"Временами человек в темных очках и серой футболке за рулем искренне казался мне таксистом, к которому я подсел, разговорчивым таким человеком, которому хотелось скоротать время за длинной дорогой, потому он меня и подобрал."
[Прочитать статью на русском языке здесь.]
“Bashed over the head with a truncheon.” “A clubbing on their skulls.” “Beaten around the head with truncheons.” “A whack on the bonce.” “A club on your noggin.” “Hit in the head by a bludgeon.” “A whack on the nut.” These are just some of the ways that English language media perevodchiki have decided to translate Putin’s now infamous remarks about how Russian police respond to opposition protests. There are two phrases of particular interest: “Получите по башке дубиной” and “Получи, тебя отоварили.” The operative words here are башка (bashka), which is slang for the thing that sits atop your neck, and отоварить (otovarit’), which is a verb that basically means “to receive something, having paid for it.”
The other big thing Western journalists have highlighted as an important takeaway from Putin’s interview with Kommersant (see here for the original Russian and here for a complete English translation) is the notion that he’s preparing the way for a return to the presidency: “Putin gives strongest indication he will serve third term as president“; “Putin goes on the road – and plots his route back to power“; “Putin Hits the Road to Buff ‘Action Man’ Image With Eye on 2012 Election“; and “Putin Shows Russia He Is at the Wheel“.
“I only have two choices,” he told the daily Kommersant newspaper. “Either to watch from the bank how the waters are flowing away and how something is collapsing or falling away or to get involved,” he said. “I prefer to be involved.”
Of course, as prime minister of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin is involved in the government now. There is also the fact that Putin goes on to explain that the process in which he’s so interested in “being involved” is one that could take anywhere from decades to ‘forever.’ For Mr. Osborn, this is the “strongest indication” yet that Vladimir Vladimirovich intends to serve a third presidential term. Though Osborn doesn’t acknowledge it, Putin’s statement might also mean that he would like to maintain some kind of government role for as long as he’s able, rather than fade into oblivion like Boris Yeltsin. (Drinking himself into a gurgling blob isn’t really Putin’s style, after all.)
Western observers were quick to note the prime minister’s rhetorical flourish — namely his use of macho slang. This is, of course, nothing new, though it never ceases to gain the attention of reporters eager for notable quotables. (The Economist even dedicated a blog post exclusively to “toilet talk,” replete with best-of hits from Putin’s many years of one-liners.) While his talk of toilets, smacking people upside the head, and refusal to acknowledge any specific mistakes in office were a big hit in the reports and op-eds today, I’ve yet to see anyone note how eerily similar Putin’s style is to the former American President, George W. Bush. Whether it was “smoke them out of their holes,” “watch this drive,” “I’m the decider,” or Bush’s own — well, exactly the same — refusal to list any mistakes as president, the media appears to be an irony-free zone today when it comes to the idiosyncrasies of Mr. Putin.
Regarding the opposition, Putin expands rather vaguely on a position that’s been clear for years now (most recently reiterated at an unscheduled public showdown with musician Yuri Shevchuk). The gist is this: Putin claims to not be personally involved in either the permit-granting of major Russian cities or the municipal decisions to break up unsanctioned demonstrations. He repeated his rather hyperbolic, though perhaps not entirely inaccurate, depiction of the people who attend these rallies: namely, individuals who break the law on purpose in order to gain the attention of the media and stir up outrage against the government, to the point of civil instability. Hence, according to Putin, the protesters are covering themselves in fake blood, making grand speeches in the vicinity of their own shit, and flying the cartoon pirate flag.
As a distillation of how Putin views the opposition, the following passage is extremely useful:
If [the rallies'] purpose is a provocation, they’ll be successful every time. But if the goal is to blow the whistle on something to the public, Russia’s or the world’s, then there’s no point in provoking or in breaking the law. [...] If the purpose is that the authorities make concessions, and say the authorities agree to some, then [the opposition] would just find another means of provocation. That’s the whole point. And this would continue endlessly.
Political analysts Gleb Pavlovsky and Marat Gel’man were on Ekho Mosvky earlier today to share their observations about Putin’s speech. Gel’man, assumedly responding to the statement quoted above, said that the most interesting idea to come out of the exchange was the notion that Strategy 31, the liberal protest movement obsessed over by journalists and bloggers alike (guilty as charged), has moved outside the bounds of legal behavior. “The philosophy of [Strategy] 31 was originally for legality. And today they declare that they’re breaking the law for the law,” Gel’man mused, adding, “I’d already forgotten that [Strategy] 31 was for the law.”
Pavlovsky complained that the interview was a failure, but for this he blamed Kolesnikov, not Putin, saying that the reporter allowed the prime minister to partake in exactly the sort of exchange in which Putin is most comfortable. (This is ironic, given that Kolesnikov’s author page at Snob.ru states outright that his aim as an interviewer is to get his subjects outside their comfort zones.) Pavlovsky also criticizes Kolesnikov for failing to ask serious questions. He missed a chance to bring up the MVD draft legislation when Putin mentioned beating people’s heads (something the zakonoproekt explicitly bans in Section 6, Clause 22, Paragraph 1, Subsection 1). Pavlovsky also emphasizes Putin’s lighthearted tone, calling the conversation a “game” of sorts, which Kolesnikov unfortunately did not resist. “Putin could have made this interview a strong portrait, or a political [statement],” the analyst said, “but what we got was neither political nor a portrait. So Kolesnikov just didn’t ask him a single important political question.”
Such is the difference of depth between Russian and American politilogists. The Western media runs stories about the umpteenth Putin photo op and calls it his third presidential campaign. They treat his offhand (off color?) remarks about a Leningrad rock musician and a small but vocal group of demonstrators as if it was the smoking gun proving his intimate involvement in the clubbing of protesters. Yes, Putin’s claim to have only recently learned of Khodorkovsky’s second trial — and probably also the statement that he’d never heard of Yuri Shevchuk — amounts to baloney. And, yes, the whole interview is basically just that: болтовня (boltovnia), or “idle talk” — a word Putin himself used to describe the idea that he, not Dmitri Medvedev, is in actual control of the country.
Whether or not that’s true (there’s no sure way to know), Pavlovsky is right: Putin didn’t answer any hard questions because he wasn’t asked any. Does he think only he can lead the country? No, but he likes to be involved. Why did they close Triumfal’naia? Putin doesn’t know. Not his job. Same for Khodorkovsky. And so on. The issues here are big, but the questions, to the degree that they exist, are vague and anchored to the usual suspects: Shevchuk, Khodorkovsky, the несогласные. Putin does his part to cut off followup questions, but the transcript indicates more of a giggling joyride than a serious discussion. Kolesnikov’s narration suggests he was laughing as he wrote it. He even pauses at one point to quip that Putin reminded him of a cabbie shooting the breeze to pass the time.
