"Shoe bangs, shoe bangs..."
Nikita Krushchev at the United Nations, September 29, 1960
From the hysterical coverage given to Putin's remarks at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, the casual observer might think he was pulling a Krushchev. Much of the "Cold War rhetoric" actually comes from politicians in other democratic states making use of Russia as a whipping boy for their inability to deal constructively or timely with a myriad of foreign policy issues. Putin addressed the audience as only an elected official secure at the end of his successful two-term run can - with candor.
Putin used his remarks to clarify Russia's (and Russians') position on several issues. His response to reporters' pointed questions were the most telling and the speech and Putin's answers can be read in full (in English no less) on the Kremlin homepage.
On international double standards, perceptions of unfairness, and why it's not hard to understand why Russia is becoming a leading voice of constructive criticism from developing and transitional economies:
Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia -- and please think about this figure -- up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.
Putin at the Munich Security Conference
... Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the World Trade Organization has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
On NATO's enlargement, he rightly asks what establishing forward bases in Eastern Europe has to do with the real threat today, terrorism:
Regarding our perception of NATO's eastern expansion, I already mentioned the guarantees that were made and that are not being observed today. Do you happen to think that this is normal practice in international affairs? But all right, forget it...NATO is not a universal organisation, as opposed to the United Nations. It is first and foremost a military and political alliance...why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this expansion? Can someone answer this question? Unless the expansion of military infrastructure is connected with fighting against today's global threats? Let's put it this way, what is the most important of these threats for us today -- the most important for Russia, for the USA and for Europe -- it is terrorism and the fight against it.Does one need Russia to fight against terrorism? Of course! Does one need India to fight against terrorism! Of course! But we are not members of NATO and other countries aren't either. But we can only work on this issue effectively by joining our forces.
On Kosovo and Serbia, he openly states the problems of micro-managing expert-driven approaches:
What will happen with Kosovo and with Serbia? Only Kosovars and Serbs can know. And let's not tell them how they should live their lives. There is no need to play God and resolve all of these peoples' problems. Together we can only create certain necessary conditions and help people resolve their own problems. Create the necessary conditions and act as the guarantors of certain agreements. But we should not impose these agreements. Otherwise, we shall simply put the situation into a dead end. And if one of the participants in this difficult process feels offended or humiliated, then the problem will last for centuries. We will only create a dead end.
On Iran, which is probably one area where Russia's current activities will come back to kick the bear in the teeth, he does remind us why other nations don't see America as so benign:
In general we deliver much less arms to the Middle East than other countries, including the United States. No comparison is possible there. We recently delivered an anti-aircraft weapon system to Iran -- that is true -- with a medium range, approximately 30 to 50 kilometres. That is true. Why did we do this? I can explain why. We did this so that Iran did not feel it had been driven into a corner. So that it didn't feel that it was in some kind of hostile environment. Rather that Iran could understand that it had channels of communication and friends that it could trust. We very much expect that the Iranian party will understand and hear our signals.
On the new NGO registration system (remember when a parade of do-gooders swore up and down that this bill would be the end of civil society in Russia):
Yes, we introduced a new system for registering these organisations. But it is not that different from registration systems in other countries. And we have not yet seen any complaints from non-governmental organisations themselves. We have not refused registration to almost any organisations. There were two or three cases that were refused on simply formal grounds and these organisations are working on correcting certain provisions in their charters and so on. Nobody has been refused registration based on substantial, fundamental issues. All are continuing to work in the most active possible way and will continue to do so in the future.What bothers us? I can say and I think that it is clear for all, that when these non-governmental organisations are financed by foreign governments, we see them as an instrument that foreign states use to carry out their Russian policies. That is the first thing. The second - in every country there are certain rules for financing, shall we say, election campaigns. Financing from foreign governments, including within governmental campaigns, proceeds through non-governmental organisations. And who is happy about this? Is this normal democracy? It is secret financing. Hidden from society. Where is the democracy here? Can you tell me? No! You can't tell me and you never will be able to. Because there is no democracy here, there is simply one state exerting influence on another.
