This is the way VVP is portrayed on the cover of the "Person of the Year" issue of Time Magazine:
And here is the image accompanying one of the RIA Novosti stories about Putin's "award":
When you mouse over the photo on the RIAN website, the text that pops up is "Vladimir Putin, Time (c) collage RIA Novosti." Collages with mastheads of Western newspapers and misleading or fabricated headlines have become a commonplace element in the works of Russian "political technologists" (see, e.g., here, and also this fabrication). This example does not, of course, rise to that level, but it is interesting to note RIAN's role in conveying to Russians a certain view of how the West sees them through the InoSMI project.
This BBC article provides a good discussion of how InoSMI (unlike InoPressa, another website that presents Russian translations of Western media) allegedly presents an unbalanced selection of Western coverage, designed to create the impression among Russians that "the Western media are full of negative articles about [Russia]...that a new propaganda war is being conducted...that Western correspondents will do anything to make Russia look bad." The website even has video from foreign TV - for example, this recent CNN report on Russia - dubbed into Russian.
I don't spend enough time reading InoSMI to be able to tell for sure who's right, though my first impression is that the BBC correspondent is onto something (one problem is that InoSMI mostly translates op-ed pieces and not straight news pieces, creating the impression that all Russia coverage in the West is opinionated; and another problem is that InoSMI doesn't carry enough translations about topics other than Russia), but wouldn't RIAN want to show the sinister-looking Putin cover if their mission was to tell Russians that the West views them negatively? Perhaps they are smart enough to realize that the line should be drawn at negative portrayals of Putin, who after all built at least some degree of his support (especially during the first term) by creating the impression among Russians that he is respected abroad.
Anyway, Putin's interview with Time is quite interesting. I think this was one of the more telling parts:
[upd] Actually, his unedited answer to that question (from this full transcript of the interview) has a bit more texture than the edited version that (presumably) was what went into the print edition. Here are the phrases that were edited out; I've included brackets above to indicate where the edits were made:
BTW, here is my earlier post about Putin as "POY."
This BBC article provides a good discussion of how InoSMI (unlike InoPressa, another website that presents Russian translations of Western media) allegedly presents an unbalanced selection of Western coverage, designed to create the impression among Russians that "the Western media are full of negative articles about [Russia]...that a new propaganda war is being conducted...that Western correspondents will do anything to make Russia look bad." The website even has video from foreign TV - for example, this recent CNN report on Russia - dubbed into Russian.
InoSMI's editor naturally has a different take on things, and it is true that the website provides what should be a valuable service and has generated a loyal community of commenters debating the contents of the translated pieces. The website also recently won a RuNet award, though since the awards contest was set up by the Federal Agency for Print and Mass Media and RIAN is state-run, the award to InoSMI may have been more of a promotional action than a contest.
I don't spend enough time reading InoSMI to be able to tell for sure who's right, though my first impression is that the BBC correspondent is onto something (one problem is that InoSMI mostly translates op-ed pieces and not straight news pieces, creating the impression that all Russia coverage in the West is opinionated; and another problem is that InoSMI doesn't carry enough translations about topics other than Russia), but wouldn't RIAN want to show the sinister-looking Putin cover if their mission was to tell Russians that the West views them negatively? Perhaps they are smart enough to realize that the line should be drawn at negative portrayals of Putin, who after all built at least some degree of his support (especially during the first term) by creating the impression among Russians that he is respected abroad.
Anyway, Putin's interview with Time is quite interesting. I think this was one of the more telling parts:
What do you think are American misconceptions about Russia?Looks like Vova reads InoSMI.
Well, you know, I don't believe these are misconceptions. I think this is a purposeful attempt by some to create an image of Russia based on which one could influence our internal and foreign policies. [1] This is the reason why everybody is made to believe, like, it's O.K. to pinch the Russians somewhat. They are a little bit savage still, or they just climbed down from the trees and probably need to have their hair brushed and their beards trimmed. [2]
[upd] Actually, his unedited answer to that question (from this full transcript of the interview) has a bit more texture than the edited version that (presumably) was what went into the print edition. Here are the phrases that were edited out; I've included brackets above to indicate where the edits were made:
[1] Russia has demonstrated that we don't want simply to be a partner, we want to be a friend of America. Sometimes one gets the impression that America does not need friends. Sometimes we get the impression that you need some kind of auxiliary subjects to take command of. We cannot build our relations on such grounds and this creates frictions now and then, and this is precisely the reason why they always seek to find some problems inside our country.Pretty substantial edits.
