Damn! Right after I vowed to continue keeping my political beliefs to myself, I am forced to amend the previously made statement thanks to the recent numbers pulled by the wonderful periodical named the Economist. So in the light of such events I will have to make a slight amendment to the effect that I will abstain from pushing my otherwise rigorous and vocal political agenda on this blog, unless it’s somewhat related to foreign affairs, especially when my target happens to resemble the general form of "stupid."
The truth is, my outrage has been brewing for quite a while, starting with the unfair coverage of the Russian-Georgian conflict of the past summer by the “Western” media. Back then the Economist posted the more or less decent stuff on the subject, such as this or this. But then about a month ago this happened, and then there was this, which was not only poorly researched and all over the place as far as articles go, but also displayed lack of any substantial knowledge and understanding of what has been happening in the entire region of the Caucasus for the past few decades or so. It also insulted me, like it would insult any other person either from the region or possessing any knowledge about the region or having any interest whatsoever in the stability of the region. Those of you who’d like to witness a transnational virtual conflict that erupted after the above referenced articles are encouraged to read the Comments section that follow this particular piece.
Given the fact that I wasn’t really all that enthusiastic to discuss the events of the past summer beyond what I had already said, I thought I would simply let my issues go, especially when considering the otherwise long and loving relationship that I’ve had with the Economist so far. But my outrage was more than doubled after the relatively recent blurb that the Economist posted on relatively recent events of the presidential elections in the United States and the first state-of-the-nation address of Dmitry Medvedev to Russia (which by whatever coincidence or conspiracy, as the Economist claims, happened to follow one another). And of course, it pushed me over the edge.
Dear Economist, please help me make this clear - are you suggesting that the internal events of one state should be coordinated in such a way that they do not interfere with the internal evets of another state? Is it just me, or the mere suggestion stinks of absurdity? By the same token, all historic and other considerations aside, why exactly should Obama’s acceptance speech have been expected to be televised in Russia? When was the last time any of Russia’s presidential speeches were broadcasted to the American public? Besides, would you rather they turned it all around and covered the US elections for the allotted 45 minutes of broadcasting, leaving Mr. Medvedev only five minutes to address his nation for the first time since he took the office?
As for the content of the speech – leave it to the Russians to judge and please bear in mind that the popularity ratings of both Mr. Medvedev and his predecessor have always been and remain significantly higher among the Russians (compared to those of the current president of the United States.) Plus the former enjoy an advantage of being able to communicate in distinct, grammatically correct and quite meaningful utterances that they call sentences. Speaking of which - don’t you think that there may be a better, perhaps a more grown up adjective to describe Mr. Medvedev’s speech besides “belligerent?”
And please, please, leave democracy aside. It makes me sick in the stomach every time someone brings the magic bullet word up, since we all know that this is not what it is about and has never been, especially when it is becoming increasingly clear that “[m]aking criticism of Russian democracy a strong theme of […] foreign policy no longer enhances respect for either democracy or the United States in Russia.”*
See, dear Economist, it’s not like I have any vested interest in Russia itself or am particularly anti-American. I’m just anti-stupid, and this particular article (which I can’t label as anything but “retarded”) shrinks you to the level of dirty tabloids that would publish anything to make a splash. I mean, there is bias, but then there is well-researched, well formulated and well argued bias and it is the latter that will earn you the cool points.** Unless, of course, this all is a part of a grand scheme of pushing another kind of fear-infused agenda (one of the comments, I shit you not, was “Russia scares the hell out of me…”), and fear, in its all shapes and forms, has been a highly coveted commodity in the political world as of late, as Mr. Colbert recently mentioned.
With all due respect, you’ve got to be higher than that.
P.S. For those who may be interested in a better researched, better formulated and more level headed account of past and present challenges as well as the shaping of US-Russia relations, I recommend Charles King's essay sited below (read preview here)
* Chares King. The Five Day War: Managing Moscow After the Georgia Crisis. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2008. p. 22.
** There is also, so I hear, the omitted variable bias, but that is usually left to be discussed in modern econometric courses.
No comments:
Post a Comment