Of Putin, and Things On his first overseas visit Putin went to Great Britain. He had a 40 minute audience with Her Royal Highness. God, save the Queen! Crimea … Autumn 2015 … News flash: “A referendum was held in Crimea to determine Crimean autonomy from Russia and incorporation into Ukraine … The Moscow junta is calling the Crimean milita “seperatists.” Foreign Minister Lavrov was complaining to Putin: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, in Bulgaria they were yelling “Putin is a D*ckhead.” “Stop going to places where they know us” “You can’t fool “google.” If you query “d*ckhead” you get 1,500,00 responses “Putin is a d*ckhead.” From 1991 to last year, I had stopped following events in Russia closely. Only followed those specific areas that were of direct interest to me: folklore, sailing, Buddhism, etc. I remained generally aware, but was not in the thick of things. I was glad when Putin refused to have the Constitution changed and supported Medvedev as his replacement. I was disappointed, that he ran again after Medvedev’s one term (today, however, I am grateful that he is at the helm and not any of the other possible candidates). My interest in Russian current events was sparked by the unremittingly negative coverage that the NYT gave to the Sochi Olympics. Then, came the beginning of the Ukrainian mess, I realized that I was out of touch and needed to reacquaint myself with some of the specifics; and so I did. The visceral hatred of Russia and its leader on the part of Americans, first shocked, then dismayed, and finally I learned to accept it. What was more of a puzzle was the hatred of Russia’s leader that I observed being expressed by what otherwise would be considered as intelligent and “liberal” Russians. From overseas, his time in office seems to be a period of success and an unprecedented time of institution and societal building, modernization, and reform. While the demise of the Soviet Union was directly precipitated by US and Saudi lowering of oil prices, on a more fundamental level the ossification of institutions and lack of integration into the world system that played the more trenchant role in its fall. Since 2000, when Putin came to power, Russia has been deeply involved in re-imagining its institutions, attempting to bring them to the highest standards and integrating them into the world community. The process of reforms has not been smooth, but there is no question that in the past 14 years the country traveled far, mostly in a positive direction. Even the Heritage Foundation has had to conclude that Russia has been going in an upward trend in since 2000. In terms of normal indicators the rise has been stunning: 1) Rising from 22nd largest economy in the world (2000) to the 5th largest (2013); 2) the population which has been steadily declining since 1991, has reversed that trend and posted a gain in 2009, and has continued to do so; 3) Average life expectancy which was 67 years in 2000, rose to 70 years in 2013; 4) Average salaries that were about $2,000 per year in 2000 rose to $12,000 in 2012; 5) The poverty rate in Russia was about 30% in 2000, in 2013 it stood at 14%. A record like that, logically, would seem to deserve plaudits. Instead, Putin, and his team, have been subjected to a constant barrage of criticism. The criticism generally falls into several categories. Some compare negative aspects of Russian reality to positive aspects of a foreign reality. For example, Russian roads, admittedly a serious problem, are unfavorably compared to German roads. Totally ignored in that comparison are the differences in population density 22 per sq. mile in Russia to 235 per sq mile in Germany, the differences in climate, and the distances involved (the distance from Bremen to Munich is about 500 miles, while the distance between Vladivostok and St. Petersburg is over 5,000). Others are theoretical arguments usually delivered by folks who have little practical administrative or organizational experience, but who can prognosticate doom. The irony is that these kinds of criticisms come from the left and right, in essence cancelling themselves out. But, the single-largest category is one of ad hominem attacks. The classic expressions of that are Masha Gessen’s attacks, a writer so jaundiced that she could not survive at Radio Liberty, the flagship of American anti-Russian and anti-Putin views. Her bile recently is, mostly, saved for the pages of NYT. After subjecting myself to hours of discussions and presentations by the critics of various stripes, one conclusion became obvious: Russian “liberals,” and some conservatives, hate Putin in the main, because he does not care a whit about their opinions, and he is plain spoken. His famous response to a terrorist attack with: “We’ll snuff them out in the john,” became a cause celèbre. It is precisely this quality, that is, in part, responsible that his approval rating have never dipped below 60%, and periodically reach the mid 80%. Plain speaking and his string of accomplishments drive his critics to distraction. Perhaps, another joke best sums up the situation: When Netanyahu was departing Moscow following his last visit, Putin accompanied him to the airport. After some time of silence, Putin said: ”Bibi, in your country, whom do they blame for everything?”
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:08:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015