In a new editorial, the New York Times takes aim at the Kremlin’s favorite narrative that Russia was in hopelessly dire straits before Vladimir Putin took power, and that the solution to all the country’s ills was to reign in the oligarchs by imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The editors argue: “The Kremlin and its apologists always have the same explanation: look how bad things were; surely the most important thing is to rein in the oligarchs and restore political and economic stability. But that does not justify the setbacks to the rule of law, the systematic hounding of rivals and critics, the settling of scores, the constant snarling at the West or the massive state inroads into private enterprise. In five years, the state has increased its share of the stock market from 24 percent to 40 percent. These are Putin’s true legacy.”
Latest Thailand Blog Stories- Does Thailand Want Democracy? February 9, 2012
- Video: Pravit Rojanaphruk Interviews Robert Amsterdam February 5, 2012
- Abhisit and Free Speech: Never the Twain Shall Meet February 5, 2012
- Thailand Gets Improved Marks on Human Rights February 1, 2012
- RA’s Thailand News Blast – Jan 31, 2012 January 31, 2012
- Latest Czech Blog Stories
- Když státníci šílí February 10, 2012
- Jízda začíná February 10, 2012
- Když vyšetřovatelé prchají od velké korupční kauzy February 10, 2012
- Přímo!!! February 9, 2012
- Vyvlastnit vlastnictví February 9, 2012
- Latest CFP Blog Stories
- Franz Sedelmayer: Leading the Fight Against Sovereign Immunity February 1, 2012
- Zimbabwe – The Pillar of Education and Fostering a Patriotism That Never Seemed to Waver January 25, 2012
- Quality Assurance: Brazil Probes Chinese Mobile Phone Imports January 11, 2012
- “Unquantifiable Risk” for Anglo in Chile January 4, 2012
- Shell Faces New Risks in Nigeria January 4, 2012
Subscribe by Email
3 Comments
It’s just a pity that, when firing off these missives, the editors of the nation’s Paper of Wretched can’t find the time to pause and reflect upon the treacherous gibberish the uttered when Putin first came to power, singing his praises and urging us to give him a chance. They did, in short, exactly what a vicious but weak enemy would want, helping us to delay confrontation and permit the dictator to consolidate his power.The Times has done nothing I know of to support their embattled colleagues in Russia, nor has it reported vigorously on recent scandals such as Oleg Kozlovsky (despite other major papers doing so).In short, where Russia is concerned, the editors of the Times are part of the problem, not the solution. We are owned an apology for their past negligence, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
You are pretty tough to please, no? Seems that there are so many people who are critical of Russia that are “part of the problem rather than the solution” that you are doing the apologists’ work for them.Believe me, they don’t need help bashing Kremlin critics…
Not that I equate myself with them, but Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, for that matter Lenin himself, and certainly Politkovskaya, were all “tough to please.” Often, this led to their being shot. Moderation has never led to really meaningful social change, such as driving the KGB from power in Russia would constitute. Though, to be sure, it has led some to live longer, more meaningless lives.Despite how it may worry a timid moderate, the fact remains that because we listened to folks like the Times editors and gave Putin a chance, he consolidated his power and is now much more difficult to dislodge. Even now, despite this editorializing, we don’t see concerted news coverage of the outrage in Russia from the Times, and that itself is an outrage. If you think that by complimenting them on their editorial you will induce such coverage, I think you are very much mistaken. In fact, I think that the left-wing editors of the Times probably feel that there is much to be said for jailing “oligarchs” like Mr. Khodorokovsky and for erecting a totalitarian state that tells people what to think and how to live.If any Russia “apologist” would like to join me in my demand to hold the Times editors accountable for their mistakenly tolerant attitude towards Mr. Putin in the past, I’d be only to delighted to accept their support.We’ll never make better policy on Russia in the future until we confront and accept the mistakes we’ve made in the past. What we need to do is realize that the Times has nothing to offer us, and get new spokespeople and sources of information who do.