In America and now to a greater extent in Europe, such ‘idiots’ have no shame about initiating law suits for damages for, well, having done something idiotic. The most typical example that springs to mind is the warning on McDonald’s take-away coffee containers that the coffee inside is indeed quite hot.
But disclaimers can also serve a different purpose – that of providing necessary, sometimes counterintuitive information. My disclaimer, for this discussion, is that I am not a supporter of President Putin. He lost my cautious, conditional support when he executed what in chess terms is known as ‘castling’ – switching the king’s and rook’s positions simultaneously. In Russian, the term is ‘rokirovka,’ which sounds much too enticing and enjoyable for its devious significance. You’ll recall how, in one deft and cynical move, the president became the prime minister, and the prime minister the president, again. Taking this important matter before the Russian people suddenly became an afterthought.
But for perhaps the first and last time, I really feel sorry for Pres. Putin and for Russians in general. Putin is trying to position himself as the Russian Kemal Ataturk as opposed to name-your-Arabic fleabag dictator. In his vision – which I no longer share – Mr. Putin sees himself wearing the mantle of Stolypin, Rodzianko and Kerensky. Let history judge this question.
Clearly, Mr. Putin has much more credibility ground to cover with the Russian electorate – if, that is, he is really trying to win the war against traditional Russian cynicism and defeatism – which must be overcome by changing not his image – no one really cares how many wild animals he hunts with sleep-inducing darts – but rather his political record.
To step back and take in the big picture, Russians have never had it so good – by all relevant political, economic and social units of measure – than here and now. The Firebird is indeed reborn. So there appears to be a real backlash – a genuine boomerang effect – to the coordinated campaign by Western governments and media to cast the Sochi Games as Putin’s Olympics, and to ensure overwhelmingly negative coverage.
Watching CNN, the coverage is either alarmist – about separatist terrorism and the Ukrainian meltdown, as though events in Kiev have some relevance to Sochi – or condescending and even sneering – focusing on the more than USD50 bln. price tag for the Olympic village – on how the Russian effort to build essentially a new city in Sochi could not be accomplished for a song. For the Western journalistic elite, the point seems to be to find a reason or excuse for filing yet another downbeat story about the Sochi Olympics. (For the record, I remain dumbstruck by how few name-brand Western journalists in Moscow – whether representing the televised or print media – have a genuinely working knowledge of the Russian language. But that’s for another blog.)
For the vast majority of Russians, these Olympic Games are designed to show that Russia as a nation is back on its feet – once again, a major international player. For them, Putin is not the issue. And for precisely these reasons, the United States diplomatic apparat launched a heavy-handed campaign to ensure that no major Western, NATO-affiliated leader would attend the Sochi games. Gay rights? Perfect. Let’s go with that. By the way, Mr. Obama’s personal epiphany as to the inviolable nature of homosexual unions occurred well into his first term as president. How very convenient.
To extrapolate just slightly, a credible case could be made – if this is indeed a personal vendetta – that Mr. Putin is being punished for playing a deft and perhaps winning hand in Syria and Iran. Mr. Obama seemed to be thoroughly enjoying his drones, but Mr. Putin spoiled his fun.
Final point: Shifting focus to the Ukrainian situation, we have been treated to the absurd spectacle of senior American diplomats and legislators making repeat pilgrimages to the barricades of the strident Maidan opposition – exclusively, and not via the presidential administration – to agitate that Russia should not interfere in the domestic affairs of its Ukrainian neighbour. How would the United States Government respond if the Russian presidential administration and Duma parliamentarians sought to exploit similarly divisive civil unrest in, say, Mexico or Quebec? Can you imagine the furor?
My cause is neither Mr. Putin nor his immediate circle of the oil-bloated elite, but rather balance and reciprocity. With Russia now putting her best, most hospitable foot forward, are US political leaders incapable of understanding that using this opportunity to settle scores with Mr. Putin is seen as an affront to the newly vibrant Russian nation as a whole? Apparently.