Vladimir Putin the Taxi Driver. Now there’s a headline.
For me the empty answers to the usual questions, only show the deep divide between the worldviews of the Russia’s liberal press, the western press and Putin. The press thinks the prime minister should or must care about certain issues, but perhaps he simply doesn’t.
We tend stick to our worldview, concluding that his empty answers to our important questions are a sign of evasiveness and hence guilt for things like the Khodorkovsky trial or violent dispersion of protests.
After all we (again both in Russia and the West) have created an image of a vertical of power in which everything is decided at the top. Hence Putin must know everything, to the flimsiest detail. Hence he is ultimately complicit to every case of violence or corruption.
But is this really how Putin sees ‘his’ vertical of power? Perhaps he created the presidential envoys because he just couldn’t remember the names of 86 governors and because he needs other people to keep track of things.
No, no, we believe he has created the power vertical to control everything himself. Why do we? Perhaps because our simple minds need one person to blame for everything?
Putin doesn’t care about the protesters, whom it is political correct to support. In his worldview they are insignificant. 1000 or more people on the streets? ( a few 100 in far away places) With a concrete problem to solve? He will come down, listen and work. Several tens or hundreds of people in the capital? That’s just too insignificant for this man who thinks in about people, as in victims of fires, workers, soldiers, veterans.
Call that neo-soviet, quote him giving the interviewer ‘his honest word of a party member’, still it is not very different from the attitude of a CEO of a large multinational. No, while there are socialist colorings, it’s business, business, business. Protesters ‘getting what they deserve’ , a ‘bludgeon on the head’, that’s just a tiny, insignificant part in the process of the development of the country. Not even collateral damage.
From a PR point of view Putin has given the wrong message. A leader should better try and present himself as caring for each individual. I bet Pavlovsky is ready to be called night and day to tell Putin or Medvedev what they say best.
But I am happy Kolesnikov was picked up by taxi-driver Putin, and got us a political incorrect interview, that didn’t tell us much new, but did present us with an image of Putin, we’re not used to. It’s not a good image, It’s actually pretty bad. But is definitely much more true and workable than all super hero, super villain, stories spread each day.
PS, for those who follow the problem 2012 soap, forget the usual quotes and note the emphasis on the separation of powers. Medvedev in the Constitutional Court? Putin in the Duma, as by then official leader of united Russia?
APG – thanks, more or less my sentiments about the “interview” & what’s “important” there was about it. IMHO, a nice addendum to your post by Joera.
MVD/OMON/Government reaction to this demonstration business for some reasons, started to annoy me a lot since recently. IMHO, it is against the law not only to beat the demonstrators, but to even detain them without clear case. Even a crowd blocking a busy highway breaches not a criminal code, but commits a traffic offense. So, it a traffic fine they should receive, but obviously, not arrest and beating. Noise near the Putin’s “kindrgarten” (he mentioned that in his interview with Shevchuk)? There are clear regulations in every city about the time when level of noise is restricted. What else?
A couple of words in defense of Putin. Yes, he is from Leningrad, but he spent a lot of time in Germany. He is not much older than me and I have to tell you that with all my current respect & liking of Shevchuck (including some of his songs), I first heard (or paid attention to him) only in 1995 – when I was already living in Australia. So I can believe Putin did not give him much thought either. And his humor.. Well, it is pretty common among the people of his generation and especially, in “his” environment. As well as the propensity to say what one thinks, but using in a “loaded” indirect language, usually with more than one meaning.
Joera – it is funny you mentioned “separation of powers”
Cheers
Great point about the overwhelming rhetorical similarities between Putin and Bush. I’ve often wondered why more hay isn’t made out of this, at least by liberals/progressives, but then I suppose I’ve long been an outlier because I refuse to view Putin as Hitler-Stalin-Mao-Beelzebub.
Personally speaking, I think that the verbal similarities beteween Putin and Bush* come from a certain resemblence in their respective political bases. As best I can tell both garner support from parts of the electorate/society that hate “pointy headed liberals” and intellectuals. The fact that earthy talk and macho posturing throw their political opponents into deranged sputtering frenzies (just look at how Nemtsov responded to the latest interview!) is simply icing on the cake.
Now since Putin is, by all accounts, a pretty cagey and intelligent guy it’s fair to suggest he’s acting, which is certainly not the impression one got from W., but he seems to give a suitably believable performance.
Also, do you remember when, at a joint press conference with Putin, Bush was rambling incoherently about democracy in Iraq and how he hoped Russia would learn a lesson and Vova acidly quipped “Well, thank God, we certainly don’t want democracy like they have in Iraq!” That, I think, was actually one of his better “Putinisms,” as he had the entire White House press corps in stitches.
* I guess we should note that at least Putin, unlike Bush, speak his own language properly and without constant grammatical catastrophes. Even my Muscovite college professors, who rather despise Putin, admitted that his Russian was actually pretty good, and VERY good compared to the abysmal standards of his Soviet predecessors who could barely pronounce “kommunism” without some sort of embaressing gaffe.
Well met, Mark! When will you start blogging? Everybody is looking forward to it.
As to the Bush-Putin parallel, there is a point to it. It’s interesting to note that even his international speeches are written in the same way (the infamous Munich speech comes to mind). Although, I think that Mark’s assumption is correct, both Putin and Bush seek support from a similar constituency, it’s obvious that this style is quite natural for Putin. The moment Mark mentioned is one of the many where Putin demonstrated his quick wit. There’s no doubt that is a very educated and intelligent person (his family speaks German at home, as I recall, imagine Bush doing that). As to looking good compared to Putin’s predecessors, let’s admit, it was a rather easy thing to do: notorious drunk Yeltsin (I do miss his dramatic pauses and the ‘dear Rossiyane’ meme), Gorbachev, famous for his incoherent ramblings, senile Brezhnev with terrible articulation and uneducated expansive Khrushchev. No wonder he comes across as a super-eloquent intellectual here.
I’d also note that Putin was dscribed by my teachers as someone who was unmistakabely “nash.” While this isn’t directly comparable to George W. Bush’s “real America” it seems pretty damn similar. Both Putin and Bush stand for the supposedly “genuine” parts of the country, as opposed to the wimpy, obsequious, and outward looking “liberals.” Is it possible to overdraw such a comparison? Absolutely. But I would really love to see the people at AEI and Heritage freak out when the rather obvious similarities between the political styles of Putin and Bush are pointed out.
