Because we do not always get the infographics we need, but what we deserve. Or something like that.
We tried to put Pussy Riot, Putin and the West in the juxtapose most familiar to a meme addled society. We think it captures the moment in Russia and the West. Clicking on the image below will produce the full size graphic. Feel free to make suggestions or comments for improvements. We can, as they say, ‘iterate this’ to reflect our consensus.
Putin must be wondering how did it all go so wrong? So fast?
First, demonstrators marred his moment returning to overt power. Putin even cried a bit. Former Finance Minister Kudrin and others broke ranks and seek his overthrow.
Lately, he’s blamed for inept responses to massive flooding and failed rocket launches. Putin’s presidency is now so volatile there’s open speculation how soon he’s trying to oust Medvedev as Prime Minister. Or whether he can control elite factions anymore. Three young women punk rockers as international superstars just rubs it in.
Putin and his collective instrumental base show a political deaf ear and marked clumsiness since his return as president. It’s a common mistake to attribute everything to Putin himself. As we wrote before in the link above, Putinism operationally (as opposed to substantively) is about preserving his role as arbiter.
Within the wider personal and institutional factions, much occurs without him. Either by ‘working towards’ him by anticipating what Putin might want, or operating more broadly, with the ‘better to seek forgiveness than permission’. Corruption is a vital currency. Putin’s long delay announcing his new government underscores the fractious nature of this political ecosystem – and his essential role as arbiter.
So when Putin does act, it is often in broad measures, trying to set systemic guidance by dramatic example. In the past, these actions were carefully choreographed in exquisite detail by Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s former young eminence grise who famously turned Putin into an action figure. Surkov is gone. Asute Russia observers suggest Putin misses Surkov’s shrewd ear to the ground.
About the only surprise from yesterday’s Russian elections are Putin’s tears savoring his long predicted victory. Putin’s victory speech was erratic. If he tried to stage emotion, it backfired.
Famous blogger Alexei Navalny named Monday’s protest “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears” based on the title of an Oscar-winning Soviet melodrama. Ironic use of Putin’s tears fills the Russian Internet from Twitter to Snob.ru. (Putin says the tears came from the wind).
Watch Medvedev introduce the man who took the re-election he wanted so badly himself. Medvedev veers between the manic and awkward unhappiness. 30 seconds into Putin’s speech Medvedev fittingly all but disappears before our eyes.
So what does Putin do next?
Even as America itself crumbles, the American Idea continues to pre-occupy the Continental mind. The EU, the euro and Maastricht all have their roots in early 20th century European fears of looming American power and economic scale – whether the shirts were red, brown or with French cuffs. The Corporal’s solution of forced integration to meet America in the 1950s or 60s as an equal? A variation on a theme.
Due to modern technology and the communication it makes possible, the international relations among peoples have become so close that the European, even without being fully conscious of it, applies as the yardstick for his existence the conditions of American life …
Today, the euro’s brittle weakness underscores the fundamental flaw of that post-war alternative, EU model. Economic integration must be married to the political.
Putin and many Russians have always known this. Indeed, in 1991, had Gorbachev been a better politician, the plan was to replace the Soviet Union with a confederacy of independent states. All those ideas hastily tossed after the botched coup.
Now, Putin openly makes the case for an integrated economic space to achieve the economies of scale and depth necessary to be a viably independent player on the world stage. Putin isn’t trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. Why should he? It failed. His goal is a more modern geo-strategic equivalent. Its starting point? A common customs integration among Belarus and Kazakhstan. Other ‘Stans are expected to hop on board soon according to Putin (and let’s overlook that Belarus suspended participation this summer when its economy stumbled).
There is no talk about rebuilding the USSR in one way or another. It would be naive to try to restore or copy something that belongs to the past, but a close integration based on new values and economic and political foundation is a demand of the present time.
