Ascherson on Abkhazia; Ames on WaPo
By Sean at 12 December, 2008, 9:44 am
There are two new articles of note that concern the Georgian War and the low intensity media war against Russia. The first is Neal Ascherson’s “A Chance to Join the World” in the London Review of Books on the present and future of Abkhazia. The second is Mark Ames’ “Editorial Malpractice” or more aptly named on the Exiled site, “Freddy Gets Fingered: How I Busted the Washington Post’s Op-ed Page Editor.” Therein Ames unmasks WaPo’s “incessant demonization [of Russian and Putin] puts more weight on ideology than on journalistic professionalism–or simple fact-checking.”
In regard to Ascherson’s article, the big question is the future of now defacto 120 mile coastal strip called Abkhazia. Rejoining a nationalist fueled Georgia set on asserting its “sovereign territorial integrity” by force is out of the question. There appears to be little desire to formally attach to Russia though being its client is inescapable and in many ways desirable. Is a new Abkhazian nation state in the making? Interestingly, much of Abkhazia’s fate might fall on the emergence of a Georgian “Willy Brandt” and his ability to avoid the trap of the Oder-Neisse Problem. Here is Ascherson’s take on the issue:
We have seen this trap before. Well . . . any European journalist of my advanced age has seen it. It was called the Oder-Neisse Problem. It consumed hours of soporific briefings and blackened kilometres of dead paper. It kept West Germany safely hobbled to the Western Allies for just over twenty years.
There are differences of scale and detail, but the similarities are sickening. The Oder-Neisse Problem went like this. After the Second World War, Poland annexed the German provinces of Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia, and expelled their populations – some eight million people. Most of them ended up in West Germany. Egged on by the Americans, the new West German state refused to recognise the new eastern border on the Oder and Neisse rivers, proclaimed that the ‘frontiers of 1937’ were still in force, and demanded that the rest of the world accept the duty to restore Germany’s ‘territorial integrity’. The enormous expellee leagues gained a stranglehold on politics. For decades, it was assumed that anyone who suggested recognising the Oder-Neisse Line was committing political suicide. West German TV daily predicted the weather, cloudy or sunny, in Silesia as well as in Bavaria.
In public, the Western Allies stoutly supported this position. In private, any French or British diplomat would agree that it was odious and unreal. But that was why they valued it. A West Germany firmly shackled to this impossibilist dogma would never be able to do a deal with the Soviet Union, such as leaving Nato in return for reunification. It was only in 1970 that Willy Brandt decided to lead his country out of the trap by recognising the territorial results of the war and the new boundaries. The expellees threatened to destroy him, but nothing happened. The Allies, who had grown fed up with their own hypocrisy, let Brandt have his way.
When will there be a Georgian Willy Brandt? The notion raises hollow laughter in Sukhum. Georgian politicians still insist that Abkhazia is Georgian, use extreme rhetoric about ‘overcoming separatism’ and walk out of meetings to which Abkhazians are admitted. But as with West Germany, the effect of this ‘impossibilism’ is to make Georgia less independent, not more.
Ames’ target is a much easier bird to pick off. English language media’s bias is well known, and from my unscientific survey the Washington Post and the Guardian tend to be the most vociferous in painting Russian and Putin as a neo-Evil Empire. Noting this may be old hat, but constantly necessary in the trenches of the information war. The target of Ames’ ire is WaPo’s recent attempt to pin the “assassination attempt” against Karina Moskalenko on Putin even though French police showed that there was no attempt whatsoever. When Ames asked Hiatt why the Post didn’t wait for the investigation before charging, trying and convicting Putin, he responded:
“I am aware of newspaper articles in Figaro and the New York Times that quoted unnamed police sources positing the theory that a broken thermometer was the source of the mercury found in Moskalenko’s car,” he said. “These sources were in Paris, where officials may have a foreign-policy reason not to spark a dispute with Russia, and not in Strasbourg, where the investigation was taking place.” He also implied that Moskalenko, who doubted the “broken-thermometer theory,” as Hiatt put it, was more reliable than the investigators. These were incredible charges leveled at Le Figaro and the French political and judicial systems. But was Hiatt right?
Well as Gomer used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise” Hiatt wasn’t right. In fact, with “the magic of a couple of phone calls” to Curille Louis, the Figaro reporter who wrote about the police investigation, Ames discovered the following:
“I am frankly surprised that the Washington Post’s editorial page editor would say something like this without even calling me to see if what he says was true,” Louis told me, stunned and laughing. “It’s simply not true. I used several sources, but the two main sources were a top police official here in Paris and a top investigator from the prosecutor’s office in Strasbourg.” Louis even named the source in Strasbourg–assistant prosecutor Claude Palpacuer. His sources in Paris are reliable people he has been working with for years. Louis explained that the investigators felt they’d probably solved the case after they tracked down the car’s previous owner, a local antiques dealer who had indeed broken an old barometer (not thermometer) in the car shortly before selling it.
I then asked Louis what he thought about Hiatt’s larger assumption: that Le Figaro’s sources in Paris could not be trusted because the French might be worried about upsetting Russia. Again, Louis laughed in disbelief: “This sounds like a kind of conspiracy theory. You would have to believe that judges and police officials in two cities conspired to manipulate a Le Figaro journalist in order to plant a story that was not very big news here in the first place. Why would the authorities go through all of this effort for such a small story? I find this idea of a conspiracy completely unlikely.” Louis was disappointed at Hiatt’s accusations: “I suppose I might feel honored that the Washington Post bothers to write about me, but you know, I feel a bit surprised. If he called me I could have explained how I wrote the story. But he didn’t try. Quite often we’re very impressed here by how American journalists work, the high standards they use to source stories…. So it’s disappointing to learn that [Hiatt] came to his conclusions about the way I work without even calling me.”
Kudos to Ames. And to Louis, don’t worry if you keep reading English language reporting on Russia the disappointment will becoming something of a second nature. Many of us have become so inured to it that it wears like a second skin.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Does Ascherson really hate Germany or something?
“For most people, the where, what and who of Abkhazia are a blank.”
What an incredibly provincial, stupid statement.
It is INDEPENDENT, FREE press, remember?
Independent and free from common sense in most of the cases…
Actually his piece is pretty good. That statement, though, annoyed me.
The thing is, the media is just as wrong on every other subject it reports on, it’s just that we don’t know enough about the subject at hand to realize we are being fed BS.
Whether is something related to my field of work or simply a hobby, the media always is consistently disappointing. The crap being spewed by the media after the I-35 bridge collapse in MN was pathetic. The CW is still that it was a maintenance/funding issue, when in fact it was a design error that was nobody’s fault except the engineer(s) that did the structural design.
Don’t even get me started on all the myths and half truths in the media about firearms.
The problem with Journalism schools, as well as most other programs that try to teach a trade, is that the faculty is hopelessly out of touch with the way things work/are in the real world, and as such, instill within their pupils a false sense of knowledge and wisdom.
What I am getting at, is that news people think they know everything, or can learn all they need to know about a subject, in 8 hours by searching the internet/Lexis/etc. Lawyers have the same misguided notion of being experts on things as well. It’s that whole a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, thing.
Chris, I also liked the piece. But what’s wrong with the below?
“For most people, the where, what and who of Abkhazia are a blank.”
Isn’t he correct? Most people don’t know anything about Abkhazia. Most people are indeed provincial. There is even little chance that readers of the LRB, a fairly cosmopolitan bunch, know much about Abkhazia.