Excellent point that these men are/were preaching to their bases. Whether it’s a real American or a muzhik, the public likes its archetypes.
I’d add this: sure, Putin is a smart guy. (Smarter than Bush, though this isn’t saying much.) But his penchant for tough guy slang — usually jargon about shit or getting beat up — is bigger than his persona alone. I think it’s more than just acting or form: this embodies his thinking about the business of statecraft, at large. The same was true of Bush: no interest in varying opinions and no powers of introspection.
So, yes, the man is “acting.” But he plays that role whether or not he’s giving an interview or considering a policy decision. It’s an aesthetic that pervades his leadership in more than just words.
I’ll admit I wasn’t really much interested in Russia back when Putin first came on the scene, but I remember reading a few articles, particularly in the Exile, that said how awkward and unsure of himself he was, that he really had to grow into his office and hone his tough-guy image before it became even moderately believable.
Now if someone plays at being something long enough it becomes impossible to disentangle what they “really” are and what they are pretending to be. In Putin’s case I think the “real” (original) Putin is the shy and somewhat awkward fellow from 1999, but, in 2010, he has largely transformed into the blustering and burly figure we all recognize.
As I’m sure you can imagine, it takes some doing for an ex-KGB operative to get used to preening and prancing about in front of the international news media – those guys usually like to keep a much lower profile!
“Both Putin and Bush stand for the supposedly “genuine” parts of the country, as opposed to the wimpy, obsequious, and outward looking “liberals.””
Well I can’t really say that the “”genuine” parts of the country” that Bush stands for, represent the best part of America. However I can say for sure that “the “genuine” part of Russia that Putin stands for, is the ugliest part of Russians + – people who stick with him because either they don’t quite understand what’s going on, or they don’t see the better alternative for the time being. ( And that’s a sizeable part of his *supporters* by the way.)
Although Putin was described by your teachers as “unmistakeably “nash,”" his kind of “nash” does not encompass the whole spectrum of the Russian population, that can relate to this particular definition. Being as shrewd as he is, Putin knows why he shouldn’t worry about people like Nemtzov or pretty much any liberal opposition coming more or less from the Yeltzin’s camp, ( or people like Kasparov or Limonov for this matter.) They don’t have social base in Russia for the broad support – as simple as that. However Putin should be concerned ( very concerned) by people with this train of thought
http://mk.3project.info/content/view/125/1/,
since they undeniably fall under the same cathegory of “nash,” yet are staunch Putin’s opponents. They are not taking a stage yet, but they are out there and are far more dangerous to Putin. And they do not take today’s *liberals* seriously as well, understanding why this kind of opposition doesn’t have any social base.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIvB5bysZ4I&feature=player_embedded
PS. And while we are at that, here is something on *Vova Putin the cab driver.*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnjhHUKsQps&feature=player_embedded
That’s coming from Belorussia, where “bat’ka Lukashenka” can easily relate to the term “nash” as well.
“is the ugliest part of Russians + – people who stick with him because either they don’t quite understand what’s going on, or they don’t see the better alternative for the time being.”
So you’re saying that around 70 percent of Russians is ugly? And who is the rest of Russians? Some kind of super-intellectuals or uberhumans? Like you, probably?
Kalashnikov is a serious opponent? You are more deluded than if you were thinking that Nemtsov was a serious threat to Putin. Have you read his so-called program? Typical delirium of the dreamers who want to combine the best features of the Soviet Union and capitalism. There are a lot of his ilk, but they rarely venture outside their comfy blogs. Can you remind us of any political protest/initiative organised by them?
Whether you like it or not, Putin is holding the helm fast, at least so far. This situation could change very quickly, should serious problems arise and the growth withers, but Putin has demonstrated so far that he is a quick learner indeed.
There is a huge difference between taxi drive and joyride. One is a job that has clear, not self-centered goal and common rules of the road. Another – is all about what you can do and others better watch out and keep away.
If you are reminiscent of mentally unstable burn by the war lone vigilante Travis Bickle who is trying to right world’s wrong, you are miles away from reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7T1b7z25Ww
“So you’re saying that around 70 percent of Russians is ugly?”
People who are genuinely supporting Putin are not more then 40% of the population and yes, they are ugly. Only ugly Russians can support the corruption, the brutality of regime and false sense of nationalistic pride.
“And who is the rest of Russians?”
People who don’t really understand what Putin is all about, people who do understand what he is all about and don’t want anything to do with him and yes – super-intellectuals and uberhumans too; they are inseparable part of Russia:)
“Kalashnikov is a serious opponent? You are more deluded than if you were thinking that Nemtsov was a serious threat to Putin. Have you read his so-called program?”
Read more attentively what I’ve said about the train of thought and the fact that these people are not on the scene, not yet. As they say – “in the beginning was the word…”
Besides, many didn’t want to believe back in the 90ies that at the end of “bespredel” the KGB would come back in power. But it happened nevertheless.
“Typical delirium of the dreamers who want to combine the best features of the Soviet Union and capitalism.”
I see. And you apparently believe in combination of the worst features of the Soviet Union – the KGB officer in power, a club on your nogging et al – with capitalism. Let me tell ya, it ain’t going last for long. Thanks in part for the recent fires that burned the country as direct result of unstoppable greed of Vova Putin and his ilk.
How predictable
Let me guess, you’re just another emigrant desperately trying to justify your departure by incessantly looking for new evidence of how Russia is going to collapse just any minute from now? But don’t worry! Nemtsov predicted that Russia was spiraling toward a bloody revolution, he’d never mistaken before in his forecasts!
“People who are genuinely supporting Putin are not more then 40% of the population and yes, they are ugly. Only ugly Russians can support the corruption, the brutality of regime and false sense of nationalistic pride.”
No, that’s the part of Russians that support tripling of the real incomes, stability, reduction of crime, and population growth. Any level of corruption is better that a state-organized Ponzi-scheme in 1998 and the brutality of regime exists only in your wet dreams. Do you have difficulty with numbers? According to polls, Putin’s rating is about 60 percent, he received even more support on his elections.
“Besides, many didn’t want to believe back in the 90ies that at the end of “bespredel” the KGB would come back in power. But it happened nevertheless.”
I don’t know who are this “many” you are referring to, the people affiliated with enforcement agencies were the only organized power then, so their bid for power was predictable.
Yes, “in the beginning was the word…” but the problem is that I hear this word since the beginning of 90s.
“the KGB officer in power, a club on your nogging et al”
Actually, Medvedev is a lawyer, and there’s even not enough club on the heads of provocateurs like 31 Strategy leaders.
“Let me tell ya, it ain’t going last for long. Thanks in part for the recent fires that burned the country as direct result of unstoppable greed of Vova Putin and his ilk.”