[2] That's the civilizing mission to be accomplished out there. But I believe this is a tool to affect others, which is a wrong way to go. The right way would be to find common ground and take account of each other's interests in the first place.
BTW, here is my earlier post about Putin as "POY."
22 comments:
".... unlike InoPressa, another website that presents Russian translations of Western media) allegedly presents an unbalanced selection of Western coverage, designed to create the impression among Russians that "the Western media are full of negative articles about [Russia]...that a new propaganda war is being conducted...that Western correspondents will do anything to make Russia look bad."
Huh? The Western press is anti-Russian. Read Clifford Levy at the NY Times, or The Economist with Edward Lucas. How about Anne Applebaum at The Washington Post? Or The Wall Street Journal giving Kasparov free reign to write scathing editorials. Illarionov writes negative articles often now that he's at the Cato Institute in various media outlets. Michael McFaul as well. Michael Wines was notorious when he covered Russia for the NYT. The Boston Globe has only recently become a bit more balanced in its coverage.
NPR has a big Kasparov-style Russia is undemocratic program planned for late February before the March Presidential elections.
Not sure why you used this particular cover "callage" to highlight your point about InoSMI spinning Western press pieces to show Western press anti-Russia bias. Actually, RIA Novosti's cover is much more pro Putin. The Time photographs are purposely harsh, dour, stern, and a bit sinister.
PLease share with me one Western press outlet which you feel is consistently even-handed and fair in it coverage of Russia.
Timothy, I get the sense that you didn't read what I wrote very carefully and had an emotional response to what you thought I wrote. The paragraph that you quote was me relating the essence of the BBC piece, not me sharing my own opinion. Note the use of the word "allegedly," and the quotation marks. If you have a problem with that piece, I suggest you go to the BBC's website and comment on it. I actually think InoSMI is very useful for someone like me who wants to read Russia coverage which appeared originally in languages other than English or Russian.
I do think that BBC piece makes some valid points, and I shared my own observations which coincide with what the (Russian) guy who wrote that piece thinks:
"(one problem is that InoSMI mostly translates op-ed pieces and not straight news pieces, creating the impression that all Russia coverage in the West is opinionated; and another problem is that InoSMI doesn't carry enough translations about topics other than Russia)"
To reiterate - translating op-ed pieces as opposed to some of the straight news coverage would create a false impression of widespread, heated and mostly hostile discussion about Russia; and translating almost exclusively items about Russia feeds the misconception held by some Russians that their country is constantly on the front pages of US newspapers. Sorry to repeat myself, but you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.
Huh? The Western press is anti-Russian. Read Clifford Levy at the NY Times, or The Economist with Edward Lucas. How about Anne Applebaum at The Washington Post? Or The Wall Street Journal giving Kasparov free reign to write scathing editorials. Illarionov writes negative articles often now that he's at the Cato Institute in various media outlets. Michael McFaul as well.
Aside from the fact that it's hard to make such a broad generalization about a group of people as diverse as "the Western press" and have it be correct, you have mentioned almost exclusively editorial writers. Of the non-editorial writers, I think the NYT bureau does an OK job on straight news stories (and the Moscow bureau guys don't write editorials, as far as I know), but Lucas definitely has a slant and plays up things that make Russia look bad.
All the others are editorial writers. Applebaum's writing I could sort of take or leave, though some of her pieces are interesting; McFaul is a fairly well respected academic and has spent a good bit of time in Russia, so I'm not inclined to reject what he writes out of hand (although I'm sure if you knew his background you would jump all over the fact that he was involved in democracy-promotion-type activities in Russia in the early '90s).
As for Kasparov, don't forget that the WSJ has also given Sergei Ivanov "free reign" to place at least one column on their op-ed page, and I believe Putin has appeared there as well. I don't have much good to say about Kasparov, it seems like he's good at staying in the news, but I agree that he gets more ink than he deserves, and it's too bad that he gives Putin an excuse to bash supposed American meddling. Illarionov - first, it's not as though he lives at Cato. I think he spends at least some of his time in Moscow. You act as though any affiliation with a US think-tank is poison and automatically renders the person incapable of independent thought, which is ridiculous. Second, he was one of the people behind the success of Putin's government back when they still had to do something to succeed (in the second term, they basically just had to keep an eye on the oil money flowing in - I'm oversimplifying for rhetorical purposes, but hopefully you get the point), so how is it that he's now become such a villain?