“Isn’t he correct? Most people don’t know anything about Abkhazia.”
Who is “most people?” Ascherson means “Brits.” In fact, everybody in the former USSR knows about Abkhazia. That’s 300 million people, five times as many people as in Britain, the Little Island That Can’t Anymore, give or take.
I hope Ames fingers Fiefer forthwith. That NPR reporter really annoys me with his highly negative takes on just about anything he reports on from Moscow, whether it is culture or politics.
Loved the Gomer reference. I can hear that voice — and that Jim Neighbors could sing too!
I admire the way Ascherson threw light on the Abkhazia situation through this historical parallel. It’s so smart to get people talking about a volatile situation and thus to diffuse to a degree.
Jason, there is certainly a lot of complain about journalists, though I think we have to cut them some slack. They are under a lot of pressure to pump stories out asap. It’s more about producing content than producing well thought out information.
However, my problem with reporting on Russia is about something else. What op-eds like WaPo don’t want to recognize is that Russia, like anywhere, is a complex place and there are many, many stories to tell that have nothing to do with the Kremlin, Putin et al. It amazes me that even their reporters who are stationed in Moscow can’t or refuse to see that.
Chris, the former Soviet Union is also not most people. Not only most Brits, but also most people in the world do not know anything about Abkhazia. I didn’t find anything wrong in the sentence you took issue with.
”Who is “most people?” Ascherson means “Brits.” In fact, everybody in the former USSR knows about Abkhazia. That’s 300 million people, five times as many people as in Britain, the Little Island That Can’t Anymore, give or take.”
I dont think Ascherson was writing the piece for former USSR citizens. Maybe he was wrong to say ‘most people’ in the literal sense, but he is probably right about most of his readers, who presumably are Brits or native English speakers.
”Whether is something related to my field of work or simply a hobby, the media always is consistently disappointing.”
I worked in anti-doping for a long time, and the spin journalists put on positive cases is just amazing. In Ireland it would boil down literally to how well the journalist knew the offender. One scandal I was centrally involved in had the main news readers slating the offender, and the sports news reader being sympathetic to the same guy, all within minutes of each other on the same news shows! I thought it was really amazing and gave me an object lesson to simply not listen to journalists, rather look for facts in what they have written and make up your own mind thereafter.
“Chris, the former Soviet Union is also not most people. Not only most Brits, but also most people in the world do not know anything about Abkhazia.”
Well by that standard most people in the world don’t know anything about anything. Do you think most people in the world know anything about Wales or Scotland? No they don’t. But no Brit would ever write such a thing, because Britain is the center of the universe.
I’m a tad drunk.
“I dont think Ascherson was writing the piece for former USSR citizens. Maybe he was wrong to say ‘most people’ in the literal sense, but he is probably right about most of his readers, who presumably are Brits or native English speakers.”
Sure, and I don’t mean to be annoying here or sound like an Anglophobe, but there is a tendency among British writers to act as if their country was the center of creation and was waiting on bended knee to hear the oracular words spoken from London. Which, BTW, is why I loathe the Guardian. Has a more self-righteous publication ever existed?
“it would boil down literally to how well the journalist knew the offender.”
Just like media coverage of Georgia.
It is INDEPENDENT, FREE press, remember?
Independent and free from common sense in most of the cases…
———————————————-
I wonder what Kasparov and Novodvorskaya think about this issue, – the only two really free spirits in Russia. Is there anyway to get them to speak here?
“In fact, everybody in the former USSR knows about Abkhazia.”
Somewhere na Kavkaze? It so happened that I better knew West Coast than Black Sea coast…
And there is no USSR anymore…and I don’t know whether this is good or bad
RP aka FD (too long to type full title, sorry).
The most independent journalist in the world is Yulia Latynina, Russia!
At least she got this title last week from Condy Rice.
I wonder why your office didn’t award her with something?
See latest FORBES cover (Russian edition)
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048753076.jpg
RP aka FD (too long to type full title, sorry).
The most independent journalist in the world is Yulia Latynina, Russia!
At least she got this title last week from Condy Rice.
I wonder why your office didn’t award her with something?
———————————————–
Quoting from Wikipedia: “She (Yulia Latynina – RP) claimed that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, French President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder, and U.S. President George W. Bush have all been successfully “recruited” by Vladimir Putin to serve his political objectives”
You are right, Latynina should have been awarded something, or simply sent to see a professional shrink. No wonder she works for the “most independent” (read – living off Americans grants) news agency “Exo Moskvy”
Doesn’t Echo belongs to Gasprom?
Really? I didn’t know. It means Novodvorskaya sold her soul to 1) Devil 2) CIA 3) Gazprom
Why not?
Look at Latynina.
She can say anything, get paid for it (and well paid I assume), claim she is “under totalitarian pressure” and get invitation to the ball in DC.
So – only a charming prince is missing in this soap opera
But unfortunately for her – all candidates either too old or in prison…
Sean, you’re right to focus on Ascherson’s interesting analogy, which is the rare historical analogy that may actually help shed light on where things have been and where they go from here. I’m surprised he doesn’t go into more detail about the political force which the IDPs from Abkhazia were in Georgia under Shevy. They were ostensibly led by a rather odious guy (head of the “Abkhazian Gov’t-in-Exile”) and were mostly manipulated for the ends of various leaders, but 200-some thousand votes and all of the refugee aid flows meant that few people in Georgia were interested in actually resettling them, preferring to keep their grievances alive.
Anyway, what I found to be more interesting was how Ascherson’s perspective on the ‘92-’93 war appears to have changed. Here is what he wrote in 2004 (also in the LRB):
Fighting began, soon to become all-out war as the Abkhazians were supported by Russian equipment and aircraft and by bands of north Caucasian warriors. There were atrocities against civilians on both sides. The war ended in 1993 with the total rout of the Georgian army, and the flight of more than 200,000 Georgian and Mingrelian refugees into Georgia. Shevardnadze himself appeared in Sukhumi in a steel helmet, trying to rally his forces at the last moment, and only escaped by the skin of his teeth. Ten years on, the refugees remain, furious and destitute. They have not been absorbed into Georgian society and still cling on in derelict factories, abandoned Soviet bases and slum hotels.
The dire result of these conflicts was that Russia gained a new grip over the region. In 1993, Russian troops saved Shevardnadze from Gamzakhurdia’s rebellion, but at a price: Georgia was made to join the post-Soviet Confederation of Independent States (CIS) and accept Russian military bases. The Abkhazian war ended with a Russian peacekeeping force occupying the frontier zone with Georgia, while Abkhazia itself – independent but isolated – became in many ways a Russian dependency.
And from the more recent article:
Open war followed. Supported by volunteers from the northern Caucasus, by other ethnic groups in the territory (especially the Armenians) and by Russian weaponry, the Abkhazians routed the Georgians in 1993. It was a murderous conflict, with atrocities on both sides. Most of Sukhum, along with many other towns, was shelled and burned to ruins. Georgian militia even set fire to Abkhazia’s national archives.
But the Abkhazian victory had another, even more piteous consequence. Most of the Mingrelian and Georgian inhabitants fled before the advancing Abkhazians, some ‘ethnically cleansed’ but more choosing to take flight before the armed men reached them. More than 200,000 people crossed the border into western Georgia, refugees condemned to years of embittered squalor in camps and abandoned buildings.
