Back in late 2008, when Pajamas Media was still having me write articles on Russia (they’ve since stopped asking, I think, because I wasn’t anti-Russian enough), I noted that Americans and Russians long for the return of the Cold War. Those were the days when “new Cold War” books were all the rage and Russia and American were engaging in some good old proxy warfare in Georgia and Ukraine. In America, Russia was evil again and that was a good thing. In Russia, America was evil again and that was a good thing too. Americaphobes and Russophobes rejoiced in unison.
Enter Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev. Two “thaw” presidents in their respective countries looking to reform their respective kingdoms in the wake of economic calamity. The former called for a “new” America, the latter called for a “modernized” Russia. Both were simply mimicking what their forefathers had strove to do, albeit in their own rhetorical ways. On their respective domestic fronts the “new” America and the “modernized” Russia continue to look like the “old” America and the “backward” Russia.
While domestics alluded them, their tone vis-a-vis each other shifted. The “new Cold War” rhetoric of 2008 quickly went from nostalgia to melancholy with the Obama Administration’s aim to “reset” relations with Russia. The US was looking for some Russian acquiescence in dealing with Iran, and the Russians were looking for investment from the West. The lovefest, while lacking much by way of anything concrete, nevertheless provided the kindle for a warmer atmosphere. The moves made Neo-Cold Warriors look as if they were barking at the moon. Obama and Medvedev consummated their matrimony with a couple of burgers and fries.
Love was in the air. That was until 11 spies were uncovered on the Eastern seaboard. Ten were busted, one flew the coop. Their mission was to gather information that according to most could have been found in the press and on the internet. Most of all, it seemed that the scandal would set the stage for Russia and the US to return to their natural place as adversaries. The Cold War seemed to be on the verge of being back, baby. Career Russophobes like Ed Lucas were off to see how often the word “chekist” could be tweeted. The more zany clocked long hours trying to map the six degrees of separation between Anna Chapman’s Facebook friends as if they revealed some deeper conspiracy. After a brief respite, the Cold War seemed back. Bolsheviks were breeding once again, this time at our neighborhood barbecues.
Then Obama and Medvedev pissed on the parade. The spy scandal was much ado about nothing, the duo assured us; especially since the US Justice Department seemed to not have enough to even charge the ten with espionage. Even the often demonized spymaster Putin laughed off the affair as business as usual.
Nevertheless, though a Cold War redux was dashed, the two-week reality show proved once again that a cultural desire for it lingered. For most people the desire wasn’t for the real Cold War taste with all its accompanying political fats and calories, but a more processed, nay, produced version to titillate our imaginations. For the Cold War gives us something the dreaded Wahabbis never can: to quote Kramer, “The high stakes game of world diplomacy and international intrigue.” Only other white people can do that, and the Russians are just “white” enough.
For a good week it was like old school James Bond all over again. Sexy spy chicks looking to infiltrate the rich and famous, deep cover agents posing a “normal” Americans, aliases, intrigue, disappearing ink, safe drops, secret cables, and spy vs. spy lingo. The American media was overjoyed. Between rerun reporting of the BP oil spill, another Lindsay Lohan meltdown, or the LeBronathon, the spy scandal was a breath of fresh air.
Even the British were eager to jump on the bandwagon. In a desperate move to appear relevant as a nation, the British struggled to worm its way into the performance. MI5 jumped into the fray with its own investigation into the extent Anna Chapman went to honey trap British officials and elites. The security agency even dropped hints that there were at least 500 spies snooping on British soil.
The real exploiters of the spy scandal were the tabloids. They immediately latched on to Chapman transforming her from a sweet Slavic cutie who lived on Facebook and hung out in Manhattan clubs to a genuine scarlet harlot. Former lovers were coming out of the woodwork with tales of hot sex spurred on by pantyless stripteases and the sensual sounds of her Russian accent. All of this quickly culminated in the money shot: Chapman nudie pics. The Russian redhead was now an international star. Even Jay Leno and VP Joe Biden couldn’t help but mention the sexpot. The reinstalled Tonight Show host, better known for bad sickly sweet vanilla jokes, asked the VP on a recent appearance: “Are our spies this hot?” “It was not my idea to send her back. I thought they’d take Rush Limbaugh,” Biden retorted. In all, the Culture Industry couldn’t have orchestrated a better PR campaign to generate interest in Angelina Jolie’s upcoming spy thriller, Salt. A sexy “deep cover” Russian spy plotting to kill the US President? I’m there. All of it showed that almost twenty years dead, the Cold War still packed some potential entertainment punch.
