Russia for centuries has remained obsessed about its image. It demands and craves respect as a modern, powerful nation, but also struggles with images of what it considers to be embarrassing backwardness. The Sochi Olympics should have advanced Vladimir Putin's plan to move Russia back to the forefront. Instead, even before the first event, it is a public relations nightmare.
The first rule of public relations? Put the best foot forward with the media. That also may be the second, third, and fourth rule. This Deadspin assemblage of reports and tweets puts Russia in the worst possible light. The land of the bear does not come off as strong, resilient, and capable. Sochi is "a hilarious adventure," looking less like competence and more like a bad prat fall flick. London's Daily Mail shows even more horrors, as well as a picture of the Russian president.
A reporter from one of the world's most prestigious sports-only publications must climb out his window because the hotel is locked down.
Another gets a terse warning not to use the water "because it contains something very dangerous." Her picture of the water looks like ginger ale or urine.
Whatever happens next will not unring the bell. When the media of the United States, Europe, and Japan were dumped into accommodations with broken doors, urinesque water, no lobbies, and mysterious bodily fluids, they gleefully reported all the issues. Being reporters, they dug and quickly found corruption, waste, and abuse of power mostly connected back to Putin. With 70,000 workers on the ground, Sochi may well be ready for the athletes. But the media sent home jokes and ridicule.
If Russia wants to break free of stereotypes and establish a better image, it should stop reverting to stereotypical images like Potemkin Villages.
For a nation seeking respect, ridicule is the deepest cut.
The obsession with its image in the West dates back to Czar Peter the Great in the late 1600s and early 1700s. He demanded that Russia modernize along Western lines. Being a very tactile intellect, Peter worked to bring visible changes, such as factories, newspapers, and western styles of clothes.
Peter established some westernism, but failed overall. He did not understand that the successes of the West sprang not from copying others, but from a liberty that birthed inquiry and development. Since then, Russia has vacillated between Slavic nationalism and Westernism, but has only rarely thought to embrace freedom to inspire innovation. It often finds itself playing catchup in the most visible ways, while lagging behind in others.
That is not to say that other countries have even patterns of growth and development. Certainly the United States does not. But most Americans do not see the perception of the world as damaging to economic development or national security in the same way as many Russians.
And Russians have reason to be concerned. They must compete with Western Europe's manufacturing economy, the shale gas revolution in the United States, keep a close eye on an increasingly nationalistic China, and figure out how to spur diverse growth and expand its population. Russia has over twice the land of China and one tenth of its population, all the while holding territory that the Chinese still consider their own. It also has innumerable ethnic groups within its borders, many of whom resent Moscow's rule.
Putin's nationalist bluster covers glaring weaknesses and concerns. So far, the Olympics that were supposed to serve as a crowning achievement have undermined the image of Putin and Russia alike.
Showing posts with label Peter the Great. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter the Great. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
What About Russian Relations? Obama's Lost Credibility
The Kremlin influenced news outlet Russia Today this week compared Obama's foreign policy stature to Vladimir Putin's using a sports metaphor from European soccer (Barcelona versus Wigan Athletic.) It was somewhat kinder that one published earlier here, which compared Putin to the Harlem Globetrotters and Obama to the perpetually fated square losers, the Washington Generals. The Globetrotters simile is more apt. They dominate with panache and style while their ill matched competitors always seem confused and, well, square.
Putin, like the Globetrotters, plays a different game that Obama and those around him cannot comprehend. This is understandable. Putin once worked in the KGB, responsible for some of the most successful psychological operations ever seen. His worldview developed in the context of a global conflict of perceptions with the United States.
Obama's vision has never really transcended Chicago. His politics are Chicago. He surrounds himself with bit machine politicians. Secretary of State, for Obama, is a box to keep one quiet or a reward for prior support. Imagine if Harry Truman appointed Sam Rayburn as secretary of state and only listened to the advice of Tom Pendergast. How many rings would Stalin have run around the Man from Missouri?