Dream on, my friend. Actually Putin’s and Medvedev’s ratings are up after the fires, so common Russians don’t agree with your ramblings.
look, “kovane”,
it is not the first time you praise corruption in Russia. I recommend you to read this report from Чистые Руки website. .
Is it really necessary to explain how corruption in MVD , prosecutor office and the court systems increases ethnic tensions & encourages criminal activities, corruption in the government structures inhibits growth of real (non-resource-
based and non-speculative) economy, wastes 100% of state funds designated for “innovation” and “modernization”, or that it is responsible for the current (abysmal) state of educational system with flow on to all areas of economy in the form
of unqualified scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, how it inhibits foreign investment etc etc etc.
BTW – on the page 44 of the above document you will see a chart “Political System in Russia 2010″ where “influence index ” of FSB and OMON (“спецслужбы”) is
55% – many times higher then even Putin’s; in this part where I disagree with “erasure” is only in that he puts all KGB officers of pre-90s into the same (garbage) bin.
In this very sarcastic publication you may find aptly expressed opinion about future of Skolkovo and perhaps,
some other things mentioned by “erasure”. IMHO Kalashinikov & some of the same ilk, like K. Krylov, with their idiotic antisemitism need some more time to grow up (which time they may have or may have not) , but IMHO they are the
real opposition. And the current regime knows it all too well – which is, perhaps, why we see so much of (a millionaire) Nemtsov & Co in the media.
As for believing the official statistics..I remember reading not so long ago some Levada poll that claimed that 70% of Russians believed that Russian police is doing their duty properly. Since the sample there was ~1,400, I suspect they
collected the data strictly among the police officers themselves.
Cheers,
an emigrant, who is not trying to justify his departure, but struggles to find reasons to return
Igor,
“it is not the first time you praise corruption in Russia”
Hm, I really need to brush up my English if you get the impression that I praise corruption. Could you post some links? Of course it’s bad, but don’t you agree that a state-organized Ponzi scheme is much worse? On the other hand, the present level of corruption shouldn’t be dramatized too much, it’s very far from being state-threatening and uncontrollable. Moreover, I see the government’s long-running effort to combat it, and the whole situation is improving painfully slowly.
All you said about corruption is true, except for this:
“growth of real (non-resource-based and non-speculative) economy”
Believe me, the current level of corruption in the government has absolutely nothing to do with that, on the contrary, corruption allows businesses to cut corners and get around the government regulations, which are admittedly too strict and cumbersome. The problem you mentioned is more connected with Russia’s current tax system, it favours the mining sector and hiring unqualified workers.
“Kalashinikov & some of the same ilk, like K. Krylov,”
You’re very wrong here, Kalashnikov and Krylov represent opposite views, Kalashnikov – Soviet internationalism, with a high level of state involvement, Krylov – national-liberal views, “Russian people are wronged”.
“IMHO they are the real opposition”
I agree that there’s a lot of people that support neither Putin nor Nemtsov, and they are the soil that will bring forth a real opposition movement. The problem so far, that they are extremely assorted. Take Krylov and Kalashnikov, for example. They will die first rather that come to some agreement. There is no opposition leader yet that has formulated a sound economic and political program, capable of uniting this large mass of people.
Your point about statistics is groundless, there are many agencies, both governmental and private, that conduct opinion polls. Putin’s and Medvedev’s ratings are not distorted, Anatoly Karlin had an excellent post, covering this topic. As for Goskomstat’s data – because different numbers are so closely entwined in statistics, any manipulations are quite noticeable, I’ve heard no substantial accusations of cooking up the statistics.
“n emigrant, who is not trying to justify his departure, but struggles to find reasons to return”
Don’t get me wrong, I respect everyone’s right to choose a place to live, and I don’t think that emigrants have no right to participate in their former country’s life. But you must certainly have seen the type I’m talking about, they are very bitter people.
Out of curiosity, why does someone having a stable job, house, family and rooted life start to think about returning to Russia?
“kovane”
Ok,you did not exactly “praise” the corruption, but certainly did try to present it as a useful phenomenon. I am sorry to disagree with that.
Corruption is a large topic and is not suitable for a casual discussion on the margins – perhaps, we will return to it soon. But few remarks to your comment – IMHO the present state of corruption in the Russian government and law-enforcement structures is not “ state-threatening” – it is state-defining. I have gigabytes of material on the subject, the most recent I quoted previously, you may also want to read a broader (non-academic) article on the topic. The argument that corruption “cuts corners”(i.e. corrects imperfections in the existing regulations) is a theory. In most practical cases the “corners” are created artificially (similar to eg. “protection business”). Conversely, when real “corners” are cut – eg. with fire safety, hygiene, even with selling driving licenses etc – the consequences are well known. I refer you to the previously quoted document for the examples how it works in law enforcement. I am not sure which state-organized Ponzi scheme you refer to – I remember some investment pyramid from 90s – but when the government of the state becomes a collection of private business owners –is there a difference?
I watched Kalashnikov for a while. After his repeated references to “Jewish conspiracy to destroy Russia” became too much for me, I removed him from the watch list. You might be correct in how he defines himself, but “Soviet Internationalist” was not an impression he produced on me. Konstantin Krylov, on the other hand, I remember as being related to some extreme( fascist) groups, but he surprised me recently with a very leveled interview here in National Democracy.
I’ve heard no substantial accusations of cooking up the statistics” I just gave you one example
Or, maybe, you know someone who truly believes that Russian MVD on the average is doing what they are supposed to do? That will be the first one I know of.
As for why [consider] moving to Russia?…There is no single or simple answer, but couple of the (possible) reasons could be: Russophobia – especially, in what is supposed to be “educated” circles and management in Australia. “Phobia” as a psychiatric condition. It has been getting better over the years – mostly because the older, most affected generation is dying out. I want to stress that I did not observe (much of) this sort of attitudes among “normal” (non-“academic”) people here. Another reason … let me use a metaphor: I don’t like seeing half-educated goons shitting in a church where I used to pray. The goons, who have just one groove in their brain to perform a single function – distinguish between “Anglo-Saxon” and “not Anglo-Saxon” . The goons, who are also convinced that the duty of the latter category is to kiss their (dirty) arse. (in case you are uncertain – that was a description of what an Australian version of doing scientific research in a small private business mode looks like to me. Or what sort of people Skolkovo will have)
Apologies for the long “comment”.
Cheers
A small correction to the previous: the last part should read
“I don’t like seeing half-educated goons shitting in a church where I used to pray. The goons who don’t even know what the church is for.” Full stop.