On journalists in Russia (where the number dead per year continues to decline despite the sensationalized deaths in recent months):
And, incidentally, journalists are not only killed in Russia, but in other countries as well. Where are most journalists killed? You are an expert and probably know in which country the most journalists died in, say, the last year and a half? The largest number of journalists were killed in Iraq.
Later at the Munich Conference, Mr. Gates claims the reason America must be so aggressive, and build missile defense systems at Russia's boarder and expand NATO is that supposedly the US can't predict what Russia and China will do (as if anything in Iraq has gone as the US predicted).
So I ask, as I am German born, who was it that made so much troubles just 60 years ago?
The Germans, the Italians, the Japanese did.
Gates needs to be honest, Russia and China are very predictable, with all high probabilities, both will focus on defense, probably fighting off some aggression as it was in WW2, WW1, and todays economic warfare.
History and track records are what all this is about.
Gates had better build missile defense systems in Europe because it's Germany or Italy that can't be predicted, heck, you can add the US in as well, ask Ireland, let alone 100 or 1000 year history of the UK.
After looking back 100 years or 1000, it's been the English or German or French that tend reach out, take a nations resources and impose their empire.
I would say Western nukes are for resource acquisition while Russian or Chinese nukes are there to keep the flies (Bush or Blair "bright ideas") away.
Good to see a non-DI affiliated author's name appropriately highlighted which wasn't and still isn't evident in prior instances.
Good to see a recent suggestion acknowledged, albeit unofficial (not the first time).
A good review by NS of what Putin said at Munich.
Much different from how it was spun at other outlets like the BBC and New York Times. This is why media critique is so very much needed for improving the situation.
Not the one sided BS found at Johnson's Russia List and Russia Profile, where there's no criticism of the BBC and Moscow Times. Instead, Russian mass media is regularly put under the microscope.
I read the above story about what Putin had to say. I find it more believable that what I have heard about Russian policy here.
My great grandmother told me as a child that they were told by the American Government that as long as the rivers flowed and the grasses grow. That the land would be our if we just sign a paper. They signed, the grasses still grow and the rivers still flow but they took the rest of our land. Gordon W. Anderson. A native American.
Misha & Russia Blog:
It is half assed to give Nick the freedom not accorded the other Russia Blog contributor. Someone who continues to put out brilliant commentary.
As for Nick's post, the inroduction of Nikita Sergeyevich (photo and shoe banging reference) should have been handled better. Nick's post is not saying that Putin and Russia are the same as the old USSR. Why then entertain such misinformation without a firm rejoinder against it?
An agreebale post not having the bite against the misinformation. It is like the doctor not actively pursuing the best options to end an illness.
Good piece Nick.
Yuri, this heavy artillery you mentioned isn't as heavy as it had been. No offense meant to anyone in saying what is quite obvious.
I see that Nick Petro has promoted Eric Kraus under the post about The Wall Street Journal. Kraus gets enough promoting.
Allow me to once again highlight an ongoing discussion to a brilliant analysis on the media coverage of Putin's recent address:
http://seansrusskiiblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/media-critique-on-recent-coverage-of.html
On critiquing the media coverage of Russia, no one does it better than Mike Averko. He does not duck opposition. His knowledge of a lot of Russian issues is unmatched. True friends of Russia support Mike Averko.
The most interesting part of this post is the comments. I wonder, was any of them made by a non-sock-puppet?
"Luther G. Quick"'s unlikely name and ineptly created website (follow the link as of early morning Feb 21) suggest that he's created by someone who's flacking for the Kremlin for free or for very little money indeed.
"Misha" - almost certainly erstwhile RB contributor Mike Averko.
"Gordon W. Anderson" - sorry, with all due respect to the Native Americans, that reads like something straight out of a Soviet Foreign Languages Publishing House edition.
"Alexandra" and "Andrew Waller" - my old friends, Averko's sock puppets.
CORRECTED VERSION OF MOST RECENT SUBMITTED COMMENTS
Misha is myself and two of those others are my friends. Have a problem with that? BTW, as Misha - I listed my email address. There was no hiding of my identity.
This marks a sharp contrast from Lyndon's disclosure.
Lyndon who at his blog says he's 30 years old.
Yet, at a Sean's Russia Blog discussion, he claims a USSR educational experience going back to 1977. It's at my SRB article dealing with some recent media coverage.