Putin’s concept of a ‘Eurasian Union’ naturally triggers alarm bells across Eastern Europe, in former Soviet republics and even here. The Russian Right, after all, has long pushed for Moscow’s re-assertion across the Near Abroad. The Georgian War is a recent memory. Russian coercive energy politics blatant. Putin, however, is thinking about more than traditional Soviet nostalgia. His views on scale, international order and power are linked to his Continental predecessors from 100 years ago. Putin seeks to have Russia become the gatekeeper and driving force controlling a free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. This is literally his continental answer.
Putting 10 malfunctioning telephone poles [sic] in the ground to appease Warsaw and a radar in Czecho despite local public opposition never made strategic military sense. The hair brained scheme was an important lynch pin for the Neocon’s imperial fantasy. First BMD in Eastern Europe. Then roll back along the former Soviet Near Abroad. Followed by ‘lilypads’ across Central Asia. For a few years as a political construct it worked. The Imperial idea fell apart. Then economic collapse buried it in a heap of hopeless debt. Today’s decision to dynamite this anachronistic AgitProp artifact is a political double plus good regardless of motivations.
We almost never recycle art here. Largely because it is more fun to make new stuff. But this one of Joe from last Fall came to mind reading his stream of consciousness ramblings from his trip around the Russian periphery. (You can set the density of spew in the box and then ‘explode!’)
When CIA-apologist/water boy David Ignatius ran a July column arguing Russia was so weak that America held the transcendent hand in future negotiations we said nothing; better not dignify his AgitProp with additional meme circulation. A futile gesture. Like the swine flu, bad WaPo memes continue to circulate and mutate.
Should the alleged cease fire hold in Ossetia (which as of this writing appears to be breaking down) the Georgian decision to start this conflict must surely rank as one of the most serious regional miscalculations in recent memory. As we all too painfully know, Americans drunk on Neocon Kool-Aid and ‘Freedom’ have never really bothered with details of regional and ethnic histories. Expanding NATO eastwards has always been one of the most provocative yet empty initiatives undertaken — this time not just by Americans but the geopolitically feeble EU as well. Who among us really thinks the U.S. would (or could) go to war over Ukraine? Poland? Let alone Georgia. Sarkozy’s six point agreement with the Russians is about the limit of EU willingness to intervene.
This may be the debacle’s only silver lining; American ill-considered interference in the Russian Near Abroad is not without consequences. Georgia’s misfortune starkly illuminates the consequences of American commitments and pledges of American power — made under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. One can not escape the reality: geopolitical overextensions become hollow very quickly. With real consequences. America was and remains essentially an amphibious geopolitical construct. Throughout history, amphibian power has never successfully penetrated the Eurasian World Island — of which Russia is the heart. Sustained amphibian power — not just ephemeral JDAM strikes — when historically successful, is limited to the World Island’s littorals with clear geopolitically limited (usually defensive) and ultimately temporary presences.
Attempts otherwise did not fare well. India, contrary to British then-contemporary thought (think Victoria’s 1887 Jubilee) , was a net drain on British power, economic viability and ultimately signaled the end of Empire. Crossing the Yalu to engage China in the center of the World Island? In face of signals to the contrary? You know what happened. Even the catastrophic German drag nach osten is essentially a littoral/fringe power seeking to subdue the World Island. Vietnam? Iraq? And so on.
[Read more...]
One has to agree that Edwards’ affair fess up is way TMI. Truly, his statement is bizarre. We’ll let the progressive blogosphere delve into all the angst, betrayals, and consternation. Timing the belated confession to coincide with Olympic opening night is his only good judgment on it so far.
Vlad also took advantage of the Olympics. Multiple security council negotiations are drowned out by fireworks and peoples’ fatigue of fighting in places with difficult names and even more incomprehensible grudges. So are political hacks’ tussling over which American candidate is answering the 3:00 AM phone call. Much easier to bask in Bob Costas’ authoritative discourse on volleyball arcana.