The rest in the previous is not incorrect, but imprecise – it describes the consequences of running science as a small private business enterprise, which is the Australian model. Thee single groove in the brain does personal profit maximization – regardless of the “product” and with anglo-saxon/non-anglo-saxon constraint. I plan to write a blog on this sometime in the future.
Cheers
Igor,
“but certainly did try to present it as a useful phenomenon”
Why are you trying to put some words in my mouth that I’ve never said? I repeat: corruption is an extremely bad phenomenon. Period. It’s also worth noting that all research on corruption should be taken with a big pinch of scepticism, as it’s not exactly a very open process, in case of most persistent, mutually beneficial, corruption, both sides are reluctant to disclose any information. For me, the most notorious example is the ludicrously unobjective Transparency International index.
“The argument that corruption “cuts corners”(i.e. corrects imperfections in the existing regulations) is a theory”
No, it’s one of many facets of corruption, you’re right in describing it as a very large and complex topic. Sometimes corruption borders on extortion, but there are many means to counteract it, so such officials don’t work for very long time. Consider the following scenario: a tax inspector finds some irregularities in the books of a company and calculate that the company should pay an additional amount of tax and a big fine. And he hints on a possibility to settle this problem “informally”. Does his actions constitute extortion? Who is the victim if the company pays the bribe?
In my opinion both businesses and common people are active accomplices in corruption, that is why it is so hard to fight it.
Kalashnikov is a Soviet internationalist, EXCEPT for the Jews, he blame them for the dissolution of the great Soviet empire, a common trait about most Soviet sympathizers. It would be right to say that they blame not all Jews, but insidious and cosmopolitan ones.
So their anti-Semitism is rather mild. Krylov, on the other hand, sees the matter in the perspective of national groups and opposes internationalism, as he considers that while Russian people sacrificed their best interests, various national groups took advantage of them, Jews better than any others. And he tries to promote more diaspora kind of behavior.
“I’ve heard no substantial accusations of cooking up the statistics”
I was referring to Goskomstat, but opinion polls can be conducted by anyone, so any results can be be verified by an additional poll.
“As for why [consider] moving to Russia”
The things you said are both very interesting and sad. I’ve never thought that Russophobia is present even in Australia. True, Anglo-Saxons are famous for their arrogance perhaps, but Australia wasn’t seriously affected by the Cold War. I’m looking forward to your more detailed account of it.
“Apologies for the long “comment”.”
No need to do that, I enjoy interesting and detailed discussions.
“kovane” – your correction on Kalashnikov does make sense – it is, probably, true, and antisemitism is about the only common part between him and Krylov. Though, in his interview Krylov did talk a lot about convergence of different factions, but they all were essentially nationalistic (so far).
In your tax inspector example, the victim is everyone else (not the “state”!) – the money were stolen from the public. Both parties participating in the deal should be jailed.
And “yes” corruption & bribery is an interesting & broad topic. Eg. in Australia the most common from of bribery I observed is “Favors Bank” (see eg. definition in P. Coelho’s “Zahir” – there are some important subtitles in how the bank operates)
Cheers
Australia participated in the Korean and Vietnam wars. The general feedback from Anglo-Americans to Australia is of a pro-American place, with an element that takes to (what can be considered as) some noticeable traits evident in Britain.
The very last point can possibly serve to understand the “Russophobia” aspect there.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genesis-Russophobia-Great-Britain-Interaction/dp/0374931569?&camp=2486&linkCode=wey&tag=austeinsom-21&creative=8878
The former points tie into the idea of a possible Cold War hangover when looking at Russia. I understand that Australia took in a good number of Hungarians following the 1956 uprising in Hungary. Numerous Hungarians link 1956 to 1849. Australia is also home to other peoples from eastern and central Europe – with many of them seeing the USSR as a negative continuation of pre-Soviet Russia. On the other hand, Australia has had a migration of folks from other parts of eastern Europe where anti-Russian sentiment isn’t as great.
Offhand, I suspect the situation of mainstream Russian views in Australia is similar to what’s evident in the US – a feeling of an uphill battle.
Mike, you absolutely correct. One can add their (unfortunate) personal experiences as well – eg. the former Director of the place I work at, happened to be in Prague in 1968. Although the Russophobia here is supported by the press & media – i.e. on the level higher than personal experiences.
Local academia is a slightly different matter. Majority are kick-outs from American, British or other “Anglo-Saxon” universities, who were not able to compete on their native job markets & moved to Australia. These guys I can understand, since without Russophobia they would not be able to compete with an average Soviet-educated graduate (save for PhD or higher) & have to use other methods to protect their jobs (more preciesly – their business).
Let me stress – these attitudes are rarely noticeable in other Australians – i.e. those who are not related to current military or do not work in “academia”. Most senior managerial staff here suffers from the same problem, but I attribute it to the fact that most or all of the education of such people is usually exclusively due to reading of the local newspapers.
What no Australian can tolerate is a higher salary paid to a “wog”. Especially to a Russian. Sometimes they try to justify this by saying that immigrants in Australia should be paid the salaries equivalent to what they would get of the countries they came from. I personally know a professor who believed in this.
Igor, glad to see my intuition kick in.
I suspect that per capita the expats like the ones who fled instances like 1968 and 1956 are more prone to some hard line views, when compared to their brethren who stayed.
At his bog, Eugene Ivanov noted no personal animosity against him on account of his Rusian background. At the same time, Eugene noted how many folks are greatly influenced by the predominating mass media line, when it comes to Russia.
I’m suddenly reminded of someone who once said of me: I like Mike despite his being Russian.
In the US, American born folks like myself are nevertheless prone to being associated with their ethnic origin.
One of the kooky aspects of the Cold War had to do with how folks of White Russian background were called “Commies,” unlike those of Cuban, Polish and Chinese backgrounds.
On another point you raised about Kalashnikov, in the US we’ve people like Mel Gibson as well as some others who say such things in guarded conditions, due to a comparatively greater PC situation here.
My “whataboutism” point being that pound for pound, this kind of situation is if anything greater in some other parts of the former Communist bloc.
The west Ukrainian extreme nationalist chant of drowning Muscovites in the blood of the Jews gets downplayed in some circles in comparison to when intolerant thoughts are expressed in Russia.
Pardon the extended thoughts. I come from a “mixed” (Jewish and Orthodox Christian background) and believe that an inaccurate double standard exists.
“I am not sure which state-organized Ponzi scheme you refer to”
I’m referring to this scheme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis
Select few profited from trading GKOs, financed by the IMF’s credits. And millions of common citizens were thrown behind the poverty line, while the IMF’s credits placed a heavy burden on Russia’s brittle tax system. Any present corruption is dwarfed by this act alone.