I note that Russia Blog posted Lyndon's crankish comments while not accepting posted comments at a RB post on the 9th Company.
I also see how great the number of posted comments has been relative to my last Russia Blog article, along with my three SRB articles.
At its top left home page, why does Russia Blog have headings for terrorism and crime, but none for foreign policy? Can't terrorism and crime be considered the same and isn't foreign policy a worthy enough separate heading?
Settle down, Mike. You have misread or perhaps intentionally twisted something from my comments on SRB, where I never said anything about 1977 (here, for those with the patience to read through the numerous comments). What I said was the following:
"For the record, I do know a bit about Kievan Rus (having been taught about it in school while living temporarily in Leningrad for a few years in the '80's, and having later read about it in university)." (emphasis added)
To be more precise, I lived and went to school in the USSR from 1984 to 1987, from when I was 8 to 11 years old. I've spent quite a bit of time in Russia and some of the other former republics since then. And although I'm not particularly happy about it, I did turn 30 last year. So, please read more closely in the future, and don't distort the facts.
Of course I have no problem with your friends commenting on your posts, but since none of their names link back to websites (yes, you entered your email address, but readers of the comments don't get to see it - just the blog administrator), it's impossible to determine whether they are different people. And their uniform and effusive praise for your ideas casts doubt on their credibility as independent commenters. But since you've said they are in fact different people, I believe you. Thanks for clearing that up.
Mike, I'm sorry we got into such a nasty argument over there at SRB. Although I disagree with you on the issues, there's no reason why people shouldn't be able to disagree civilly.
And at the risk of inflaming you, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your repeated focus on "media bias" and "censorship." Media everywhere are biased, it's in their nature. Informed consumers of media try to filter the bias. As for the "I'm a victim of censorship" argument, it does not hold any water.
No one is stopping you from starting a blog (or maintaining your "Lying about Russia" page at the Guardian's website), so you have every chance to get your views out there.
You're displaying a schizo manner at SRB and in this sequence.
This is shown by your earlier suggested characterizations of some of the participants at this discussion. Now, you're taken to task and answer back with: a hey why are you "attacking" me (as in you) mode?
No one has to give a link.
Why don't you challenge the identity of La Russophobe, db and some others?
BTW, I came across a Lyndon posting at a Moldovan site. He claimed that there might be a Gazprom connection to The Tiraspol Times. Any proof? BTW, Gazprom owns Ekho Moskvy which is not so pro-Putin, pro-Russia or pro-Trans-Dniester. In comparison, the non-Russian owned Moscow Times isn't so forthcoming toward views going against its biases.
Spare me the BS about media bias being okay because it's everywhere.
The posting of La Russophobe at JRL and non posting of TTT and http://www.rusjournal.com reflects an undercurrent of bias which Peter Lavelle, Russia Profile and this blog haven't discussed.
IMHO, it's a "REAL" issue to discuss and I intend to that at great length.
Let's see if JRL is open minded enough to run it.
JRL certainly wasn't open enough to run any of my commentary at SRB, intelligent.ru and this blog, while runing some other material at those sites which didn't get the kind of qualitative feedback.
That's the "objective reality".
The reason has to do with the bias out there.
I don't know about Gazprom, but I recall The Tiraspol Times editor-in-chief Mark Street getting booted from Wikipedia for sock-puppeteering.
Mike,
You lied about my comments at SRB, and I called you out on your lie. In response, rather than retracting your statement, and perhaps apologizing for calling my identity into question, you call me "schizo." That must be an example of your brilliant analytical style.
I guess anyone who is able to back down rhetorically or see more than one side of an issue is "schizo" in your world.
I'm sure I am not the only person who wonders about the provenance of some of the comments at this website. I voiced that question, and you responded, for which I thanked you. I hardly think that constitutes being "taken to task."
For what it's worth, I received emails from Luther Quick also, which presumably means he's a real person, too.
Regarding proving any claims about TTT, all I said at culiuc.com is that I have heard that Russian companies and Gazprom in particular may be among the sources of TTT's funding. If true, and I never claimed to have any proof, that would be different from the situation with Ekho Moskvy, because the latter is a tranparent ownership situation known to all.