Democrats love to accuse Republicans of knee jerking back to Cold War archetypes. And Obama has gotten sucked into the old mano y mano competitions that Nikita Khrushchev employed successfully at times against John Kennedy and unsuccessfully against Vice President Richard Nixon.
That does not mean, however, that Russia aspires to global revolution. Putin, instead, conducts himself internally and externally much in the same way as the old czars of the imperial age.
Russia, since Peter the Great in the early 1700s, has swung back and forth like a pendulum. Peter the Great imposed Westernization onto Russia in the same way that an abusive parent would force a child to eat broccoli. Westernization was good for Russia, but it never fully developed a taste for strong relations with the West. Out of necessity, or the affinity of the leadership, Russia does "swing" towards the West occasionally. Catherine the Great established intellectual contacts with Voltaire and Jefferson. Boris Yeltsin worked closely with Bill Clinton and Western experts to construct a free market Russia among the shambles of the dead Communist Soviet Union.
On the other hand, Nicholas I cut off all contact with the West and Joseph Stalin initiated the Cold War.
The anti-Western turn is a combination of a reaction against the West and a reaffirmation of traditional Russian identity. Russia suffers from an inferiority complex that has led it in the past to assert that most of the world's great inventions, such as radio and telephones, actually came from there. With inferiority comes a craving for respect. And Russia perceives that Western respect only comes from a show of power and force.
Russia also craves security. And why not, after all, it experienced devastating invasions by Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. They prefer to have their enemies far afield and rarely trust professed friends. Russia puts its trust in territory. Keep unfriendly states and alliances as far away as possible while dominating one's neighbors. The Republic of Georgia a few years ago skirmished with Russia. Now they have developed ever closer ties. Belarus seceded from the Soviet Union to escape Great Russia dominance. Now it has devolved into a near protectorate.
Security also comes from international stabilization. The czars despised the idea of any revolution or upheaval against established governments. For example, they warmly supported the United States government in its struggle against the Confederate States, even to the point of deploying warships for a visit to New York harbor. They "helped" Austria in the 1800s by sending in troops to quell a revolt, without that country's invitation. Russia's Syria position reflects this old commitment to what it has always seen as "legitimacy."
Russian foreign relations operate almost entirely on the basis of self-interest. What enhances the prestige and the security of Russia will be pursued. It serves Putin's goals that the United States be raised to the position of antagonist, regardless of what America does or does not do.
Of course the US sometimes plays into anti-Westerners' hands. Criticizing the Chechen War in the 1990s was a terrible misstep. Scolding Russia for its internal developments, negative as they may be, does not advance the US position. Putin's consolidation of power does not threaten the United States, it is not entirely unpopular, and there is little that America can do about it.
Scolding Russia over gay rights and voicing threats about the Olympics does not hurt Putin. It actually reinforces his anti-American message about international meddling. What would really hurt the master of a nation strongly dependent on natural gas revenues is to lift all export controls and turn on as many drills as possible in the US. When the international price of natural gas drops, Russia will be hit. They will also understand that the US can hurt a country without bombing it.
That builds respect. That increases credibility.
Also, make no more mention of anti-gay laws in Russia. Instead, let the gay athletes who will represent the United States compete with class. Jesse Owens and America's Jewish athletes struck a blow against National Socialist doctrines on race and religion by winning events and conducting themselves with honor in Berlin in 1936. They can do the same in Sochi.
No more "resets" can happen under Obama. He has no respect or credibility in the Kremlin. The next president needs to bring people aboard who understand Russia. Then the US can craft a position vis a vis that country that is productive without being subservient.
Putin, like the Globetrotters, plays a different game that Obama and those around him cannot comprehend. This is understandable. Putin once worked in the KGB, responsible for some of the most successful psychological operations ever seen. His worldview developed in the context of a global conflict of perceptions with the United States.
