new epistemological paradigms of historicity, thus framing the “recursive openness” of future making as a complex web of possible worlds (Leone 2011; Lozano, Salerno 2020). With these aims in mind, the paper offers a sketch of a comprehensive semiotic approach to the theme of futurity in contemporary Russia, based on a methodological framework of different self-descriptive models (Lotman, Uspenskij 1971) and other semiotic resources involved in the related model-building processes. The study’s main question is whether different beliefs with regards to “re-ligiously‒neutral” vs. “religiously‒informed” issues in the social and political interpretation of Russian history might influence the space(s) of the future, when making sense of political claims of “truth”. This reflection will give new suggestions from which to rearticulate a series of shortcom-ings in the post‒Cold War debates on historical time (Monticelli 2020). Crucially, as Federico Romero underlines, the primary goal pursued by each party (Russia/USA) was not as much the accumulation of material resources or physical territories but rather the influence on the directions of historical progression. The conflict revolved around the control and guid-ance of the “winds of change”, as both sides sought to position themselves advantageously in the struggle to shape forthcoming historical narratives and guide the world towards the betterment (Romero 2014, p. 690).