NPR has a big Kasparov-style Russia is undemocratic program planned for late February before the March Presidential elections.
Actually, I think it's PBS you're thinking of. And I'm struggling to see why that should matter. It's not like it's "interference" in Russian affairs, and I doubt they are going to fabricate things completely (a la Mamontov's "barkhat.ru"). If they are covering the presidential elections in Russia, what angle should they take exactly, given that the successor appears to have been appointed several months before the election (or, as one anekdot goes, roughly, the presidential election took place, and there was 100% turnout - one person voted)?
And why is it "Kasparov-style" to be interested in the development (or non-development) of democracy in Russia? Can I ask why you are so hung up on Kasparov? I meant to respond to your comment on Siberian Light the other day but didn't, so I'll just note here - "Garry" is just as much of a Russian name as names like "Roy" (Medvedev), Al'bert (Kokh, or others if you prefer), Eduard (Limonov), and it's sort of offensive to insinuate otherwise, assuming you were being serious. I'm not sure why you see the need to be more xenophobic than the Russians (maybe I got the wrong impression, but that's how your comment came across), but criticizing someone for their name - really, I guess you must have been joking. Remember, though, first they come for the allegedly foreign-backed, foreign-sounding-name-having minor candidates, next they come for the foreign real-estate speculators...
Not sure why you used this particular cover "callage" to highlight your point about InoSMI spinning Western press pieces to show Western press anti-Russia bias. Actually, RIA Novosti's cover is much more pro Putin.
I had been meaning to do a separate post on InoSMI and had the links saved, then decided to roll them into this post, and you're right that it's not a perfect fit. The point about the collage and the point about InoSMI are really two separate, though perhaps related, points. Note that I wrote: "wouldn't RIAN want to show the sinister-looking Putin cover if their mission was to tell Russians that the West views them negatively?"
PLease share with me one Western press outlet which you feel is consistently even-handed and fair in it coverage of Russia.
Actually, I can't say that I religiously read any one Western outlet's Russia coverage - I usually read a variety of Russian sources on the internet (when I have time). My general impression is that the NYT and Washington Post do an OK but not stellar job with their news coverage (as distinguished from editorial coverage, and it's an important distinction).
But it's hard to tell what exactly is meant by "fair" with respect to newspaper reportage. Journos write critically for the most part (i.e., they never write about the planes that don't crash), and they write critically about the US just as much as they do about Russia. Go find me a Bush supporter who thinks any of the outlets you named (except maybe the WSJ) cover Bush "fairly."
It is true that Western journos in Russia often write easy stories, falling back on stereotypes or finding the people who will talk to them in English, but some of them do have a better understanding of Russia than that. Some of them may simply be guilty of listening to and believing the official rhetoric about Russia being democratic and then being startled when they actually observe an election campaign there.
And if we're asking about "even-handed and fair" coverage (again, whatever that means), can I ask what you think of the mainstream Russian media's coverage of America? Then again, the US media must really be in trouble if I'm even considering comparing them to the Russian media (speaking of the mainstream broadcast outlets and not some of the more interesting commentators in print and online).
Sorry for such a long response and thanks for commenting.
I have absolutely no way of verifying this, but I suspect that the answer to the question "how many articles on Russia in the Guardian and Washington Post were paid for by Berezovsky and Menatep Bank, respectively?" the answer would be "a lot."
Nevertheless, I think that the majority of the anti-Russian tint to Western media coverage (and it is obviously there) has more to do with the writers' view of the world and ignorance of the subject matter -- coupled with the related fact that they can often be easily manipulated by interested parties -- than a conscious attempt at distortion.
Much of the Russian coverage of the US (and the rest of the world)is shaped the same way, by the way.
Chris, as you might expect, I totally agree with everything but your first sentence above. And thanks for articulating the thought about unintentional misrepresentations more clearly and more concisely than I could.