In addition, I think it's clear that TTT cannot possibly be a money-making project, therefore it's a question of who is providing a subsidy to keep such a PR-project in operation. In that way, it differs from the Moscow Times, which does have operational sources of revenue.
You are angry because you cannot get more exposure for your analysis. Although I wish you well in your efforts, being as disgruntled and excitable as you are hardly makes you a disinterested source of commentary on media bias.
At the same time, if you can document some of your claims about JRL being "pay-to-play," I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading about it.
Gentlemen,
While we don't mind people sharply disagreeing over facts or opinions here, if you have a personal disagreement, you have each other's email addresses to use for that. No offense Lyndon, but I don't think 95% of Russia Blog readers know what your or Mike Averko are talking about in this case.
I have made an effort to cut down on sock puppet comments and comments under an alias from the one person we have banned (La Russophobe/Kim Zigfield posing as "Lenard" - judging by their identical pointless hectoring style).
Other than sock puppets, the only other comments I have blocked have been porn, spambots (some spam that appears to be from live human beings has been allowed), or incitements to violence (not just derogotory remarks about certain ethnic or national groups). I have politely asked commenters in the past to refrain from making personal attacks on each other or saying "so and so should be killed". Not everyone has complied.
I also left one comment on La Russophobe's blog telling him/her to stop lying about us on her page where she claimed that I don't fact check posts. What I actually said is that I couldn't possibly fact check every single random comment we get here, but this was twisted into something completely different. La Russophobe likes to brag about "haunting the Russophiles" with her web pages for life, well there you have it...he/she is doing exactly what he/she accuses others of doing, while remaining anonymous.
Lyndon:
http://www.siberianlight.net/2007/03/01/interview-mike-averko/
Go for it!
You're disingenuous for questioning TTT as a money maker, when numerous JRL selected material aren't as popular as some of the commentary it censors. Unlike LR's stated "popularity", mine isn't on the crank level of his/hers. Matters which I'll gladly take up in an open debate with JRL or anyone else.
Are you kidding about JRL? Ames wrote a piece about how it went from being fairly decent to a Carnegie friendly site. Of a more recent note, I've been told that RIAN gave it an unconditional donation, which of course is unofficially conditional, when someone is giving a nice chunk of moolah. In more recent times, JRL posts a good deal of RIAN material which in IMHO ranges from the mundane to the not as good as it could be.
American style punditry with a Russocentric twist is very much lacking in English language Moscow based media circles. This has been a given with Anglo-American mass media.
The Russia friendly side isn't interested in seeing an effectively presented Russocentric view in the English language. Conversely, the Russia friendly side is negatively manipulated by self serving interests and flat out bad decision making.
Whatever the success of The Mosocw Times' advert. doesn't contradict what I've said about its gross subjectivity.
Have you challenged db's credibility? At SRB and this blog, db carries on like an arche troll.
One more thing Lyndon & company:
I DIDN'T LIE!
Maybe I misinterpreted that mentioned item at quick glance. I'll double check it when I'm free.
Meantime, I've more important things to do like prepare for a possible radio engagement and a meeting on the kind of topics discussed here and abroad.
Good luck with the radio appearance Mike, and let me know how it turns out.
Saw a FT piece as well as Simes' on what I just wrote about in Serbianna ("Russia's Sane Position on Kosovo" March 22, 2007), like the most recent RP expert panel, a lot of important points missing from what I'd stated one day earlier.
All this relates to why the Eng. language media coverage of Russia continues to suck.
On a related matter, here's what a recipient to my Quick Takes forwarded to me about the so called "Committee to Protect Journalists":
The Committee to Protect Journalsts is a Soros front
group. Here are the numbers:
COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS INC
1999-$166,667;
2000-$166,666;
2001-$500,000;
2002-$166,667
These are the donations from Soros alone. They claim to be independent, of everyone but the elite. They are funded also by the Ford Foundation, Time-Warner, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. A true "grassroots movement" no doubt. Maybe a better title for them is "Committee to Protect our Employees Overseas."
Can aynyone tell me where I can find good tires fo my car??
I live in New York.