Obama's vision has never really transcended Chicago. His politics are Chicago. He surrounds himself with bit machine politicians. Secretary of State, for Obama, is a box to keep one quiet or a reward for prior support. Imagine if Harry Truman appointed Sam Rayburn as secretary of state and only listened to the advice of Tom Pendergast. How many rings would Stalin have run around the Man from Missouri?
Democrats love to accuse Republicans of knee jerking back to Cold War archetypes. And Obama has gotten sucked into the old mano y mano competitions that Nikita Khrushchev employed successfully at times against John Kennedy and unsuccessfully against Vice President Richard Nixon.
That does not mean, however, that Russia aspires to global revolution. Putin, instead, conducts himself internally and externally much in the same way as the old czars of the imperial age.
Russia, since Peter the Great in the early 1700s, has swung back and forth like a pendulum. Peter the Great imposed Westernization onto Russia in the same way that an abusive parent would force a child to eat broccoli. Westernization was good for Russia, but it never fully developed a taste for strong relations with the West. Out of necessity, or the affinity of the leadership, Russia does "swing" towards the West occasionally. Catherine the Great established intellectual contacts with Voltaire and Jefferson. Boris Yeltsin worked closely with Bill Clinton and Western experts to construct a free market Russia among the shambles of the dead Communist Soviet Union.
On the other hand, Nicholas I cut off all contact with the West and Joseph Stalin initiated the Cold War.
The anti-Western turn is a combination of a reaction against the West and a reaffirmation of traditional Russian identity. Russia suffers from an inferiority complex that has led it in the past to assert that most of the world's great inventions, such as radio and telephones, actually came from there. With inferiority comes a craving for respect. And Russia perceives that Western respect only comes from a show of power and force.
Russia also craves security. And why not, after all, it experienced devastating invasions by Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. They prefer to have their enemies far afield and rarely trust professed friends. Russia puts its trust in territory. Keep unfriendly states and alliances as far away as possible while dominating one's neighbors. The Republic of Georgia a few years ago skirmished with Russia. Now they have developed ever closer ties. Belarus seceded from the Soviet Union to escape Great Russia dominance. Now it has devolved into a near protectorate.
Security also comes from international stabilization. The czars despised the idea of any revolution or upheaval against established governments. For example, they warmly supported the United States government in its struggle against the Confederate States, even to the point of deploying warships for a visit to New York harbor. They "helped" Austria in the 1800s by sending in troops to quell a revolt, without that country's invitation. Russia's Syria position reflects this old commitment to what it has always seen as "legitimacy."
Russian foreign relations operate almost entirely on the basis of self-interest. What enhances the prestige and the security of Russia will be pursued. It serves Putin's goals that the United States be raised to the position of antagonist, regardless of what America does or does not do.
Of course the US sometimes plays into anti-Westerners' hands. Criticizing the Chechen War in the 1990s was a terrible misstep. Scolding Russia for its internal developments, negative as they may be, does not advance the US position. Putin's consolidation of power does not threaten the United States, it is not entirely unpopular, and there is little that America can do about it.
Scolding Russia over gay rights and voicing threats about the Olympics does not hurt Putin. It actually reinforces his anti-American message about international meddling. What would really hurt the master of a nation strongly dependent on natural gas revenues is to lift all export controls and turn on as many drills as possible in the US. When the international price of natural gas drops, Russia will be hit. They will also understand that the US can hurt a country without bombing it.
That builds respect. That increases credibility.
Also, make no more mention of anti-gay laws in Russia. Instead, let the gay athletes who will represent the United States compete with class. Jesse Owens and America's Jewish athletes struck a blow against National Socialist doctrines on race and religion by winning events and conducting themselves with honor in Berlin in 1936. They can do the same in Sochi.
No more "resets" can happen under Obama. He has no respect or credibility in the Kremlin. The next president needs to bring people aboard who understand Russia. Then the US can craft a position vis a vis that country that is productive without being subservient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)