Putin's Russia: rich, powerful, unpredictable and malicious | 52 comments (52 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Mark Ames begins his latest article like this:

The Putin regime's moves to tighten controls over foreign NGOs is being portrayed in the West as yet another example of Russia's savage authoritarianism and anti-Western paranoia. While only a drunken apologist could deny Putin's authoritarianism, the real question is whether or not the crackdown on NGOs is a symptom of classic tyrant-paranoia, or if it has a valid basis.

Damn. I think every journalist should adopt that format!

As for being "anti-Russia," it is not the content but Lucas' tone that irks me. World leaders, even the crummiest, are rarely described as "scary" or "monsters" by the press. Hell, it took 5 years for the international media to even begin to suggest that maybe Bush is a nut.

Read the following and note the tone.

The bullying of the former captive nations seems set to continue: the latest spat about gas has illustrated that rich Europe is unwilling or unable to protect the east European countries that are captives of the Russian gas monopoly. The slide away from democracy is continuing too. Here 2008 will be decisive, when, according to the Russian constitution, Mr Putin should step down as his second term in office ends. Few believe that he, like his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, will step gracefully away from power in return for immunity against prosecution for him and his family. Some smart money bets that he will leave a puppet figure in the Kremlin, and move over to Gazprom, the hugely powerful Russian gas monopoly. Others think he will change the constitution. Or he may create a new country, a union of Russia and Belarus, and become president of that.

But one thing is clear and scary. The world may still know very little about the prickly little ex-spy who now runs Russia. But it is going to be hearing about him for a long time to come.

Now change the topic to Bush, and here is the standard tone one would expect to find:

The conflict in the Middle East seems set to continue ... Some Democrats suggest the slide away from democracy is continuing too. Here 2008 will be decisive, when, according to the US constitution, Mr Bush must step down as his second term in office ends. Few believe that he will step gracefully away from power in return for immunity against prosecution for him and his family. The Washington insiders say that he will leave an ally in the White house, and take a job at Halliburton, the US contracting company. Others think he will change the constitution. Or he may create a new company and become head of that.

But one thing is clear. The world may still know very little about the ex-governor who now runs America. But it is going to be hearing about him for a long time to come.

See the difference? Is Lucas "irreverent"? Perhaps. And I do like irreverent. But is he purposefully irreverent? Like Hunter Thompson, Chris Hitchens irreverent, where the irreverence is actually medium used to drive home a point that might be otherwise lost, as an idicator that the journalist is consciously committing an act of rebellion against journalistic norms, etc.? No. This author is not saying anything new or dangerous. This is just about colorful prose. Colorful in a way not normally seen in the media when covering Bush, Blair, etc. Because a bit of hyperbole here, a bit of irreverance there, a bit of patronizing there, is ok when talking about Russia. Why? Debate for another day and I won't say Russia doesn't encourage it.

Hope this answers your question.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 03:19:27 PM EST

Re: malicious (none / 0)

Hell, it took 5 years for the international media to even begin to suggest that maybe Bush is a nut.

What part of the international media do you read?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 03:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 0)

I had the BBC in mind when I made that comment.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 03:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 0)

The BBC was the first to report the stolen election in 2000. You could easily argue it was the first source to figure it out.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 0)

I think you missed my point.

I was discussing the media's usage of hyperbolic charicature to describe world leaders (ok for Putin, not ok for Bush). Not whether or not they were reporting the facts...

Ok, I don't think the BBC has called Bush a "nut." But they've become a bit less guarded and polite lately.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 0)

I had the BBC in mind when I made that comment.

But then the BBC won't describe Putin like that guy you quoted, would it? (Not that the BBC is unbiased.) For some other examples - the Guardian ran Steve Bell's cartoons with chimpanzee Bush from the start, German DER SPIEGEL used to have a cover in 2002 with all leading members of the Bush admin dressed as comics superheroes. In fact I used to battle some Americans on the internet at the time who took patriotic offense at Europeans' view that their President is an idiot. (The irony of which of course was that that view was already shared by quite few Americans.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 05:05:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 1)

As I said, saying that Putin is no worse than Bush is not saying much - it just goes to show how we have all fallen.

Hell, we have supermenteur as president ourselves ("superliar" is one of Chirac's nicknames in France), a man who should be in jail and has done nothing of his more than 10 years in power except act as the Secretary of Agriculture he was in the 60s.

Blair, Berlusconi, Barroso, Bah!

What's wrong with all of us that we all get such terrible leaders? Do we really deserve them, collectively?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 0)

saying that Putin is no worse than Bush is not saying much

Not sure what that has to do with my comment, but I agree.

And, well, uhm, some here have suggested you are our leader (a bit overzealous for me, but a charming idea.)
Do you think we deserve you? ;)

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 1)

Have a care now, or it'll be reeducation for you. Forty verses of "Hail Glorious Maximum Leader" three times a day.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 0)

This wasn't published in the mainstream media.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2006 at 04:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: malicious (none / 1)

I see why this didn't get published.

Big, mean Putin infuriated his kids by stealing their playground in a "fast and 'ruthless' manner.

Bad Putin.

He makes a few points but overall it's a pretty lame piece. I forwarded it on to Chris (Moscow Times) to see if he has any comments on it.