“in this part where I disagree with “erasure” is only in that he puts all KGB officers of pre-90s into the same (garbage) bin.”
No, I’ve grown to be more discerning and tolerable of them, particularly after reading the book “Их нравы” written by one particular Kremlin’s insider – he was in Yeltzin PR\Media Group back in the nineties. As far as I understood, all of them ( former KGB officers, military, party bosses) had to make their personal choices. It all came down to the human decency or the lack of it.
“IMHO Kalashinikov & some of the same ilk, like K. Krylov, with their idiotic antisemitism need some more time to grow up (which time they may have or may have not) , but IMHO they are the
real opposition”
Well number one – antisemitism is sort of a “tradition” in Russia, number two – Jews definitely played certain role in the flight of capital from Russia back in the 90ies and creation of the class of the “new Russians,” (although it is not quite the role that is often ascribed to them.)
And the last but not least – if Kalashnikov ever stops blaming Jews for the demise of the Soviet Union, he’d have to turn to the real culprit of it all – the Soviet nomenclature and high-rank KGB officers. I don’t think he could live with that, at least not for the time being, lol.
“How predictable
Let me guess, you’re just another emigrant desperately trying to justify your departure by incessantly looking for new evidence of how Russia is going to collapse just any minute from now?”
Pftt…. “Justify” my a***. I am happy as a clam that I don’t have to live in that cesspool of Putin’s Russia. Don’t care about Nemtzov or his predictions, it’s the articles like these
http://www.ng.ru/regions/2010-06-30/6_militia.html
http://www.mk.ru/social/article/2009/11/17/387032-otmorozko.html
that give me a pretty good idea what a sick, sick place is Russian society today, “ponzy schemes” or not. The country is right back to the “Дно” of Maxim Gorky.
So you can make your sales pitches of Putin’s Russia to foreigners, but not to someone who spent half of one’s life in that country.
“Do you have difficulty with numbers?”
Not so much with the numbers, but with the validity of them.
“According to polls, Putin’s rating is about 60 percent,”
Right. And during Soviet times Putin’s party rating was about 100 percent. Go figure.
“I don’t know who are this “many” you are referring to, the people affiliated with enforcement agencies were the only organized power then,”
They were not an “organized power” back then – they were too busy plundering the country and stuffing their pockets under the new banners of capitalism.
“Actually, Medvedev is a lawyer,”
Medvedev who? Medvedev the lapdog, that Medvedev?
“Dream on, my friend. Actually Putin’s and Medvedev’s ratings are up after the fires, so common Russians don’t agree with your ramblings.”
You mean Putin’s stooges?
Joera, you seem to be suggesting that Putin didn’t much know or care about the Khodorkovsky trials. Please tell me that’s not what you think. I’m sure he hasn’t followed the legal proceedings closely (why would he, when there has never been much suspense about the result), but the initial decision to lock him up and shut down / divvy up Yukos…?
The Bush-Putin comparison is a fruitful one (see here for a couple-year-old report on “Putinisms” which reminded me a great deal of Slate’s “Bushisms” – http://www.scrapsofmoscow.org/2008/05/eight-years-of-putinisms-from-npr.html) should anyone want to do a story on the similarities I recommend they track down the original photo of this bit of Moscow graffiti http://www.flickr.com/photos/7402867@N08/3096946848/in/set-72157604856979488/ (the photo here is not mine, it’s re-photographed from an opposition newspaper circa 2005). And for the next story about Putin’s toilet fixation, perhaps this illustration would work – http://www.flickr.com/photos/7402867@N08/3097085120/in/set-72157604856979488/
Lyndon, what’s the story there behind the Star of David fish epaulets resting atop Putin’s shoulders in the toilet-tank cartoon?
As far as I understand, this is a caricature from “Duel” newspaper. It has radical patriotic views, mixed with serious anti-Semitism, ones that make patriotism a dirty word. Implication here is that Putin is an agent of Zionism and some masonic order. In other word, usual stuff.
Whoops, thought I responded to this earlier but I guess I was just replying to the email from my handheld:
This was from the early-to-mid ’00s when vvp was still viewed as
having been installed by Berezovsky et al. I have some photos from
demonstrations of that era which express similar confused ideas about
vvp as part of some vast “zhidomasonsky” plot.
Also, as I’m sure you know, there’s a certain marginal but constant
minority in Russian politics (and those of other countries, for that
matter, although there’s a richer tradition of it in Russia than in
most other places) that will always blame whatever they happen to be
unhappy about on the Jews. The image was a sticker / “guerrilla
advertisement” in the metro for Duel, a website or publication that I don’t
think was exactly mainstream (or was about as mainstream as Zavtra if
that helps provide context).
Lyndon,
Don’t worry, I think my view of 2003 events is quite mainstream. Khodorkovsky became very, very ambitious in his ideas about the energy sector and was racketing up his political and public clout to reach his goals. So he got into a confrontation with a president who was working on establishing control over the country, part of which was a quasi state monopoly on energy transit. MBK thought he was untouchable. VVP ordered to take him down. In my book both are responsible for what happened.
That said, What I meant to write is that it is quite plausible that Putin doesn’t feel guilty about Khodorkovsky’s imprisonment. Perhaps he considers his breach of the separation of powers a necessary evil, something he doesn’t hope to repeat, but will do again when forced to. I think it is plausible that he isn’t afraid of a free MBK and that he didn’t order trial no2 to delay that event.
I am just staging a little protest against pervasive impressions that Putin is afraid of Khodorkovsky, Nemtsov etc… because at night in the dark he knows his opponents are morally superior and he is terrified knowing that the good guys will always prevail. …. I know I can easily rid myself from these ‘impressions’ by simply removing one or two sources from my RSS list.
To avoid further confusion, this doesn’t mean I think Putin is the good guy. Good guys are hard to find.
I don’t see the significance of whether or not Putin “fears” certain individuals. It’s in his interest to keep Khodorkovsky behind bars, just because its simpler than having to arrest him a few times a month with Nemtsov for marching without permits. Not to mention the money he’s got stashed away, which he’d he be more likely to dispatch to liberal groups that would in turn invite him to make speeches for them. Plus, the inevitable foreign tours he’d make, lobbying foreign governments and think tanks to make life difficult for the Kremlin.
What I don’t understand is why the Russian courts have delayed the trial for so long. Why not wrap it up and send him back to where he’ll be breaking up rocks? The man is clearly never going to cut a deal. The only no-no would be to let him get sick and die, like Russia’s corrupt prison system is so fond of doing.
“What I don’t understand is why the Russian courts have delayed the trial for so long. Why not wrap it up and send him back to where he’ll be breaking up rocks?”