Abkhazia had lost almost half its population. The Abkhazians were now masters in their own house, but the house was a blackened shell.
It’s worth noting that the “volunteers” or “bands of…warriors” from the North Caucasus (whatever one prefers to call them) were in many cases rewarded with real estate in Abkhazia and were almost certainly attracted by the potential for pillage and possibly also by payments from Russian security structures.
Anyway, thanks for highlighting this article, I might not have seen it otherwise, and although I don’t agree with all of Ascherson’s observations it’s an interesting piece.
Why not?
Well, in view of that quotation from Wikipedia above, I don’t want to have another look at Latynina. She is either dishonest, or mental case, or (most likely) – both.
Look at Latynina.
She can say anything, get paid for it (and well paid I assume), claim she is “under totalitarian pressure” and get invitation to the ball in DC.
So – only a charming prince is missing in this soap opera
But unfortunately for her – all candidates either too old or in prison…
————————————————
In prison you say?
Ivanov,
Kasparov failed again with his “Marsh Nesoglasnykh”:
http://www.dni.ru/polit/2008/12/14/155417.html
Please note that this time again Kasparov and Limonov have managed to hire only several dozens “protesters”. The number of police exceeded the number of the “protesters” by far. They cannot find enough “nesoglasnykh” even at the time of economic crisis. What a shame. I imagine how CNN will react to this event.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the most pathetic feature of the “protest”: Garry Kasparov himself didn’t show up for the protest (realizing that it wouldn’t add points to his “political image”).
I’d LOVE to hear comments about this event on Sean’s blog, but most likely my comments will be ignored
RP.
You can read a victory story from the participant of the marsh from nowhere to …nowhere.
http://may-antiwar.livejournal.com/143114.html
“Мы сделали то, что хотели и больше, чем нам казалось возможным….
Спасибо разведчикам и координаторам, спасибо людям на земле…” etc.
I have witnessed my share of protests in the US, Venezuela, Canada, Western Europe and Russia. All sorts: tiny, huge, serious, humorous and so on. My question is why for the last several years Russian authorities respond to protests in such an intolerant way and with such show of force. Often you get the impression that there are more OMONs than protesters. I find it hard to believe that they view those protests as a threat. Perhaps an affront? Whether the protesters only represent a laughably minuscule or incompetent opposition is not the issue I’m raising. The issue is why do the authorities in Russia respond to them the way they do.
I started writing something on the latest “Dissenters’ March” and stopped. I’ve written on the topic so many times already and there isn’t anything new to say. When Kasparov et al. do something new besides feeding their own sense of self importance, someone please let me know. The topic is just boring.
I regard to the Russian cops response, I wish they would just allow the Dissenters’ to have their marches. If no one was there to arrest them, I think the protest would lose its whole reason to exist. Kasparov et al. have nothing to offer politically except for these empty gestures. Without the police playing their assigned role as bad guy, the press wouldn’t cover it. This is essentially what the cops did about antiwar protests here in the US.
Ivanov,
It was a very funny post, looks like the person who wrote it was in a delirious state.
Kolya,
You are right most of those “protests” yield fewer participants than the police, but it’s not necessarily because the police is so numerous
. Besides, they (protests) may look “violent” because often the “protesters” attack the police when Western cameras are around, the police then has to defend itself.
That’s how “the authorities in Russia respond”. Sorry do disappoint you.
Sean,
Well done, – always follow your heart, not your intellect. It seems this time around you are doing it. Please note that this time Kasparov didn’t show up for the “protest”, – yet another reason not to write about “Kasparov et al” (where’s Kasparov?).
Best regards to all,
RP aka FD.
RP: No wonder [Latynina] works for the “most independent” (read – living off Americans grants) news agency “Exo Moskvy”
You have confirmed once and for all that you are either a 15-year-old know-nothing wanker or someone seeking to provoke a response by impersonating one.
Although I guess – if one wanted to stretch the logic of fungibility to the breaking point – American hunger for hydrocarbons sort of puts money in Gazprom’s pocket, so perhaps Ekho is indirectly funded by Dyadya Sam. Not that I think that’s the argument you were making.
Sean, how about a post on the “real” protest from the past weekend – Sunday’s protest by drivers in Vladik. See here for an overview, here for some speculation on media coverage of the protest, and here for Yandex’s feed on the topic. The protesters involved have more on the line economically than do the nesoglasnye, which is probably why they seem to get better turnout.
Check this out – local government appears to have been responsive to the protesters in the far east. And here’s a recent bit of analysis that goes through the history of a similar movement against banning cars imported from Japan (Sean, you’ll also enjoy the accompanying article on Nashi if you haven’t seen it already, although I think they might be in too much of a hurry to bury everyone’s favorite youth org).
Ames’ latest on Georgia:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/112457
He’s a bit slow sometimes. The evidence has been there for a long time…
RP: No wonder [Latynina] works for the “most independent” (read – living off Americans grants) news agency “Exo Moskvy”
You have confirmed once and for all that you are either a 15-year-old know-nothing wanker or someone seeking to provoke a response by impersonating one.
Although I guess – if one wanted to stretch the logic of fungibility to the breaking point – American hunger for hydrocarbons sort of puts money in Gazprom’s pocket, so perhaps Ekho is indirectly funded by Dyadya Sam. Not that I think that’s the argument you were making.
———————————————–’
Lyndon: I appreciate your patronizing tone, but I think you are new here and don’t know what I think of people who are being arrogant or aggressive. Let’s me repeat, that arrogance and aggressiveness can always be traced back to insecurity, insecurity is fear and all fears are based on one fear: the fear of being exposed. So don’t even go there.
As for Gazprom sponsoring “Exo Moskvy” – it’s even more pathetic than I thought. “Exo Moskvy” is such a pathetic news agency (given what kind of people contribute there), that the government not only unafraid of them, but even supports their “efforts”. Indeed, with such a background, the work of the Russian government looks very competent indeed. As a sign of how pathetic the “opposition” is – yesterday “Marsh Nesoglasnyx” had to “protest” without their leader Kasparov. Kasparov didn’t show up reasonably thinking that his image would sink (in Russia) even lower if he did show up.
So don’t try to impersonate either … impersonate a smart person. Cheers, RP.
…I think you are new here…
Like I said, a know-nothing wanker. Peace.
Peace
Lyndon.
I don’t think the battles around second-hand Japanese cars are relevant. They are old battles. Some guys in Moscow have been trying to stop this business in Russian Far East for decades. As it’s not possible to compete with Japs cars in business terms they are trying non-business methods. Local authorities – yes, they “support” it. Why not? It’s kind of Big Tree business in the region (except asking for bail).
Tim can tell about this in more details.
Ivanov,
An interesting interview with Yulia Latynina (a well-known independent journalist):
http://www.day.az/news/world/137620.html
Well, not to roll all Marxist, but part of my point was just that social movements (including movements for and against governments) are more viable and sustainable when people’s economic interests are at stake and when there are discernible goals (sometimes even very finite ones) which everyone agrees on.
The whole idea of being “nesoglasnyi” has not been particularly sustainable because it’s hard to get people to disagree with a government that has brought them prosperity. Because there are relatively few people behind the opposition in general (not just the “nesoglasnye”) and they have diverse goals, the government is able to pick off certain of them by stimulating (negatively or positively) their economic interests. Plus the marchers have tried to unite an excessively diverse group of clowns under that circus tent (not to mention this general who perhaps deserves more respect za zaslugi). I still think the police response is ridiculous, but it’s not exactly news at this point.
