President Putin and the next Russian President, Dimitry Medvedev
Peter Finn's Washington Post article on Kremlin efforts to polish Russia's image abroad provides a pretty accurate and balanced description of various projects in this field, funded either directly by the government or by the private sector, when the latter gets a nod from the top. Unfortunately, so far this investment has brought only a few and rather modest results. The Western media bias regarding Russia is so overwhelming that even if the Kremlin increases its PR budget by one or two orders of magnitude, little will change.
Take, for example, the Washington Post's editorials. Contrary to their Moscow bureau chief Peter Finn's objective and neutral news reporting, the Post editorials are saturated with such vicious anti-Russian rhetoric that one wonders if the people who write them have some personal problems.
In spite of the Kremlin creating the English-language Russia Today TV and hiring the Ketchum public relations firm to promote the G-8 summit, Russia's image in Washington D.C. remains poor
For example, the editorial which followed the election of the new Russian president Dmitry Medvedev contained a very peculiar "congratulatory" statement, calling for not inviting him to the next G8 meeting, despite the obvious fact that, with all the numerous deficiencies of the Russian electoral system, Medvedev was elected by a landslide by any standard.
The Washington Post's editorials definitely contravene any reasonable Western journalistic standards. Unfortunately, such views are expressed not only in this paper, but in the majority of the Western media. One could, if not justify, then at least understand politicians who use the same negative rhetoric to score election points. They simply do not like to see a resurgent Russia with its newly acquired assertive foreign policy. However, when the supposedly free Western media does the same, it makes one wonder just how free it is – from prejudice, if nothing more sinister.
Some analysts believe that it is the disgraced oligarchs’ money, particularly money coming from Boris Berezovsky and his colleagues, oiling this negative anti-Russian campaign. There is probably some truth in this. Rather than hiding his agenda, the London-based tycoon uses every chance to advertise his efforts to undermine and discredit the Kremlin. With the billions he has at his disposal it is not too difficult for him to plant suitable stories in the media. However, it would take a lot more than Berezovsky to get where we are today.
So before making any new investments in its PR campaign, the Kremlin might be well advised to do a major research study of the roots of the Western media bias vis-a-vis modern Russia. To treat the sickness successfully one should first know its origins. I am sure there are some respectable agencies that can do this job professionally.
In the meantime, the best approach would be not to throw good money after bad but to concentrate instead on developing and promoting a large-scale East-West cooperation agenda.
The peak in U.S.-Russian relations was reached in the fall of 2001, when Vladimir Putin offered George Bush substantial and real help to combat Islamist terrorism. At that time, both the Congress and the White House used to praise Russia on every occasion, and Washington's anti-Russian lobby kept pretty quiet.
The changing of the guard in the Kremlin and the White House gives both nations a chance to get a fresh start. Russia can offer a lot to America in the war on terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, space research, alternative sources of energy, climate control, developing the Arctic shelf, and even Afghanistan, where both the United States and NATO are hopelessly stuck. Even such an exotic theme as destroying incoming asteroids could contribute to a better climate in U.S.-Russia relations.
Washington, in return, should at least try not to antagonize Russia, slow down on NATO expansion, reinvigorate the U.S.-Russia Council, offer more ideas for joint missile defense and stop lecturing the Russians on democracy. Loud Western applause of the Yeltsin brand of democracy in the nineties was too traumatic, and a lot of tact is needed while those wounds heal. Insensitive, brash criticism of what is seen through Western eyes as "backsliding on democracy" is a sure recipe for alienation.
Frankly, if one reads statements emanating from all three leading candidates for the U.S. presidency, Obama, Clinton and McCain, there is little hope that any one of them is ready to adopt the approach advocated here. All of them use pretty arrogant language, even resorting to name-calling – which sounds pretty pathetic. This does not mean that Dmitry Medvedev, on his part, should reciprocate in kind. Instead he should take a high road, ignore the negative outbursts and keep pushing the cooperation agenda.
The great thing about democracy is that, no matter how powerful your opponents are and how biased the media is, you can still get your message across. If this message is positive and full of hope, the American people will hear it. Eventually they may force their politicians to change their tune.
Edward Lozansky is President of the American University in Moscow.