As for payola articles in the WaPo (without speaking of the Brit press, of which I know little), how exactly do you think this would have been accomplished?
First, I assume you're talking about opinion pieces and not straight news articles - I have a hard time believing some Moscow correspondent for the Post was/is on the take (though of course underestimating human greed is never a good idea). As for op-eds, I know that think tanks (and PR agencies) with good connections have better chances of placing an op-ed in the WaPo than mere mortals, but it seems like a large donation to a think tank followed by a request to place op-eds with a certain point of view is a fairly indirect line of connection. I honestly can't think of any other way that articles in such a newspaper could be "paid for," but I'm interested to hear your thoughts - not asking for proof, just your educated speculation on how this could be done.
Incidentally, here is the only paid content about Russia from the WaPo of which I am aware, and they sequester it in a separate section, just like the grocery store prices.
I think it's less a matter of passing people money in envelopes (though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that happens as well to some extent) and more one of giving them paid junkets, stroking their egos, and presenting yourself as A Source that Can Be Trusted (which in practice means reinforcing whatever the journalist already believes). I think this is particularly obvious if you look at Anglophone coverage of Khodorkovsky. In the 1990s, he was often presented as Corrupt Russian Criminal Business in miniature. Then, he began throwing money at Western think tanks and hiring Western PR firms, and lo and behold in the space of a year or so he turned into a golden boy -- who maybe had some unfortunate skeletons in his closet, but that's all in the past, baby!
As an aside, it may or may not be a coincidence that the WaPo used to have a financial relationship with Media-MOST. May or may not.
(Yes, I do mean opinion pieces _for the most part_)
...giving them paid junkets, stroking their egos, and presenting yourself as A Source that Can Be Trusted (which in practice means reinforcing whatever the journalist already believes).
Isn't that what some people say about the Valdai Discussion Group (I don't happen to agree, but the opinion is out there)? And that's sponsored by RIA Novosti, if I'm not mistaken.
As for Khodor, you omit that he also hired western lawyers (insert joke about PR people or worse here) and put one of them on the board of Yukos, and employed foreign top managers to follow the money, all in an attempt to develop better corporate governance structures. Sure, to some extent it was for PR purposes, but a lot of it was because he wanted to increase the value of his holdings and knew that better CG / more transparent operations would do this.
I don't know the guy, so I can't judge, but is it impossible to imagine that he might have changed just a bit? I mean, isn't a constant focus on the KGB past one of the criticisms that pro-Putin people level against the western media, when that was so far in the past?
As an aside, it may or may not be a coincidence that the WaPo used to have a financial relationship with Media-MOST. May or may not.
What was the nature of that financial relationship? In any event, I'm not sure it's necessary to see an evil conspiracy everywhere there is a financial relationship. After all, Vedomosti is a joint project with the WSJ and the FT, is it not? And I don't think anyone has anything bad to say about Vedomosti's credibility.
The point was not that "I can't read everything" (though I see it comes across that way), but rather that anyone who wants to get a serious understanding of Russia should not rely on non-Russian mass media sources. Just as one should not rely on non-American mass media sources for a full picture of life in America.
Lastly, negative news coverage and opinion pieces on Russia sell newspapers. The English-speaking public seems to be comforted by the thought that Russians are bad guys and Russia is a bad place.
I recall you advancing this argument in the past, and it's the only thing from your comment that I really disagree with. I just don't think Americans have cared much at all about Russia in the last 15 years or so, although that appears to be changing.
You might just as well say that "negative opinions about Africa, photos of starving children, etc., sell newspapers" and "comfort" the "English-speaking public." It may have a grain of truth, but it's not why the stories appear.
I mean really, do you think stories about foreign anything sell newspapers in the US (not counting "terrorists" and publications with photos of attractive-looking foreigners)? I don't. I just don't think Americans are that interested in the outside world, though maybe I'm wrong and I underestimate the curiosity of my own people.
"I don't know the guy, so I can't judge, but is it impossible to imagine that he might have changed just a bit?"
Sure it's possible. I think it was the eXile that compared him to a pimpled coffee-store geek whose rock band makes it big and goes through the various star phases. But it was the whitewashing of his past that really stood out. I'm thinking in particular of one Applebaum piece from I think 2001 in which she went on and on about what a swell guy Khodorkovsky was and then added, sotto voce at the end, "and, oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that some people think he's had people murdered."