Anyway, I know the Japanese car issue is not a new one, but it is one that some researchers point to when trying to identify aspects of a “civil society” in Russia. Here is a characteristically blunt critique of both sides from Tema Lebedev.
Sean decided not to write about “Marsh Nesoglasnyx” which took place yesterday in Moscow, but Pravda.ru turned out to be bolder. Here’s the report:
http://www.pravda.ru/politics/parties/other/295882-0/
All I can say: How pathetic! One comment. If in 2007 they were carrying various slogans: <<Россия без Путина» (Russia without Putin), и «Долой полицейское государство» (Down with the police state), и «Нет третьему сроку!» (Not, to the third term!). This year the few protesters were carrying just one slogan:
«Марш несогласных» (March those who disagree)
They don’t even know what to protest about. Once again, their “leader” Kasparov didn’t show up for protest (he is a smart one after all).
While I don’t put much stock in Kasparov nesoglasnyi, I do think the car protests are worth mentioning for exactly the reasons Lyndon gives. Hopefully I will write something on them this afternoon.
Sean: I cannot disagree, – the car protests do have economic grounds, they affect all – in recent years most of the Russians have bought cars (while Putin busied himself with building concentration camps for “nesoglasnye”
). Looking forward to reading your post about the car protests. Regards, RP.
Agree with Lyndon (after his explanations).
But guys, please don’t ask me to read/watch tema levedev-latynina BS. I won’t do it! Well if you ready to pay I might change my mind. For cash.
Which proves that economy is behind everything!
PS. anti-spam is “RENT” : ))))
Ivanov,
There were a few “pearls” in that interview I thought you’d appreciate, but if you don’t like it – Iceland (unlike the police state Russia
) is a free country, – don’t read it.
However, if you were offered a payment would you accept it in the Icelandic crowns (Kronas?)? I heard that the two most devalued European currencies so far (since October) are those of Ukraine and Iceland.
Let’s wait for Sean’s post about the car protests in Russia. What a change however! Some 20 years ago we would be talking about “bread protests”, while now we are talking about “car protests” in Russia. It is safe to extrapolate that 20 years from now we’ll be talking about “caviar protests” in Russia?
Good evening, everyone. RP.
+1
Russians on “car protest” – that’s a good point.
PS. I accept kronas, don’t worry.
Lyndon, you got it right, he’s either an adolescent or at least has the mind of an insecure adolescent. The “I think you are new here” was a laughable confirmation.
Sean, as I wrote in my comment, the issue for me was not how inconsequential is the opposition in those marches, but the stupid conduct of the police. As you said, it is primarily because of what the cops do that those protests are covered. On part of the authorities it shows either a lack of flexibility in their approach or a strange sense of insecurity.
‘No wonder [Latynina] works for the “most independent” (read – living off Americans grants) news agency “Exo Moskvy”’
Erm, Ekho Moskvi is owned by Gazprom.
On part of the authorities it shows either a lack of flexibility in their approach or a strange sense of insecurity.
———————————————-
Or maybe the cops simply are doing their job. What would the American cops do if some (rather small) mob of 15-20 people attack them in front of the Russian, Cuban, Iranian, … cameras downtown New York? And all the police did was asking to not break the law (the “protesters” didn’t acquire a permit to state a demonstration, something you have to do whether you are in Moscow, Paris or Washington DC).
Kolya, I’m sorry for intruding into your conversation with Sean, but what you are talking about is a ridiculous issue. A problem that doesn’t exist.
‘No wonder [Latynina] works for the “most independent” (read – living off Americans grants) news agency “Exo Moskvy”’
Erm, Ekho Moskvi is owned by Gazprom.
————————————————-
Gazprom = government. I wrote about this above already (scroll up). The “opposition” is so ridiculous that the government of Russia supports it. With such an opposition it looks very competent.
I don’t see how “allowing them to appear on Ekho Moskvy” is the same as “supporting them.” Although I do agree that 1) the opposition, except possibly the ultranationalist opposition, is a silly joke and 2) Latynina is a jackass.
I don’t see how “allowing them to appear on Ekho Moskvy” is the same as “supporting them.”
———————————————
Well, the government (Gazprom) supports “Exo Moskvy” – that’s their hangout. It’s like being a major sponsor of a club. The sponsor rents out a building and the club-members can have their weekly meetings there.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Ekho Moskvy and Gazprom have Latynina on the air as a business decision, being, well, businesses, as she attracts listeners, and, hence, money.
I wish people would stop looking for insidious motivations behind everything. It’s not as clever as people think.
“I still think the police response is ridiculous, but it’s not exactly news at this point.”
Not exactly news, but at some point you would think they’ll learn that their response is what deems those protests newsworthy.
I heard from my more militant friends (who believe much more than I do in the efficacy of protests) about how frustrating it’s to be met by clever police tactics that diffuse protests without any overt force. Protesters actually prefer for the police to act in ways that show them as intolerant enforcers. I’m not a “protest expert”, although a number of times I had experienced the charms of tear gas (neither in Russia nor the US). To protesters themselves there are few things more validating than to be tear-gassed, shoved around by cops, and even arrested. And, of course, to journos all those things make good copy.
To protesters themselves there are few things more validating than to be tear-gassed, shoved around by cops, and even arrested. And, of course, to journos all those things make good copy.
——————————————–
Kolya,
You implicitly imply in your comment that the protesters would provoke the police if the opportunity present itself. So, instead of fighting crime the police would have to contain these (insecure, and restless) protesters, whose problems are not in the outside world, but in their heads.
In short, read “Besy (Devils)” by Dostoevsky.
Dostoyevsky understood all that a long time ago and alas he himself went through that stage at a young age.
I heard from my more militant friends (who believe much more than I do in the efficacy of protests) about how frustrating it’s to be met by clever police tactics that diffuse protests without any overt force.
And this is exactly why I don’t go to protests in the US anymore. If you have to beg (i.e. provoke) the police into beating you, protest has outlived it political purpose in my opinion. Protests now occur according to a script. Protesters march along a designated route to a stage where they listen to some quack drone on about injustice, and then everyone goes home feeling good like they did something.
In fact, I lost faith in protests when they began asking cities for a permit (i.e. permission to protest), adopted the ideology of “peaceful” protest, and created their own security to regulate participants. In the US mass protest has been completely subsumed into the reproduction of state power and ideological hegemony. The last time I was in a protest and the crowd began to chant “Whose streets? Our streets!” I could help laughing a how ridiculous it sounded.
“The last time I was in a protest and the crowd began to chant “Whose streets? Our streets!” I could help laughing a how ridiculous it sounded.”
Were there puppets? You can’t have a proper protest without puppets! PS ever read Henwood/Featherstone’s essay on “activistism”?
PS ever read Henwood/Featherstone’s essay on “activistism”?
I have and they are right. It’s too bad so many activisismists are unwilling to accept it. At one political meeting (when I still went to them) I remember saying something about protests being useless and everyone looked at me like I just pissed on a crucifix.
I don’t recall any puppets, but there were some good costumes. Protests may be politically lame but the are good for people watching!