Of the two men, it is no surprise who is more adroit. Soaking in the pageantry and hospitality of America’s landlord, Vlad also gets to declare war while among his peers. (Medvedev? Please. A staffer). Putin also signals without doing so his disdain for and circumvention of the exhausted, palsied American attempts to contain and encircle him.Whether the Georgians began the crisis is – for the moment -irrelevant. Such unexpressed satisfaction there must be in certain circles in Beijing that the world is their stage, the fallen Warlord gets slapped down for his feeble mumbles about ‘liberty’, and then Putin’s (all too predictable) counter stroke.
Edwards? Apparently he still entertains delusions of speaking at an ice hockey arena in Denver.
Is the U.S. sliding into war with Iran? Sy Hersh may be right.
What most Oppositionists and certainly the ‘Left’ [sic] in the U.S. fail to understand is that the EU behind the scenes is on board. Rumblings from Brussels (not just Carla Bruni’s beau) are clearly hawkish. In fact, EU blatantly public worries are that the Crowned One ironically may undercut the UN like the Warlord – here, seeking to use personal charm for engagement while ignoring UN sanctions and other action.
Zbig’s weighing in on all this is getting stale. He needs to retire. His son is a lobbyist and law partner. His daughter is now a blondika version of J Fred Muggs to Scarborough. More importantly, Zbig’s argument that the Iranians sought the bomb *because* of the Warlord is simply specious. (Zbig is often an ass when he writes about things outside the Polish-Great Russian geopolitical corridor — his immature writings on Japan back on the day merely one example). The Iranian program according to most honest observers began to take shape during their war with Iraq.
Interestingly, while this unfolds, a leading Neocon, Jim Hoagland in the WaPo advocates a backhand strategy for Russia. He argues that the Russians are feeling American weakness and are pushing for the rollback of American power across the board. Hoagland is at least sober about in old Sov speak the relative ‘correlation of forces’ and how depleted American assets are under Cher Condi and the Warlord. Instead of the typical cant one expects from Neocons (and Hoagland) of standing firm, promoting democracy, freedom, Georgia in NATO, etc. Hoagland says something different. He offers that we should let the Russians push, until they exhaust themselves. Then he envisions a new equillibrium of punched out American and Russian visions — sobered and weakened. Very much like Manstein at Kharkov in 1943 (hence the back hand label) — although as we all know, ‘that whole thing didn’t end so good’ as the kidz say.
Is Tehran vaut bien un Conférence sur la sécurité en Europe on Russian terms? Would it even buy Tehran? We think not. Yet, oddly, this notion of talking as a strategy — or even accomodating to a rollback — is not too far from what is emerging from the Crowned One’s camp as the framing architecture of his world view and policy.
One must ask therefore if the Crowned One and his retinue understand Power. Sentiments are fine. Lofty rhetoric is a nimbus and neither here nor there. He holds a bad hand thanks to the Warlord et al. But the world is still anarchical and Power still determines how international law, international institutions and international discourse function. How will he achieve U.S. goals balancing the UN, Brussels, Moscow and Beijing with Tehran? If Zbig and the crowd we know tossing themselves at at future Administration are any clue, we truly fear a calamitous Kennedy – Khruschev summit in Vienna. With all the potentially catastrophic misjudgments that ensued. And that is merely one small example of the larger question: what is Obama’s principle about the purpose and role of American power in the world?
That question of course cuts both ways. Domestically, forget for a moment whether he wears a flag pin, ‘she rocks’ or if he says love of America (Amerikuh?) is a given. He has yet to explain and demonstrate to the American voter his vision in practical terms. Similarly, abroad, it is not enough simply to say he will reverse the Warlord’s policies. Across the globe, everyone is asking the same question: does the Crowned One understand how to use and impose Power? Many of those flocking to the banner of Change for appointments do not, in our opinion. Talk as a strategy for buying temporal space can make sense — engagement — if part of a coherent framework that is strategic and furthers both American interests and power (not necessarily identical). Even provocations domestic and foreign (read recent choreographed exercises) can actually be used as tools to make engagement appealing. Nimble opportunism can be a plus if the goal does not get lost. But in the end, it is all about understanding the application of Power. We do not mean the Warlord’s ultimately nihilistic (behind the facade) machtpolitik. The Crowned One’s position is unenviable. So much frittered away thoughtlessly the last 8 years.