"In any event, I'm not sure it's necessary to see an evil conspiracy everywhere there is a financial relationship."
I said "may or may not." I have no way of knowing. I'm not talking about conspiracies either, just suggesting that the WaPo's approach may be colored by their having been involved in joint projects with Gusinsky. Pointing out that media organizations, like any organizations, have an agenda is not conspiracy theorizing -- it is an observation anyone who has worked in media can verify.
"I would say that the German news magazine Spiegel is more balanced than UK and US news outlets, but even they easily slant coverage to the negative."
My favorite is when Spiegel wrote that Putin's Orthodox Cross was "a set of military dogtags."
OK, that's more stupid than it is slanted per se, but it's still pretty funny.
Wally, one more thing:
In either case, the program in question could be characterized as government-funded anti-Russian propaganda.
I can't argue that it could be characterized as such, because obviously at least one commenter at this post has already done so. But that doesn't mean the characterization would be correct - it is worth noting that the majority of PBS's funding comes from individual donors and foundations, not from the gov't.
Chris, sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were all with the tinfoil hat, and thanks for recalling that eXile article. What was the project between WaPo and Most - was it that magazine about the media (Sreda?), or something else?
My favorite is when Spiegel wrote that Putin's Orthodox Cross was "a set of military dogtags."
G*d, that is for some reason really funny (and a bit inappropriate on their part).
"But that doesn't mean the characterization would be correct - it is worth noting that the majority of PBS's funding comes from individual donors and foundations, not from the gov't."
Then it's just privately funded government-directed propaganda. ;)
As a matter of fact, I was thinking about coverage of Africa before and I do think it is often colored in the way Wally suggests. Every story about Africa has to mention somewhere or other what a hellhole Africa supposedly is. I saw a clip recently of a British-African writer (such just won the Booker I think) complaining about this very thing.
I don't recollect the details of the WaPo-Media Most relationship. Much was made of it at the time.
I agree with Lyndon in this discussion. The points have been made, but just to emphasize them again: if WaPo, NYT and others are anti-Russia or anti-Putin, then we can also state they are anti-American and anti-Bush (as American right-wingers are never tired of repeating). And the same goes for NPR and PBS. Think of all those Frontline episodes about Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq. No wonder American conservatives want to eliminate all US funds to both NPR and PBS.
Lyndon is also right about the general lack of interest that Americans show for the rest of the world. This is one of the things that I don't like about the US and, considering that just about all Americans came from elsewhere, I find somewhat puzzling, but it is undeniable. The average Venezuelan or Argentinian professional knows much more about what's going on in Germany, China and South Africa than his or her American counterpart.
Tushin is me, Kolya from Vermont. For some reason I have to use the Tushin account for my comments to make it through.
Wally, I guess we could go on forever on these topics, I have a few thoughts on your last comments:
Yes, I know PBS is down to about 18% funding from the government, but they do enjoy government sponsorship in other ways (tax breaks due to being a non-profit).
Well, if enjoying tax breaks = being a tool of the government, then we do have real problems in this country. Universities, people with mortgages (me!), all non-profits - are we to characterize all of these entities and people as tools of the gov't and anything any of them say that's negative about Russia as "government-funded anti-Russian propaganda"? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.
Not sure what to say about negative news coverage of certain "bad guy" nations selling newspapers - I think it is an absolute fact. You can trace it all the way back to the Spanish-American War and "Remember the Maine" right through the Cold War era and even skirmish and conflict we've had since.
As for selling newspapers, your point may well have been true back when people actually made money off of serious newspapers. As it is nowadays, it's not exactly a booming business. I don't deny that there may be some influential industries with a financial interest in portraying a certain image of Russia (maybe oil companies and defense contractors), but I don't think the print media falls into this category at all. I think newspapers are generally break-even propositions nowadays at best, and where they make their money is not "selling newspapers" but selling ads, monetizing their internet traffic, etc.
Strange point to make about "not trying to understand Russia through English news media." So, the American population should all learn Russian? Obviously those deeply interested would seek other opinions, but those people are a miniscule fraction of the population.
My point may seem "strange," but I was asked to name a "fair" or "even-handed" Western media outlet, which requires me to rely on my personal experience of reading about Russia - so that's what I relied on. I don't know and can't assume how others get their info.