By all accounts I’ve heard, including those by independent-minded types like Alexander Minkin, the prosecution in this second trial is so farcically bad that the required conviction will be laughable even by the notoriously low standards of Russian courts. Best to just let the trial drag on indefinitely.
Interesting.
First I’d like to reiterate what Joera and Mark have said, and be even more critical.
Why do we expect the Putin is so closely following the very same things we are so closely following, that he should know the name of a rockstar (does he strike you as someone who listens to this music?) that he should know the details of the closing of Triumphalnaya (doesn’t he have people to handle such matters for him?) that he would closely follow the Khodorkovsky trial? In all probability he is perhaps not so ignorant, and surely this is a schoolyard tactic to undermine such players (oh, you don’t like me? I wasn’t even aware you existed…) But that is not what he said either. At any rate, what is more revealing, that VVP claims not to know much about these situations, or the assumption on our part, esp. the part of the interested parties, that he *must*, because clearly they keep him awake at night with fear, the treat they pose to him, right, so any words to the opposite effect are clearly lies? Putin might be promoting a myth with his good ol’ boy roadtripping, but I can’t help but think the response has been a practice in promoting another myth: that these players are as profoundly important as they believe they are. Why is it so difficult to assert that Putin leads a creepily isolated, uber-protected existence, that he has not the time to micro-managing every single political situation in the country, that he has perhaps more pressing matters on his agenda? Because it doesn’t jibe with the narrative that Putin is personally responsible for everything that happens, and that the opposition present a real threat to his power?
As for the Bushisms (the “mistake” dialogue being the most irksome – oof) … I think Mark makes a good distinction: it’s more of an act for Putin. Seriously, with Bush’s quips and obliviousness, the quips sounded forced, doa, and the obliviousness very real, scary real. With Putin it is rather the opposite. They might both put on a cowboy act, but you could say the same about a circus clown and Clint Eastwood.
Secondly, Thanks for the Ekho Moskvy interview. “I’d already forgotten that [Strategy] 31 was for the law.” Priceless! FWIW, there has been a discussion at my place about the very observation Putin made, what can be done about people determined to break the law? I thought VVP’s remarks on this topic were actually on target, or at least a valid interpretation of events.
Now on to what I am really interested in: Kolesnikov! Softballs? Easy to say when it is not you in the car with Putin. And I disagree a bit. He did point out a mistake, corrected Putin’s description of the US system, spoke of his fallen ratings, said it seems like Russia can’t accomplish anything… If those are softballs by Russian standards, the state of journalism in Russia is far healthier than reported, healthier even than in America. Anyway, he was hardly sitting next to him kissing ass the whole time. Anyone hoping for more was hoping for a Frost/Nixon moment. But Kolesnikov has invested a good deal of his career into covering that of Putin, has no reason to go in for the kill, and Putin is not facing criminal indictment, has no to need to be on the defensive.
The dynamic between the two is fascinating to me. Do you think they are chummy IRL, and the jibes and disagreement are for show? Or is that tension real, has Kolesnikov just stumbled upon the ideal approach (he’s really more of a great story teller than a journalist as we imagine them) and earned a certain amount of trust? I cannot tell. But I think it is the latter. Both insist they only know each other professionally. It is incredible what Kolesnikov can get away with, but he’s hardly a flunky. Putin can give Kolesnikov a hard time, but it doesn’t scare him off. Kolesnikov can write about the government like it is a carnival, but Putin doesn’t get offended. One day someone should write a story about this. The psychology is so interesting.
I think the questions Kolesnikov put to Putin were more open-ended introductions to large news themes. That they spent so much time discussing whether or not Putin had ever heard of Yuri Shevchuk is exemplary of how silly this conversation really was. Kolesnikov was hunting the talking points popular among the liberal media — and of course his interview gained huge attention at Ekho, the New Times, Gazeta, and all the Western media. But for an interview with Russia’s #2 politician, probably its #1 power wielder, there was almost zero discussion of actual state policy. Kolesnikov let Putin rift on and on. Sure, he’s playing it safe and watching out for his own career. But that’s no excuse for lazy journalism.
I think you are missing the point. Go to Kolesnikov’s Kommersant page and read his stuff – get to know his work before railing on him for not being Novaya Gazetta or Christiane Amanpour enough. First off, he is many things, but it’s difficult to make a winning case that he is lazy. Secondly, Kolesnikov is not some cookie cutter journalist, and it is debatable whether his writing can even be classified as “journalism,” by Columbia University standards anyway. But he has his own very distinct style and approach. You are free to criticize it because it is not to your taste, but it’s freaking me out that you could possibly expect anything radically different. It’s rather like complaining that Tim Burton’s movies are unrealistic. Kolesnikov obsesses about tangential things. He’s a genius at capturing the mood, the absurdity, the ridiculousness of situations And he is not wholly uncritical or unquestioning. He just reports as if he were an alien dropped into the situation, rather than a muckraking hero doing an expose. i am not sure what about that is lazy. He didn’t seem to have an agenda, he didn’t cover for Putin but repeated questioned his statements, he actually did talk about policy, this wasn’t meant to be investigative journalism, this wasn’t a press conference. It was one in a series of daily posts covering the event. I don’t want to sound like I think this interview is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It’s not. But my point is, it is neither completely without merit. Just because it wasn’t what you wanted or expected does not mean it wasn’t revealing or thought-provoking. I mean, it was noteworthy enough to get you to write about it.
I have to wonder if we aren’t so used to the incredible divisiveness in our media, and in the whole Russia-watching sphere, that we now see anyone who doesn’t come out throwing punches as somehow lazy? That any reportage that does not succeed in damning someone is inadequate?
I’m not saying he isn’t an entertaining writer or lazy about his work. But in this interview, anyway, serious journalism wasn’t strictly his aim. Yes, I’m writing about it, and so were most Russia Watchers, since direct lines to Vova are always filled with rhetorical pearls and opportunities for wild interpretations.
To criticize his questioning as lazy isn’t to downplay what a good read the interview was. As a man looking to sell newspapers, Kolesnikov hit a home run here. But, as Pavlovsky complains, he basically let Putin run the show, prodding him only lightly about ‘pop issues’ like Shevchuk and Khodorkovsky. You say they discussed policy, but I don’t see it. Sure, he asked Putin a yes-or-no question about his ratings, but his follow-up was absurd: “Ну, может, реже здороваться стали… Реже звонить…” This is plainly a stupid question, and a waste for anybody interested in a serious discussion.
I can’t speak to the divisiveness of our media, but I think there are objective reasons to be disappointed about the quality of Kolesnikov’s exchange. Entertaining: yes. Informative: not so much.