As for the rest of the spy crew, after a string of articles about how the enemy lives among us, interest in them quickly faded. It turns out living a suburban life is pretty damn boring. The only thing scandalous among the suburban spies was how messed up their kids were going to be now that they found out that mommy and daddy weren’t who they said they were. To make matters worse, the US government sent the kids back to Mother Russia, which one presumes would only redouble the trauma. How things have changed! If Russia was still Communist, the young-ins would have been paraded all over the media, igniting a movement not seen since Elian Gonzalez to keep them in the righteous US . They would have been the figureheads for this century’s equivalent to the John Birch Society. But alas, in these post-Cold War times, you’re left to rot unless you’re wearing a burka, and even then you only get your fifteen minutes if an invasion of your country is in the works or a Western friendly “movement” is looking to overthrow your despotic regime.
In the end, the spy scandal had a rather twisted, metatextual but ultimately anticlimactic narrative. It was Ian Fleming, Hustler‘s “Hot Letters,” and the Coneheads all rolled into one. The script didn’t work not because of the content–all the necessary subplots and cast were in place—but because of the drama’s principle producers–the US and Russia–just didn’t pull the trigger, at least not one that would generate a captivated audience over the long term.
The trigger that was pulled was not without a Cold War “echo,” however. The best way for the US and Russia to defuse the situation, put the incident in the past, and move on was to revive a Cold War mainstay: the spy swap. There were over a dozen known spy swaps during the Cold War: actual spies, turncoats, dissidents, and missionaries were traded like baseball cards. Back then espionage was a serious and respected business with a strong code of honor and pride. The practitioners of spy trades conducted themselves cordially with a high sense of decorum, mutual respect, and even affection for each other. Former spy swapper Jeremy Smith told NPR that the negotiations between him and Wolfgang Vogel, his East German counterpart, was like a “dance of two pens” as they tapped the names on their lists of desired agents to get around the bugs in Volker’s office. Smith and Vogel developed a warm relationship despite their adversary positions. They exchanged gifts and for one Christmas, Smith even brought the tryptophan deficient Vogel Butterball turkeys because the bird was scarce in East Germany.
These echoes quickly go faint in the our world of cost-cutting, productivity and profit. There is just no time for the finesse of the past. James Bond would have been downsized a long time ago. If not, his expense account would have surely been drastically cut. Also, this week’s spy swap just had nothing substantive at stake. The integrity of both our respective civilizations was not questioned simply because we are now all part of the capitalist brotherhood. Our differences are mere quibbles compared the world historical duel of the past. The current spy scandal, therefore, was no substitute for the “real” ones of the past even if in our media laden present we are accustomed to mistaking the copy for the real.
Indeed, when it came down to it, the performance of the swap was more important than those being swapped. Just take two of the most publicly recognized figures: Anna Chapman and Igor Sutyagin, the Russian nuclear scientist convicted of spying for the US in 2004. The former turned out to be a very bad spy, while the latter was most likely not a spy at all. Nor did the exchange come amid any secrecy or setting reminiscent of the Cold War. There was no equivalent to the Glienicke Bridge. The world knew the swap was happening before it even happened. Sutyagin’s people went straight to the press when it was announced that he would be exchanged. Someone claiming to represent Chapman announced her impending release on Twitter.
It was no Cold War, though the public seemed happy to relish in the possibility. But like most media sensations the buzz was a far cry for the real thing. I even doubt that Americans and Russians really wanted the real thing. They just like the idea of Cold War. It was exciting and it made our culture, our values, and our nations more important. The world was split between us, our own personal chessboard on a global scale. So what to make of this spy scandal on a cultural level? Was there even a scandal at all? I think the answer to these questions can be surmised from what will surely become one of its iconic phrases: “99 Fake Street.”
This country could also use another Cold War in order to keep from eating itself, its usual M.O. when not united against a dangerous enemy.
Just to say something old and banal, “all great world-historic facts and personages appear twice, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
Just to say something else, “I entreat you, my brothers, REMAIN TRUE TO THE EARTH, and do not believe those who speak to you of superterrestrial hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not.”