I sort of agree with you, Sean, but not totally. For example, back in the beginning of 2003, my wife marched two or three times (once with our daughter, who was twelve at the time) in DC against Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. I chose not to go. Well, you can say those marches did little good. Looking back at it, though, I think it was very good that so many Americans took to the streets against the war.
Besy
[The Devils]
Also published as: The Demons, The Possessed
Domain: Literature. Genre: Novel. Country: Russia, Continental Europe.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
(1871 – 1872)
http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=11269
Yes, we all know this classic of Russian literature.
Yes, we all know this classic of Russian literature.
———————————————–
We do? Do we understand it?
“For example, back in the beginning of 2003, my wife marched two or three times (once with our daughter, who was twelve at the time) in DC against Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. I chose not to go. Well, you can say those marches did little good.”
Did Bush not invade Iraq or something?
To imply that those hapless protesters are somehow comparable to characters like Kirilov, Stavrogin, Verkhovensky and others of their ilk is simply laughable.
“To imply that those hapless protesters are somehow comparable to characters like Kirilov, Stavrogin, Verkhovensky and others of their ilk is simply laughable.”
You never know…
“Protests may be politically lame but the are good for people watching!”
I heard chicks picking chances above regular.
Although I’m beyond all that.
Chris, those protests did not prevent the invasion, but my point is that it was still good for the country that those protests showed that millions of citizens opposed the war right from the start.
(Granted, it’s a subjective thing and it’s something I changed my mind about. Back then I looked down on those protests and actually teased (gently) my wife about her going to those marches. Now, though, I’m glad that they took place and that so many took part in them.)
“You never know…”
True. You may well be another Ted Bundy, too.
To imply that those hapless protesters are somehow comparable to characters like Kirilov, Stavrogin, Verkhovensky and others of their ilk is simply laughable.
———————————————-
Kolya and others,
Don’t be so fast to laugh. The nature of “activism” is weakness, for it is much more difficult to change yourself than to (try to) change the world around you.
STRONG PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THEMSELVES, WHILE WEAK PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THE WORLD.
Those who try to change the world, the “possessed” if you will (according to Dostoyevsky) are the source of all that is evil in this world.
“True. You may well be another Ted Bundy, too.”
SHHH!!
“STRONG PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THEMSELVES, WHILE WEAK PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THE WORLD.”
Hellooooooooo Marcus Aurelius!
Kolya, did you know that Latynina actually used the ineffectiveness of protests in the United States, as compared to their effectiveness in Russia, as proof of the United States’ greater democracy? I’m not joking.
“STRONG PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THEMSELVES, WHILE WEAK PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THE WORLD.”
Actually, no. Historically the strong person has been considered the person who has been able to enforce his/her will upon the world, like fleet-footed man-killer divine Achilles, who by the way is portrayed as having the emotional maturity of a goat. Because he’s too strong to need it. Introspection, self-discipline, and intellectual complexity are the earmarks of weakness, like that Nietzsche guy pointed out at length.
“STRONG PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THEMSELVES, WHILE WEAK PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THE WORLD.”
Hellooooooooo Marcus Aurelius!
————————————————
I take it as a compliment. Have you read “To myself” by Marcus Aurelius?
“STRONG PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THEMSELVES, WHILE WEAK PEOPLE TRY TO CHANGE THE WORLD.”
Actually, no. Historically the strong person has been considered the person who has been able to enforce his/her will upon the world, like fleet-footed man-killer divine Achilles, who by the way is portrayed as having the emotional maturity of a goat. Because he’s too strong to need it. Introspection, self-discipline, and intellectual complexity are the earmarks of weakness, like that Nietzsche guy pointed out at length.
——————————————–
I disagree. I am more of a Confucious’ fan on this one, who said: “If you can rule yourself, what can preclude you from ruling a country?”
In fact, many so-called “strong leaders” strive to get into power, because they have nothing else, no substance. In fact, they use power to compensate for various inferiority complexes (e.g., Stalin, Hitler, Mao – were freaks in everyday life)
How exactly were Stalin and Hitler freaks in everyday life? Lurid rumors posing as facts do not count.
For example, both of their fathers beaten them (Stalin and Hitler) violently when they were boys, they has “strange” personal lives, no friends, were suspicious, and paranoidal … Stalin, was a “Great Military Leader” but he was afraid of flying and only once during the WWII visited front (out of fear).
“For example, both of their fathers beaten them (Stalin and Hitler) violently when they were boys, they has “strange” personal lives, no friends, were suspicious, and paranoidal … Stalin, was a “Great Military Leader” but he was afraid of flying and only once during the WWII visited front (out of fear).”
Huge numbers of boys in Europe at that time were violently beaten by their fathers. I’m also confused by this idea that they had no friends. They didn’t? In addition, I fail to see why not wanting to visiting a front is freakish, or why Stalin’s not doing so ahould be attributed to fear. Since Stalin basically headed a Mafia outfit in Baku and participated in several robberies, I think it’s safe to assume he was not a physical coward. (Neither was Hitler, who obtained many commendations for bravery in WWII.)
if they were “normal” they wouldn’t want to be in power. For example, Markus Aurelius like other real leaders viewed power as “sacrifice” not a goal. He wanted to be a philosopher, but his duty called on him (there was no one else who could do that job and lead the country at a time of turmoil) and he took it.
Normally, the desire to “have power” is indicative of inferiority complexes and “overcompensation” in psychological terms.
Read Alfred Adler if you have a chance.
“Normally, the desire to “have power” is indicative of inferiority complexes and “overcompensation” in psychological terms.”
Bullshit.
Neither was Hitler, who obtained many commendations for bravery in WWII.)
I suspect you meant WWI.
I agree that often such childhood details are presented after the fact, to try to explain an individual historical figure’s behavior. However, it is too often done without any statistical context.
In other words, presuming even that such childhood details regarding Hitler, Stalin, (or even Putin … or Bush) are true – there are still many children beaten in the world, alienated from their fathers, who are socially unpopular as children and don’t grow up to be world tyrants responsible for the murder of millions.
The fact that two individuals out of millions endured such a childhood is hardly explanation for their rise to power and behaviors once there. While environment certainly plays some role, you won’t find the answers entirely encoded within that.
There won’t ever be any “Boys from Brazil.”
Read Alfred Adler if you have a chance.
Your smug assertions are mistating Adler’s work in personality typology.
At one political meeting (when I still went to them) I remember saying something about protests being useless and everyone looked at me like I just pissed on a crucifix.
So, how did they look at you after you actually did piss on a crucifix? Perhaps like you shit on the Virgin Mary?
I wouldn’t characterize protests as being useless, but their affect is often “soft” and not yielding direct results. Then again, history does show where individual acts of protest can light-fire on an issue and bring it to public attention.
Our government has and does spend huge amounts of time and resource to make civil protesters and activists as uncomfortable and their activities as difficult as possible, up-to and including direct-violence, infiltration, false-flag operations, and badjacketing.
It is obvious that our government does not consider activism useless, as they employ heavy resources to supress it.
Shedd,
You presented compelling argument(s), but I’m not 100% convinced and still maintain that Stalin and Hitler committed crimes against humanity (including their own peoples) at least partially because they both were nuts.
As for Alfred Adler, didn’t he derive everything from inferiority complexes as the driving force behind our decisions making? Just like his teacher Freud derived everything from sex appeal?
“Kolya, did you know that Latynina actually used the ineffectiveness of protests in the United States, as compared to their effectiveness in Russia, as proof of the United States’ greater democracy? I’m not joking.”