It is more than likely that the published interview were more or less prepared answers to an approved subset of the original (larger) set of questions (topics for discussion).
While I don’t see anything heroic in the fact that a journalist was not afraid to sit in one car with another mortal human (well, if only in that he trusted Putin’s driving skills
, Kolesnikov did manage to get one important question through – about the right of the police to beat citizens – , got his answer and than organised his publication in a way that highlighted the issue.
IMHO it was not a great piece of journalistic per se, but not a bad one either. (the issue is important because without elected local government, demonstrations are the only effective way for the public to express their opinion).
@Joera – I mostly agree. Certainly VVP doesn’t feel “guilty” about imprisoning MBKh. And I agree that it’s laughable to think VVP is concerned about anyone being “morally superior” to him. I don’t believe he thinks in those terms.
@Poemless – yeah, you’re right about the Bush/Putin comparison; it does sort of fall down because one was scary-incompetent and the other is (in the eyes of some) scary-competent. As for the interview itself, certainly Kolesnikov was not underhanding softballs; according to the transcript, he really tried to drill down on the question about Shevchuk and kept chasing an answer. It’s hard to tell from the print version, but it sounds like he was being persistent. I think Kolesnikov generally does a pretty good job of keeping vlast’ honest and making light of its foibles, just what we tend to expect from our “papers of record” in this country. And as for Shevchuk, Putin is (or claims to be) a Vysotsky fan – my knowledge of the Russian musical universe is not perfect, but I think there is probably a bit of overlap between fans of Vysotsky and DDT fans.
Besting Bond
Once jokingly referred to as “a vampire” by his wife, Lyudmila, Putin has more Superman in him than Dracula. Whether dealing with a massive firestorm that threatens Moscow itself or a renegade runaway tiger, Putin handles any emergency with confidence, assuredness and aplomb. Very much like a suave Bond hero, after Putin embraces dangers one can imagine him relaxing with a cold vodka martini.
Yes, it’s true: hard-bitten, skeptical Russian men admire him and beautiful women are awed by him. Some call him the “Renaissance Russian.”
Putin goes on fishing trip
While Putin’s latest well-publicized escapades involved him wearing camouflage gear and interacting with waddling brown bears in the Kamchatka nature preserve of Far East Russia and shooting darts with a crossbow into gigantic Humpback whales in the Sea of Japan, previous jaw-dropping “adventures” have included calmly standing up to a marauding Siberian Amur tiger during 2008 while a film crew around him fled screaming.
Putin soothes Siberian tiger
After personally tranquilizing the bellowing beast, Putin gave it a gentle kiss on the head. Such behavior can only win the minds of men and hearts of women. After his whaling adventure, Putin granted an interview during which he expressed a sense of exhilaration and admitted, “I missed three times but hit on the fourth attempt.” A few of the reporters raised the issue of safety. “Living in general is dangerous,” he replied with a shrug.
Putin aims crossbow at whale
It’s easy to see why the charismatic leader has a 74 percent approval rating among all Russians in the latest polls.
The real deal
While it’s true that over the past decade Putin has flown an advanced Su-25 fighter plane, co-piloted Tu-160 supersonic bomber at low altitudes and took command of a nuclear submarine, these are not publicity stunts or photo opportunities. It’s obvious the man gets an adrenalin rush from such forays into danger and has the wherewithal to master them through supreme self-assurance and knowing his own personal limitations.
Although some say he is emotionally cold, they are mistaking his self-confidence and coolness. Those that know him well–like former US president George W. Bush–call him a true friend and say he is very warm and personable in private.
And Putin is cool in the good sense of coolness, whether facing down wild animals, commanding unforgiving technology, or staring down his country’s adversaries. Facing an opponent, he respects them, never underestimates them, but doesn’t overestimate their capabilities either.
Putin action figure
A popular Russian action doll memorializing Putin lacks a shirt. It’s not an oversight–the public responds to their shirtless leader, flexing his muscles while dishing or horseback riding. The doll capitalizes on Putin’s natural machismo.
And while many world leaders take vacations in cushy locales at posh resorts, Putin chose to spend his down time during 2009 vacationing in Tuva–a rugged, mountainous region in the Siberian wasteland. There he rode bareback and shirtless before swimming in the icy mountain rivers.
Some leaders in the West could do well to emulate the Russian superman to a degree. After all, bureaucratic professors may be in their place before chalkboards and committees, but not leading great nations into the future.
Not a bureaucrat, stuffy professor, media construct or a fake, Putin the man is for real.
And since we talk about Bush-Putin similarities, what about their heirs? Medvedev and Obama both seem to be representatives of a refined intelligentsia, don’t they? And they both studied the law. Interesting…
While his talk of toilets, smacking people upside the head, and refusal to acknowledge any specific mistakes in office were a big hit in the reports and op-eds today, I’ve yet to see anyone note how eerily similar Putin’s style is to the former American President, George W. Bush.
I’d hazard a guess that the reason the similarity hasn’t been noted elsewhere is because the differences eclipse the similarities. For me, the main difference is that Putin is an educated and intelligent man who resorts to boorish and crude remarks; Bush, for all his folksy quips, always remained unfailingly polite (as Ann Richards found out to her peril during the Texas governor race). It isn’t Putin’s quips per se which attract the criticism, it’s that they are more suited to a building site or barracks than the arena in which a world statesman is supposed to inhabit. I see Bush’s quips as being simply the product of his Texan background and quite natural; Putin comes across as a posh kid telling dirty jokes to gain the approval of the rough kids.
Putin isn’t posh, far away from it.
He is intelligent enough ( or rather shrewd I’d say,) he learned a lot while in the office ( he is a quick learner,)but his crude jokes are not coming out of nowhere, and they are not made with the purpose of “just to please rough kids.”
That Soviet attitude of the former KGB officer whose brains were programmed to control and suppress his fellow citizens is alive and well.
Putin isn’t posh, far away from it.
He’s not a kid either.
I know most of us in this forum are painfully aware of foreign press outlets’ ignorance and misperception of Russian politics and society, but I really don’t get why so many seem so sure of Putin’s 2012 intentions, to the point of forcing the issue, no matter what he says. I can see him running again in 2016, as he did ask the people for 20 years to do the work he felt was needed to be done for the country, but considering how well Putin and Medvedev have worked together, dating back to their days in St. Petersburg municipal government, I don’t see how denying Medvedev a run for a second term would avoid confusion among the electorate and risk for United Russia; the party might still win a plurality, but there would be real damage to the credibility and effectiveness of the executive branch. I find it hard to believe Putin would relegate such effects to mere afterthought.