I would point out, though, that suggesting people look at media originating in Russia hardly means people have to learn Russian. RIAN, Kommersant, the Moscow Times, REGNUM, and many others, available through familiar interfaces like Google News - it's a limited and imperfect universe of Russian media available in English, but it's not a tiny one.
Newspapers and television form opinions in this country, and the opinion being sold in the general populace these days is that Russia is certainly not an ally and a nation that we'll likely have to "deal with" in the future.
You should check out the slideshow on Time's website of "Putin's Russia". Putin fan-clubs, mud roads, leg-less beggars, a woman's prison, orphans at a cadet boarding school, and a shaggy "worker" taking a 4 beer lunch break. While these things undoubtedly exist in Russia, it surely isn't what I first associate with modern Russian life or how Russia has changed under Putin's presidency.
Who is "selling" this opinion? I just don't think you can ascribe groupthink or collective action to the disparate media outlets often cited as "anti-Russian." We can speak about general tendencies being more negative nowadays, but don't you think some of that has to do with things like the Munich speech (after all, if Russia is in fact rhetorically confronting the US, is it so unreasonable for the media to portray the relationship as confrontational?)?
Anyway, arguing in detail about the content of US media about Russia is close to useless (though that never seems to stop me from spending lots of time doing it). There are examples and counterexamples, and things are portrayed negatively just as they are in the US. I would note, though, that Time's depictions of poverty do not tend to suggest an impending confrontation with Russia (a Russia we'll have to "deal with," as you put it) but seem to me like a continuation of the Russia-as-third-world-nation narrative - which may actually bother Russians even more than the "we'll never be allies" narrative.
Of course it's not consistent with my impression of Russia's economic success either, but do you expect journos in Russia to do endless stories about shiny skyscrapers and ski resorts? I'm afraid that even if they do, they'll write about the poor living conditions of gastarbaiters and the lack of environmental impact studies - that is what journalists do, wherever they are.
Also, nothing against Timothy Post (I admire his entrepreneurship and good fortune and/or foresight in taking a chance on Krasnodar), but don't you think someone trying to sell real estate in a particular region has a stronger interest in portraying that region positively than a reporter posted to a particular country has in portraying that country negatively?
I wonder, for example, what Timothy thinks about this project (and is the project really going forward)? Is it an environmentally unfriendly monstrosity or a glorious ode to Russia in island form? I can't decide, personally...
PS You know, in general I agree that it's upsetting to see that the relatively few in-depth portrayals of Russia in Western MSM are generally negative or off the mark, but to be honest I am much more worried about ideas in the sphere of domestic politics which are in fact actively "sold" to the populace by the RNC - ideas like the notion that religion should have a central place in the presidential campaign. I really, really liked Putin's remarks on that topic in his interview and hope we can avoid the mistake of having a wannabe theocrat like Huckabee as even the nominee, not to mention president.
PPS Wally, I decided to check out the slideshows on Time's website (avoidance of exam prep is in high gear at this point), and I'm not sure what you are complaining about in terms of this being an example of negative coverage of Russia. The slideshow you talk about with "mud roads" called "Inside Putin's Russia," is actually by a Russian photographer (n.b, the four-beer worker is identified as being Ukrainian, the women's prison you complain about them including is shown in a positive light, and there are several photos that I found positive or uplifting - in all, the slideshow is about Russia as it really does exist, whether you like it or not, and it's baffling to me why you found those photos problematic).
While these things undoubtedly exist in Russia, it surely isn't what I first associate with modern Russian life or how Russia has changed under Putin's presidency.
Of course not, but isn't part of the story the fact that for some people in Russia things have not changed? Moreover, a number of the photos (of the cadets' academy and the prison) show institutions that probably are in better shape as a result of Putin-era increased social spending.
Furthermore, you neglected to mention the other Time slideshows entitled "Lives of the Russian Rich" and "One Day in Moscow" one with lots of lovely pics of my beloved metro. This is the "anti-Russian" western media at its worst?
And this video of their Piter to Moscow journey (on which the slideshow you didn't like was photographed) was, I thought, also pretty good, although the American narrating it focused too much on his own need to get a press credential (probably he was just surprised, b/c you wouldn't need such a thing to take a photo-taking trip from NY to DC, for example) and incorrectly stated that the requirement of turning in your passport to register at a hotel is due to an anti-terrorism law passed last year - that may be what he was told, but as we all know that law is a good old Soviet tradition.