I didn’t know that. I almost never read her. She seems like the equivalent of self-hating American commentators that never see anything positive coming out of the US. Not that she deserves death threats because of it.
Not that she deserves death threats because of it.
———————————————-
Real or imagined …
Guys, anybody who is prominent in the media gets death threats, just like most famous people get death threats. You think nobody’s ever threatened Michael Moore or Bill O’Reilly or Mel Gibson or Dan Rather or Noam Chomsky? It’s par for the course.
Yeah, it was after the protests against monetization of benefits. Latynina was mad that the government backed down (she was in favor of monetizing benefits, so authoritarian methods are OK in that case). She contrasted this to Bush’s ignoring of protests.
“Just like his teacher Freud derived everything from sex appeal?”
Freud did not derive everything from sex. This is a common pop misconception of Freud.
Guys, anybody who is prominent in the media gets death threats, just like most famous people get death threats. You think nobody’s ever threatened Michael Moore or Bill O’Reilly or Mel Gibson or Dan Rather or Noam Chomsky? It’s par for the course.
Yeah, it was after the protests against monetization of benefits. Latynina was mad that the government backed down (she was in favor of monetizing benefits, so authoritarian methods are OK in that case). She contrasted this to Bush’s ignoring of protests.
———————————————
Looks like Latynina needs a caring boyfriend (girlfriend), so she could stop being hysterical.
“Guys, anybody who is prominent in the media gets death threats, just like most famous people get death threats. ”
I don’t know what percentage of famous people get death threats. Even if your assertion is true and all fairly well-known media types get death threats, the ones in the US (even those who are hated by many) probably feel safer than their Russian counterparts. We can rattle of the name of well-known journos that were assassinated in Russia during the last fifteen years or so. During the same time, how many of their counterparts in the US suffered the same fate?
As for Alfred Adler, didn’t he derive everything from inferiority complexes as the driving force behind our decisions making?
No, the dominant personality type was just one of four personality typologies that he described.
However, Adler was against simply classifying personalities and putting them in a defined box, without any subtleties. Such characterization reduces the aspects that make us all individuals.
In other words, he described 4 personality types, but realized they were not complete definition of all people or even any particular individual. Just as a painter might use red, yellow, blue and white, that doesn’t mean there aren’t shades and blends of all those colors, and more
“During the same time, how many of their counterparts in the US suffered the same fate?”
I dunno. How many?
Anyway, it’s not really relevant to my comment, which is that you’re going to get death threats if you are prominent, mostly from kooks. The NYT gets death threats all the time. BLOGGERS get death threats — just read the comments section of many blogs. Obama probably gets several death threats every day. Journalists get killed sometimes in Russia, so therefore kooks should be considerate and not make death threats?
During the same time, how many of their counterparts in the US suffered the same fate?
Since 1992, three, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. One died in the WTC bombing, another by anthrax, and another (in 2007) Chauncey Bailey, was murdered for his work and activism in Oakland’s black community. Journalists in the US appear to be attacked or harassed more than killed.
Come, Chris. You know what I mean: if its true that both places, Russia and the US, receives the equivalent amount of death threats, then there is more likelihood that a death threat in Russia will result in actual death. To put it simply: it’s more dangerous to be a journalist in Russia than in the US.
Thanks for the data, Sean. Three journalists were murdered in the US since 1992, and let us remember that the US has over twice the population of Russia.
What I had in mind is the number of journos killed because people were unhappy about what they wrote or said. Having that in mind I would exclude the WTC bombing victim: the journalist who died there was not singled out because of his work. According to this criteria then only two work-related journo assassinations in sixteen years. The equivalent in Russia would be only one journalist in sixteen years. I don’t know what’s the real number for Russia, though. 12? 24? Certainly a much higher number than in the US.
I am extremely mild person, but sometimes after reading Chrisius pedantic equivocations even I feel like killing something…
(Oops, was that a death threat?)
“To put it simply: it’s more dangerous to be a journalist in Russia than in the US.”
We all know this, but what does that have to do with the fact that famous people get lots of death threats and that, therefore, Latynina has gotten them?
By the by, as an exercise to illustrate my point, I did a quick google on “death threat,” and within 15 minutes determined that the following people among many others have been targets of them in the past few years.
Catherine Zeta-Jones
Hilary Duf
Britney Spears’ ex-husband
Madonna
Michael Jackson
Sinead O’Conner
That guy who plays Harry Potter
Susan Sarandon
Michael Moore
Paul McCartney
George Clooney
Guy Ritchie
Most of these are, surprise surprise, by obsessed fans or people who don’t their political positions.
I did a quick google on “death threat,” and within 15 minutes determined that the following people among many others have been targets of them in the past few years.
Michael Jackson
::raises hand:: Oh yeah, that was me. Guilty. I almost forgot I did that.
Umm, not to blow a huge (and obvious) hole in your contention … but doesn’t it seem like a death threat against a Russian reporter carries a great deal more gravitas than death threats against American celebrities?
Let’s do the math – a quick count of the number of journalists in Russia and the number of celebrities in the US … divided by their respective body counts over the past twenty years … would indicate that Russian journalists should take death threats much more seriously than American celebrities.
47 Russian journalists dead out of X thousand … versus … umm … one? American celebrity (all I can think of is Dorothy Stratten who was murdered by her ex-husband in 1980.)
Oh wait, I forgot to count Carl Switzer, who played Alfalfa on the Little Rascals. He was killed in 1958. Although, that might have been justifiable homicide.
Oh wait, I forgot to count Carl Switzer, who played Alfalfa on the Little Rascals. He was killed in 1958. Although, that might have been justifiable homicide.
To be clear, even Spanky thought Alfalfa was an asshole.
So did Putin order to kill Politkovakaya or not after all? Did he also kill Lytvinenko? Anybody knows? I also would like to point out that is also dangerous to be positive about Russia in here. One gets constantly harassed and criticized. I’ve been insulted on a regular basis (e.g., yesterday by Shedd).
Does it mean that there is no democracy on SRB?
I wonder.
These are simple “kveschens”, should be easy to answer.
Cheers, RP
“Umm, not to blow a huge (and obvious) hole in your contention … but doesn’t it seem like a death threat against a Russian reporter carries a great deal more gravitas than death threats against American celebrities?”
Goddamnit, are you people misreading my point on purpose? This is getting really frustrating.
I said nothing about relative gravitas (although why an American, or British or Irish if you note, celebrity being murdered is not as bad as a journalist being murdered I am not sure about). I was responding to the suggestion by Pseudodima that Latynina had received no death threats. My response was that of course she has, because she is famous, and famous people receive death threats. They’re like stalkers. You get them.
Pseudodima that Latynina had received no death threats. My response was that of course she has, because she is famous, and famous people receive death threats. They’re like stalkers. You get them.
———————————————–
Of course, and some American Presidents have been killed without threats. What about Martin Luther King?
Have you ever thought, Kolya, that US journalists are more “clever” in avoiding to write something that makes people really “unhappy”?
Could you find examples when of such work? I mean something that threatening some people so much it’s “worth” killing the writer?
In US most dangerous “killers” are … lawyers.