“So what to make of this spy scandal on a cultural level? Was there even a scandal at all?”
Yes there was. Medvedev was put in front of “political snakes” in California then put in front of Obama to increase the political effect of the spy sting. The message is clear to both the American and Russian voting public for the upcoming elections:
Medvedev is weak and ineffectual, Putin is shallow and incompetent.
Expect continued political and economic attack on Russia before 2012. The only “reset” is that there *is* no reset.
I tend to believe that the Cold War never really ended. The two countries are keeping the ol’ tradition of not trusting each other alive and well.
Thanks, Sean – I enjoyed the reading .
>idea of Cold War[..] made our culture, our values, and our nations more important.
..perhaps, it also helped to keep the world simple.
Cheers
These echoes quickly go faint in the our world of cost-cutting, productivity and profit. There is just no time for the finesse of the past. James Bond would have been downsized a long time ago.
I have to laugh at your first sneering at the British for trying to remain relevant as a nation and then, a few paragraphs later, referring to our most famous, if fictional, spy. Clearly the UK remains relevant whilst American bloggers try in vain to cite a name of one of their own spies which somebody might recognise!
Secondly, James Bond is an employee of the goverment working exclusively in a government programme. If you think his workscope or expenses would have been reduced in any way you’ve not been paying much attention!
I’m not sure we can view the over-the-top media circus on the spy incident as evidence that the majority of American people really want the return of the Cold War. It was a good story, and of course the media chased it down and beat it to death … did we expect something more from them, like a principled gesture of restraint?
In relative terms, the US reaction is very glib given the reality behind the headlines … It is kind of a big deal that Russia is still running an illegals program inside the United States, and quite reasonably, there are some grounds for objection and fear. Russia likewise has some grounds to be upset over the recruitment of Skripal, Zaporozhsky, or who the hell knows what Vasilenko did … but all this spying seems to have taken place more than a decade ago – not exactly a contemporary threat.
Though the Russian media downplayed this juicy tabloid fodder, in general I think you could find the Kremlin dabbling more liberally in Cold War revivalism. If we look to the last two foreign policy doctrines published by the Russian government, the United States is rather absurdly named as the principal adversary and security threat – it’s conclusive, not suggestive.
I’m in total agreement that there is a amazing and frustrating longevity to Cold War narratives, but we need a better explanation for this beyond the appeal of a “high stakes game of world diplomacy and international intrigue.”
well done Sean. I was personally hoping that the “illegals” program was actually a part of some cutting-edge Russo-American reality show, where the contestants think they are real spies and the FBI thinks they are watching real spies. Would have made for some great television…
James, remember that — Our enemies are dumb: they think that we are the enemies, while actually they are the enemies.
Great post, Sean. A few points: the British may have been “desperate to prove their relevance as a nation,” but it also appears to be the case that the Obama Administration went to London for help on drafting the spy-swap demands. Hence, two of the four prisoners released had been convicted of spying for the Brits.
Also, you say this:
The “new Cold War” rhetoric of 2008 quickly went from nostalgia to melancholy with the Obama Administration’s aim to “reset” relations with Russia. The US was looking for some Russian acquiescence in dealing with Iran, and the Russians were looking for investment from the West.
This is an interesting decoding of the reset, but I don’t think it really matches either the rhetoric of the new relationship or the geopolitical reality behind it. Rhetorically, the reset is all about America and Russia re-examining their national interests and emphasizing areas of agreement. The U.S. doesn’t really need those Bush-proposed missile defense components in Poland right now, the Obama Administration says, so let’s just bracket that whole project for the time being. Russia doesn’t actually want Tehran to get the bomb, the Kremlin admits, so, sure, they’ll sign a few Security Council resolutions to that effect. Moreover, the Kremlin and the White House are able to conclude agreements like New START and Afghanistan supplies transit privileges, to prove how international and diplomatic both Obama and Medvedev are.
In reality, the U.S. remains committed to BMD and Russia is unlikely to ever sanction any kind of military action against Iran. The background geopolitics behind the reset has more to do with America backing off Russia’s European/Caucasian periphery and Russia agreeing reciprocate by not further militarizing the situation (a militarization admittedly [re]initiated by the United States when it expanded NATO into former Soviet territories).