Anyway, I think the several slideshows on Time's website in aggregate show a fairly complete picture of the new Russia, and certainly they do a good job of showing images that will be surprising (not always in a bad way) or interesting to American readers, which after all is their audience. So I'm puzzled why you chose to focus on the one "negative" slideshow (which, as I said, I don't even think is so negative). I know I said such discussions are "close to useless," so sorry for perpetuating this one...
Actually, I'm curious - if you were to do a slide-show on how Russia has changed under Putin's presidency, what would it include?
W. Shedd: From one Pat's fan to another, thanks for the "plug."
Lyndon:
You are correct. I did jump the gun a bit and my response was clouded by emotion. My bad.
Btw, I am really enjoying reading your thoughts on your blog and others and also on Untimely Thoughts.
While I may not always agree with all of your points, you have a nice way of presenting your views.
I look forward to reading your thoughts over the next fews month in the run-up to March 2008.
Lyndon:
Regarding your question about the proposed "Federation Island" off the coast of Sochi, my understanding is that it's viability may be based more on engineering feasibility than economic.
I spoke with someone here in Krasnodar a while back, just after the Kuban Invest Forum, and his response was that due to the topography and the composition of the sea-floor it would be extremely challenging if not impossible.
Apparently, the Dubai sea-floor is fairly flat and not very deep. Whereas the Sochi sea-floor slopes sharply downward.
While I am very excited by the possibilities that exist in creating something special in Sochi, I am also a realist in the challenges that will need to be solved to get the place ready for 2014.
It may be that the "idea" of Federation Island may be a result of the fact that a brand new island would be a clean slate without all the annoying "little" problems like traffic, relocation of people, and sewage.
So, I guess my final answer would be that I would prefer to see the current city be rebuilt and redesigned properly before avoiding those challenges and embarking on Federation Island.
PS: I heard an interesting rumor (just a rumor) that the authorities are considering banning private cards from the city of Sochi during the Summer months. Instead, large parking lots would be built up North near Lazerevskaya and people would park their cars and take buses. Can you imagine?
Apparently, there are currently regulations which prohibit trucks from using the current coastal roads during the day.
Anyhow, I think that the Sochi 2014 project may make the Boston Big Dig project look easy. As a Bostonian, that's really saying something!
Tim, thanks, I know it is sometimes easy to get exercised about these issues, and I'm guilty of it myself at times.
I am intrigued to see how the Sochi developments go forward, hopefully the Olympics will be a force for good, but it's hard to imagine a lot of money won't be stolen. The car restrictions actually seem like they would make sense, and I'd be surprised if there haven't been similar measures taken in other Olympic cities in the past, at least during the Games.
As for Federation Island, it looks like it's going forward starting in 2008, though of course you can't believe everything you read. Anyway, it must be interesting to be seeing all of this unfold and to be involved in parts of it - plus I understand it's beautiful country around Krasnodar.
What are your thoughts on how the Sochi Olympics might affect Russia's approach to Abkhazia (I won't call it "the conflict resolution process," because that's been dead in the water for years, unfortunately)?
"It is the job of the US press or 4th estate to evaluate and criticize our government."
The job of the US press is to sell newspapers and/or serve as a mouthpiece for their owners. Full Stop.
Russian politics is so complicated. With all those censorships, spying around, plotting, lying... It's too difficult to keep up with it, and to really know what's going on.
I only wish one day Russia will become a country that is normal, friendly, run by the rule of law, following the basic principles of democracy and civil liberties, like freedom of speech, right to justice, freedom of gathering, just and free elections, that cares about the interest of its people, that has a strong civil society, and that respects the rights of others and doesn't intend to work against them.
Russia could have been like Romania, or Poland, or Estonia... countries that successfully underwent the transformation from a centrally-planned dictatorship to a capitalist democracy. Russia just became a monster, which is now scaring everyone in the neighbourhood.
In my opinion celebrating Mr Putin by such titles is a joke. Putin is not turning Russia into respectable member of the international community but into some evil imperial post-commie militaristic kgb pseudo-democraic banana gas regime.
Post a Comment