We just wonder.
So he is Time’s “Person of the Year”. Its cache long since dead. Do you honestly read Time (or the bulk of it) anymore? Didn’t think so. It hasn’t ‘re-designed’ itself to mimic Entertainment Weekly entirely but it’s not far behind. We get it, flip through (sometimes) and toss – often in one fluid (we hope) motion. Kerchunck.
So Putin must take all of that into account. He (or his staff) surely must know that when the Corporal was “Man of Year”, Henry Robinson Luce strode across the American media — and New York Society — like a behemoth. Even when Gorby won in 1988, Time still meant something.
Today? Joe Klein, like battleships of yore, rages against those mosquito (airplanes to complete the analogy) bloggers. If Time sent Annie Leibovitz, Putin could at least get off knowing that via her camera he joined the immortal ranks of Lennon, etc. The cold plain fact is that “Man of the Year” is less important than People’s “Sexiest Man Alive.” Both in media saturation and utility. At least People gives Putin some entre into studios and first pass on decent scripts. What can Time do anymore?
We could go into a long discourse about Putin’s political choices, not a little bit of American hypocrisy since 1991 and the like, but this is not the time or place. That conversation deserves both seriousness and, well, Henry Robinson Luce. Perhaps we will offer some musings later on. We just note in passing that if Time is irrelevant, so are calls for Petraeus or other minor historical functionaries to receive the ‘honor’. Might as well include Ashley Simpson or the like. Is this year’s choice any different from the infamous “you”? We’ll leave that to others to debate.
Putin has other worries on his mind such as the Russian “Man of Year” curse. Since he won in 1988, Gorbachev proved himself largely incompetent domestically but useful geopolitically to the Americans. (Baker’s coup de main bringing the entire intact Germany into NATO a historic diplomatic achievement (although Cher Condi may have written an article about it years later). At least Gorby knows that along with Schevardnadze he helped end the Cold War and the threat of global incineration. Today he hawks Louis Vuitton hand bags.
Vlad, don’t look down it’s a long long way to fall. We don’t see Putin doing Louis Vuitton. Or any of the Xtreme sports stuff. A Bentley anyone?
@RussianSpectrum So you say. Either way it is an attempt to mainstream odious and dubious memes. @KolyaV Site infects retrograde Putinist tripe.
“@RussianSpectrum: The Red Army "Rape of Germany" was Invented by Goebbels http://t.co/Ofj6yZHnZQ” Bullshit.
“@RussianSpectrum: The Red Army "Rape of Germany" was Invented by Goebbels http://t.co/Ofj6yZHnZQ” @seemakalia Breathtaking. MSNBC Prime Time lineup.
“@UOJim: A: Yes. RT @XinJeisan what is a definition of "terrorism" used for? Policy, legal, cultural?” 
Rigging would require the Boy King and Democrats have a plan.
Officers are concerned that public revelation of the CTC (Counterterrorist Center) program will seriously damage Agency officers’ reputations, as well as the reputation and effectiveness of the Agency itself . . . According to a number of those [analysts] interviewed for this Review, the Agency’s intelligence on Al-Qa’ida was limited to prior to the initiation [...]
While the New York Review of Books offered their urbane gloss on things Zuccotti Park and you, Dear Reader, may be in the City to observe for yourselves, we turn to the twin occupy efforts in D.C. for a glimpse. The twin D.C. outposts present a unified facade to the casual inquirer, but pushing separate [...]
Recent Comments