Also it’s just a statistics. You should add US journalists and even locals who were killed outside US when working for US media. In such nice places like Iraq. It was under US control and they were there for US public entertainment. Whilst Russian journalists doing same job but killed in Chechnya were counted as killed …in Russia, weren’t they? It’s just a country specific “phenomena”. Like shooting in schools
So – all this is about effectiveness. In Russia and other “wild” places it’s more effective just to shoot journalist. In other “civilized” places – it’s more effective to buy him. Or kill him professionally. When you are “the star” in NYT – you would think twice…no, no – seven times before “pissing on crucifix”.
I’ve been insulted on a regular basis (e.g., yesterday by Shedd).
Very easy for you to avoid insults. Stop posting ridiculous comments.
‘Cause little man, I’ll bitch-slap you all day long if I happen by and see some of your nonsense on this forum.
I’m actually quite positive about Russia, but I know stupid when I see it. When you and/or ivanov start reciting Russian government rhetoric, it appears as stupid as thoroughly stupid as GOP members saying “here, here!” when George Bush says he has no regrets or when Dick Cheney says he would still authorize water-boarding.
I don’t condone or approve of my own government assholes or many other unjustified or cruel events in the USA – why would I approve or condone of everything that happens (however negative) in Russia? In fact, I’m far more tolerant of the problems that exist within the Russian Federation, given it’s relatively recent creation.
While I think someone like Politkovskaya was far more an activist than a journalist, I think anyone who attempts to excuse or minimize the many murders and harassments of reporters in Russia is VERY FUCKING STUPID. To my mind, it has very little to do with who did or didn’t order or commit such murders – it has everything to do with a government’s failure to institute law and order within a civil society that claims to be free and law-abiding.
There is logical explanation. You just have to compare number of body guards of Politkovskaya and Madonna and do the maths. Is it 0 to 20?
I also don’t remember reporters killed in CCCP
You might be very negative – no problem indeed
I’m trying to stay with facts – whether they are positive or not. I admit I post here mostly positive facts. But this is only because others do a great job in negative posting. Thus we keep this blog rather balanced, don’t we?
“umm … one? American celebrity”
The number of famous people murdered or assaulted in the US is far more than one.
“You just have to compare number of body guards of Politkovskaya and Madonna and do the maths. Is it 0 to 20?”
This is also true. Latynina lives in a gated community with guards and is probably more or less safe.
Thus we keep this blog rather balanced, don’t we?
————————————————
That’s a very good point, Ivanov. If there is only one opinion on this blog it will quickly degenerate into the Brezhnev Russia, with Sean handing out “Orders of Lenin” to the “most devoted commentators”.
Latynina is celebrity.
Politkovskaya was activist.
So killing Latynina would much less worthy (?) than Politkovskaya.
Also Latynina is pissing on so many crucifixes that it would be almost impossible to blame Putin
Very easy for you to avoid insults. Stop posting ridiculous comments.
———————————————–
Shedd,
Have you heard of the expression “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”? Same about “ridiculous comments”.
When I read about “Putin killed Lytvinenko and Polytkovskaya and after that invaded Georgia” I also have to overcome an urge to react most strongly, but I try to control myself. The people reading CNN, Washington Post and Exo Moskvy – don’t know any better. I forgive them and try to present an alternative point of view. My comments are no more ridiculous than anyone else’s.
Also Latynina is pissing on so many crucifixes that it would be almost impossible to blame Putin
————————————————
Ivanov,
Are you implicitly implying that Putin killed Polytkovskaya and is after Latynina now? I think Latynina with her most ridiculous articles is quite welcome by the Russian government. Her writings does no harm – most of the Russians can see through Latynina (i.e., “she needs a boyfriend”). In the West it is another matter …
By other words – they are as fucking stupid as of CNN comments!
Whatever you prefer, Shedd
R. President.
I said what I said – “impossible to blame Putin”. As you well know – everything bad in this world came from Stalin. Now it comes from Putin!
According to CNN, WP and other “experts”. But many talents of Latynina might confuse “experts” in pointing out the “right” zakazchik.
Ivanov,
To echo what you’ve just said and cheer you up
, here is an article by Latynina published by Washington Post (I don’t need to comment, it reads like the magazine “Korea” published in North Korea and sold in kiosks throughout Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s). Enjoy!
Life in Putin’s Russia
By Julia Latynina
Sunday, June 22, 2008; B01
MOSCOW On Nov. 9, 2007, during a special operation in the village of Chemulga, in the republic of Ingushetia, Russian special forces shot and killed an individual by the name of Rakhim Amriyev. Eyewitnesses said that they shot him in the head and placed an automatic rifle beside his body. Then, as dozens of villagers who had run out of their homes looked on, the troops used an armored personnel carrier to demolish a wall of the one-room house where Amriyev lived and announced that he had died in a shootout.
You may ask how I can be sure that things happened this way — that Amriyev didn’t fire back, that he wasn’t a terrorist and that the automatic rifle was planted. I’m absolutely certain — because Rakhim Amriyev was 6 years old.
The most striking thing about everyday life in the Russia of Vladimir Putin (and make no mistake, it is Putin’s Russia, despite the election of a new president, hand-picked by the great man) is the incredible corruption of the courts, the police, the special forces — all the institutions that are supposed to uphold law and order in a democracy and that in Russia today have been transformed into a cancer that’s devouring the state. Consider these further examples:
On May 20, 2005, in Moscow, a car driven by the son of Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov struck and killed 68-year-old Svetlana Beridze as she crossed the street. Beridze, who was in the crosswalk, was hit with such force that she was thrown high into the air and the keys in her handbag were crushed. No criminal charges were brought against the minister’s son, who, his father publicly stated, had “experienced physical and emotional suffering” as a result of the accident. Instead, in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate the dead woman’s family, authorities opened a criminal investigation against her son-in-law, for allegedly assaulting the minister’s son.
Last Sept. 10, Muscovite Natalia Trufanova was driving to her dacha with her family in her old Zhiguli when a motorcade carrying Supreme Court President Vyacheslav Lebedev came speeding down the road toward them, driving in her lane. One of the vehicles in the motorcade tore through Trufanova’s car. Eyewitnesses reported that the head of the Supreme Court kept going, leaving it to his underlings to comb through the bodies and the heap of twisted metal. Without batting an eye, the police declared that Trufanova had “driven into the oncoming lane,” which meant that, if she survived, she could be brought to trial. When angry witnesses started posting video on the Web clearly showing that it was the motorcade that was driving in the wrong lane, the lead investigator looking into the accident said that he didn’t have access to the Internet.
On a rainy September evening a week after Natalia Trufanova fell under the wheel of justice, I witnessed an accident on Moscow’s government thoroughfare — the famous Kutuzovsky Prospect. A silver Lexus, traveling at what looked to be about 90 miles an hour, flew out of the far left lane and crossed four lanes of oncoming traffic, crashing into several cars. As I drove past the scene of the accident, the wind blew bits of crushed metal, pieces of cloth and broken glass along the asphalt; bodies still sat in some of the cars. Within the hour, I learned that the driver of the Lexus was a 27-year-old woman with no known occupation; with her in the car was a deputy minister of economic development.
I learned this from a mutual friend (of mine and the deputy minister’s) named Pavel, who had rushed to the scene. The minister was already dead; the young woman was in a daze, due to either pain or drugs. A police sergeant, cheerfully surveying the pile of bodies the girl had left in her wake, asked Pavel in the most businesslike fashion: “So, how are we going to solve this problem?” Apparently they “solved the problem” — they didn’t even bring charges against the woman.