As for investment in Russia, the Russians themselves have always been the biggest road block to more of that. If you’ve ever had a conversation with anybody from the Russia desk of a big corporation, you’ll hear them bitch and moan a lot about property rights and investment confidence — but the bottom line is that they’re always looking to buy and sell more in Russia. All that’s stopping them is Russki red tape and the occasional (temporary) scare of a murdered lawyer.
Love your website – your dissection of the Russophobic wet dream on the occasion of Putin’s supposed inability to recognize Yuri Shevchuk was a masterpiece, and the links were great. I used it as a reference to poke La Russophobe in the eye, especially the photo from the Russian Prime Minister website, clearly showing place cards in front of each head-table guest bearing their names. Presumably Putin can read cyrillic.
I enjoyed your take on it Sean. Nice and level headed.
More Austin Powers than James Bond.
Clearly there is still much of the story missing and as is normally the case with anything to do with spies, it is 5% fact 95% fluff.
It is now reported by the US media that the US was looking for a spy swap a good month before Chapman screwed up, i.e. on handing in the forged passport after her suspicions were raised by the ham fisted SVR posing FBI operative and his handlers. That she then did the worst thing possible and called her dad AFTER she was suspicious makes the mind boggle.
I’m also bothered about the whole ‘sleeper’ angle. Sleepers are supposed to have none or very little contact for what could be decades before being activated. There seems to have been far too much communication so clearly the SVR handlers had either forgotten or ignored the rules of the last 50 years. Sleeper my жорпа!
As for the brits, maybe there is much more of an angle but we are not going to hear about it. The brits are famous for hiding intelligence information for excessively long periods.
I have little doubt that when she came to England and got married (or she put her name on the visa application) her name would have been run through the Foreign Office/Intelligence Service’s database and her dad would have been flagged by the system and she would have been noted as a ‘person of interest’. This would have been shared automatically with US intelligence services.
I also wonder if anyone else was exchanged that both sides have agreed not to publicize. It is certainly possible and we are definitely being denied other information.
In fact, rather than a spat it looks more and more like a well thought out and planned operation. We are also told by the experts that the US came out of this better as they got four high level spies in exchange for 10 amateurs. Then again after the Cuban Missile Crisis we were told that Khruschev backed down in the face of overwhelming US dominance where the reality was that in return the US withdrew its intermediate range nuclear armed ballistic missiles from Turkey, one of the main reasons that the USSR sent missiles to Cuba in the first place! Russia got what it wanted, the US lay of Castro and they got what they wanted and the bonus being the Lourdes SIGNIT base nowadays leased to the the chinese.
I don’t even think it is out of the realm of the possible that Moscow deliberately gave them up directly or indirectly as they were in effect useless (and even worse, expensive to maintain), had become ‘westernized’ and lazy and would probably not return home anyway. The only thing I am sure about is that this is a deeper and longer story than we are being told.
Still, it was fascinating to see the media reaction and licking of lips for a simple black v. white old skool spy story when in reality it never was.
The American public aren’t the only ones licking their chops for a return to the Cold War – Russia today would be just enough of a threat to justify stiffish increases to the already-bloated defense budget.
Otherwise, the whole “scandal” was comical. The “spies” didn’t provide any intelligence (assuming the investigative body actually does know everything) you couldn’t get from reading Newsweek. As you pointed out, they couldn’t even be charged with espionage, as none had any known access to classified material.
It certainly did send the Russophobes around the bend, though. The High Priestess of Tunnel Vision herself (La Russophobe) wrote at length about a “massive network” of spies, and continues to refer bitterly to this insult to America’s freedom-bustin’-out-all-over generosity as if it actually did serious damage.
I imagine you’re also right that there’s much more to the story – it was ridiculous to suggest the authorities had to make the jump when they did because Anna Chapman (delicious!!!) was about to sprint for the exits. So what?? She had achieved exactly nothing as a spy, and the more likely reason for the timing was to embarrass Obama with the Medvedev visit.
Anyway, good story and analysis!
Sean,
Pajama’s Media has been banned by at least one 24 hour news channel one of my insiders tells me. Apollaris (sp?) the ‘owner’ seems to be the reason. Will bring you more when I have it.
Heads up.
No.2 GRU goes to Syria and turns up dead (not as in dead drunk) on a beach in Turkey. Payback?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/russian-general-yuri-ivanov
this is very true guys
http://kaakotech.com