The great Serge Schmemann of the IHT has published quite a compelling opinion article on objectives and perspectives of Vladimir Putin:
The implication is clear – those quaint times are behind us. He does not disown the Soviet Union, which he served as an agent of the KGB, but the Russia he repeatedly invokes is a great, powerful, divinely ordained state that stretches back a thousand years. He is there to restore its glory, its power, its faith, and above all its proper place in the world. And that is the unifying context of his presidency: Russia will be great and strong. It explains the repeated contradictions in the world view he expounds: Russia must have a multiparty democracy, but it cannot exist without a strong president. The economy is free, but the state must control its wealth. He is prepared to cooperate with the West, but promptly switches to confrontation when he senses a snub. He freely criticizes the West, but bristles at suggestions that Russia is backtracking on democracy. Such criticism is a ploy, a diversion, he declares: “Of course, we see efforts to exploit the phraseology of democracy to influence our internal politics,” he says. “This is dangerous, this is not proper, it undermines faith in the basic principles of democracy. If you need something from Russia, you need to talk about the substance, not to approach it from another angle. If you need to resolve Kosovo, talk about Kosovo. If you need to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran, talk about Iran. Not about ‘democracy in Russia.’ ” There are distinct echoes of the Soviet Union in this blend of bluster, insecurity, hypocrisy and pride. But Putin’s Russia is definitely a new hybrid. There’s no threat of a new Cold War, no ideology of world domination in the new Russia. The president enjoys a level of popularity and legitimacy Soviet leaders never had. However authoritarian Putin’s rule might be, argues Grigory Yavlinsky, an opposition politician highly critical of the president, his rise is a logical consequence of the brutal disappointment of the Russians with the course of events since the collapse of Communism – the hyperinflation, political wars, crony privatization and the financial crisis of the 1990s, along with the humiliations – perceived and real – inflicted by the West, from NATO expansion to endless preaching. Now, Russians are suddenly living better than they ever have. They have a combination of personal freedoms and prosperity they’ve never had before. They can travel abroad and surf the Internet to their heart’s delight; the arts are booming; stores are overflowing; they can make money. Lots of it. Politics? O.K., there’s a problem there, but in this new Russia, with its glittering streets and fast pace, who cares? This is Putin’s Russia. No matter that the oil boom is in great part responsible for his successes; he has brought a measure of stability and pride where Boris Yeltsin, the “democrats” and the West all failed. He will not be preached to. He will not be pushed around on Iran or Kosovo. He will be treated with respect, whether at the Group of 8 summit meeting or fishing at Kennebunkport. So look for more Putin. In what guise, we will soon learn. But with what goal and style, there is no doubt.
Subscribe by Email
6 Comments
“There’s no threat of a new Cold War, no ideology of world domination in the new Russia. The president enjoys a level of popularity and legitimacy Soviet leaders never had.”I’m not sure what you mean by “great” but I don’t think I share your view no matter how you define it.I find it rather difficult to accept the above statement in light of Russia repeatedly buzzing various NATO countries with nuclear bombers, something NATO is not doing to Russia. The only limit on the new cold war is Russia’s power, not its intentions, and Russia’s willingness to fight the cold war to the extent of its power is very plain. That prideful diversion of resources from the country’s massive demographic problems signals its downfall.Moreover, given the fact that Putin has crushed all of his opposition, I find it bizarre in the extreme to attribute any genuine popularity or legitimacy to him. Even assuming he’s popular, Hitler was too; would we consider someone “great” who sought to rationalize Hitler’s dictatorship based on that “popularity”? I personally sure wouldn’t.A truly “great” commentator would offer us some suggestions about how to deal with the threats posed by Putin rather than sweeping them under the carpet in a fit of Russophile bluster. He can barely conceal his pride in the fact that Russians can imagine they are becoming a force to be reckoned with, ignoring the fact that this same attitude utterly destroyed the USSR and may well do the same to Russia.Instead, he states that “Now, Russians are suddenly living better than they ever have.” There’s no data to support this rationalization, which smacks of neo-Soviet propaganda. Russian lifespans are shorter and up to 1 million are lost from the population every year. That’s a better life? There was some short-term increase in Hitler’s Germany, but dire long-term consequences. There were times in the past when a small group of Russians enjoyed prosperity, but their civilization still crumbled.In short, I think there’s good reason this gentleman is relegated to the relatively obscure pages of the IHT, and I’m grateful it is so.
I’ve got great respect for Serge Schmemann’s career, and thanks to his stewardship at the IHT, more and more attention has been given to important developing issues in Russia. I also think that most Kremlin apologists often complain that the coverage in the IHT tends to be overly critical (but then again, they complain about all media coverage).Schmemann was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1991 for his excellent reporting on the reunification of Germany, and was a bureau chief in Moscow in the 1980s. The International Herald Tribune is not “obscure,” but rather one of the most widely distributed English language news sources in Europe. Robert Amsterdam has published two opinion articles in the IHT.Of course all are free to disagree passionately with this article, but that has very little to do with the person’s career.I don’t think that Schmemann’s point is to convince readers that all is well in Russia, but rather share the perspective and mentality with which the current administration views itself and its relations with the rest of the world.
JAMES:I believe he is the editorial page editor of the IHT, not the editor in chief or the managing editor. You need to check your facts a bit. The paper is not under his “stewardship.”http://www.ihtinfo.com/pages/p_executives.htmlDo you have any actual evidence that he is driving the Russia-critical coverage? How do you know it’s not in spite of him, that he’s not restricting it.Walter Duranty also got a Pulitizer prize. Is he your hero too? Arafat got a Nobel. I fail to see the point.I’d say the letter to the editor you recently published indicates you may have misread this piece and Mr. Schmemann, as my post further illustrates:http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2007/09/serge-schmemann-scumbag-russophile-liar.html
I never claimed he was editor in chief, nor did I title him a “hero.”Here are two opinion pieces published under his oversight:http://iht.com/articles/2006/09/29/opinion/edamster.phphttp://iht.com/articles/2007/01/09/opinion/edamster.phpUndoubtedly you raise a lot of important points that the opinion article glossed over, as did the letter to the editor. However, in my view, the most constructive debate is one that wins on the basis of rhetoric, facts, and arguments, not personal attacks.
I think it’s great that he has published Bob’s stuff — that is, if you have reason to believe that he personally is the one that put it in the paper, where another editor might not have, because he believes that Bob is right. As for me, I don’t believe that — but your information may be better than mine. I have only what Mr. S. has written to go on. For all I know, somebody else at IHT shoved Bob’s stuff right down his throat.In any case, one sees conservative pieces in the New York Times on occasion, and that doesn’t mean the paper is a stalwart defender of the right side on Russia or on any conservative issue. To the contrary, one can easily conclude that it places these pieces as a propaganda effort to hide the fact that the overwhelming volume of what it publishes is left-wing agitprop.I spend a good bit of time trolling the Internet looking for interesting stuff about Russia, and I have no memory of routinely finding opinion pieces in the IHT that take a hard line on Russia’s current state of affairs. There’s no doubt that it has a lot of good news coverage, which I often republish, but Mr. S. has nothing to do with that.Most important, I’d like to see just one opinion piece from Mr. S. himself that takes Putin seriously to task on something, anything, and doesn’t betray a disgusting sense of Russophile pride, even gloating, at Putin’s attempt to make Russia a “player” again.Perhaps I flatter myself, but I fancy that I have a fairly refined sixth sense of who is and is not on our side — and I don’t believe Mr. S is with us.
Wow that was strange. I just wrote an very long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t show up. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyhow, just wanted to say superb blog!