Strange but true: It’s not only ministers, their wives and their children — as well as their lovers — who are going unpunished, but also high-priced prostitutes, high on cocaine, with important addresses in their little black books.
Crime in Russia is hardly being investigated. In May of last year, the body of 4-year-old Nastia Mokryakova, her throat slit, was found in the woods outside Moscow. What do you think the police told the news media? “The child got lost and died of exposure.” A month later, in the Moscow suburb of Tomilino, some maniac strangled 10-year-old Nastia Butenkova, and the first thing the police did was to say that the girl, who’d been found on a staircase with her pants pulled down around her ankles, may have caused her own suffocation. (A public outcry ultimately led to an investigation of both murders.)
It’s not as though this unwillingness to investigate is limited to crimes whose victims are poor. On Dec. 6, 2007, Oleg Zhukovsky, a prominent banker who worked with major clients of the state-run bank VTB, was apparently killed in his suburban dacha. The killers reportedly tied the victim’s hands behind his back, put a plastic bag over his head and threw him into the pool. Before killing him, they apparently forced him to write a suicide note. “Suicide!” the police promptly declared. It’s hard to believe, but their unwillingness to investigate the death of a high-ranking banker had nothing to do with politics or the state. The police simply can’t be bothered.
Of course, there are some crimes that the police do investigate. They accused an acquaintance of mine of giving $20 million to the leader of the Chechen terrorists. Another person I know was accused of trying to privatize the air space above the Arctic Ocean. Of a third, a prosecutor wrote that his bank was trying to foment a revolution and overthrow Putin. These three suspects all had something in common: They are on the Russian Forbes 100 list.
A fourth acquaintance of mine isn’t on that list. He was simply building a highrise in the southern city of Makhachkala. The local prosecutor telephoned and asked him what discount he’d give him on an apartment in the building. “Twenty percent,” my acquaintance replied. The prosecutor thereupon ordered an investigation that turned the man’s company upside down, then called again and demanded a 50 percent discount.
Is this the legacy of the Soviet past? Not at all. In the Soviet Union, criminals were thrown into prison along with the dissidents. Is it the legacy of former president Boris Yeltsin? There was nothing like this under Yeltsin.
This is the distinctive nature of the Putin regime.
Under Putin, the Russian businessman has been transformed into game being hunted by people in epaulets. Who was the first victim of this hunt? Oil company executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was sentenced to eight years in prison for tax evasion in 2005, and his company, Yukos, which the government dismantled and sold off after his arrest. Who was the hunter? Then-president Putin.
The right to commit crime has become part of official privilege. If the victim doesn’t raise a fuss, no one is punished. If the victim appeals to the public, he or she is harshly punished. The very fact of appealing to the public is perceived as a challenge to the regime. But who laid down these rules of the game? Who never punishes his friends? Putin.
In the republic of Ingushetia, death squads are executing people. They’re being shot in front of witnesses, in crowded places, in market squares, at bus stops, and then weapons are being planted on them and they’re being photographed as dead “terrorists.” In some instances, the crowd has shielded the intended victims. In others, the local Ingush police have nearly beaten the Russian executioners to death. Who’s being killed? Those on the so-called Wahhabi lists. These lists were compiled at the order of the FSB (the successor to the KGB) soon after the Moscow theater massacre of 2002, in which Chechen terrorists took an audience hostage and 130 people died when Russian special forces stormed the theater.
But who ordered these lists to be drawn up? Who would think, to stop the problem of terrorism in the northern Caucasus from spreading, of executing fundamentalist Muslims wholesale, simply for their convictions, not for any crimes that they may have committed? Such an order couldn’t have been given without Putin’s knowledge. In the 1970s, then-Israeli prime minister Golda Meir had those who had taken part in the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics annihilated. But since the Moscow theater incident, Putin has gone her one better — he has even wiped out people who had nothing to do with it.
Each such execution, however, has created more terrorists than it has eliminated, and for all intents and purposes, Russia has lost control of Ingushetia — the only republic where authorities have fully followed the execution order. Who will dare to inform the great Putin, the former KGB man, the courageous hero, who happily sits for photographs in the cockpit of a fighter plane and poses bare-chested on a fishing trip?
In the West, people read that Putin has restored Russia’s power and strengthened the ruling hierarchy. This is the image that the PR agencies he has hired are trying to project. There may not be democracy in Putin’s Russia, they say, but there is order.
Don’t buy it. The Russian authorities aren’t in control of the country — unless we consider their ability to throw any businessman in prison and seize his company to be control. And yet these guys really think they’re strong — and that the measure of a ruler’s strength is the amount of cash in his bank accounts.
latynina@novayagazeta.ru
Julia Latynina is a Russian journalist, novelist and radio host. This article was translated from the Russian by Outlook assistant editor Zofia Smardz.
I wrote:
“To put it simply: it’s more dangerous to be a journalist in Russia than in the US.”
Chris replied:
“We all know this”
and later Chris wrote:
“I was responding to the suggestion by Pseudodima that Latynina had received no death threats. My response was that of course she has, because she is famous, and famous people receive death threats. They’re like stalkers. You get them.”
Okay, clear enough, Chris. I was misreading you.
I don’t read Latynina, mr. President, sorry.
Ivanov,
How can one resist something like this:
“The most striking thing about everyday life in the Russia of Vladimir Putin (and make no mistake, it is Putin’s Russia, despite the election of a new president, hand-picked by the great man) is the incredible corruption of the courts, the police, the special forces — all the institutions that are supposed to uphold law and order in a democracy and that in Russia today have been transformed into a cancer that’s devouring the state.”?
Don’t you think you are missing out? You don’t want to know the REAL truth about “Russia of Vladimir Putin”?
“A former OSCE official in Georgia, whose reporting supported Russian claims about the August war’s start went AWOL, lost his job, is now under scrutiny and Georgia is accusing him of being a spy, the Wall Street Journal reported on December 19.”
http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20161
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122963718776319647.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Ames is sucking Putin off again? (I thought that was Schroeder’s job?).
Anyways, wasn’t aging Mark “cool dude Hunter-Thomsponesque hip gonzo journalist” Ames bitching about how Putin (or was it Medvedev – not that makes much of differences, purely semantics) shut down his his shitty satire masquerading as serious news ass rag paper (which you can’t flush in the turkish toilets since it will clog it up) and then he bitched on how the Western Media didn’t cover this. Yet his whole “career” was spent as an attempt to insult the crappy Western Media and not speak a word on Mr. Putin.
You can’t have it both ways Mr. Ames. You can’t be that guy in your 20s always recycling and jacking off to your “war stories” from 90s Prague or ‘99 Moscow. That crap gets old.
What about Anna Politkovskaya? Wasn’t she a comrade in arms? You don’t write anything on her. I guess it’s just the cynical and manipulative yellow western media trying to bring a story out of nowhere. You criticize the all encompassing “Western Media” and “Western World” as filled with sheeple yet you spew the same jingoistic and nationalistic garbage as any rag such as Pravda.
Ames wrote a whole article about Politkovskaya.
Google is your friend. Ignorance is not.
I have seen the article; the whole point of it was to shit on the Western Media and totally ignore or deflect the circumstances regarding Politkovskaya’s murder (basically: Amerikkka invaded Iraq so Russia can kill it’s journalist. Therefore Russia is better).
What circumstances surounding her murder were deflected or ignored?