Czar Vladimir's charms
by George Jonas
National Post
January 6, 2010
Governments routinely plant stories with friendly media. Journalists don't even have to be particularly partisan or naïve (though it helps) to pick up intentionally leaked items, treat them as scoops, and disseminate them more or less uncritically. It's one reason people caution you not to believe everything you read in the paper.
For The New York Times last year, "all the news that's fit to print" included strategic leaks from the Obama administration. The new year is only a baby, but an item already has made its way through the digestive system of the liberal food chain to the pages of Israel's Ha'aretz, indicating that the practice is all set to continue in 2010.
"US: Unrest in Iran opens window for immediate sanctions," proclaims Ha'aretz's headline. The opening paragraph explains that an "administration official" told The New York Times that the unrest in Iran makes the Iranian government especially vulnerable to "swift and serious sanctions."
Gee whiz. Who would have thought?
This bit of malarkey seeks to accomplish two things. One, it tries to reassure the world, especially Israel, that unrest in Iran hasn't escaped the Obama administration's notice. Washington's muted response may make it look as if it had, but it hasn't.
Two, it seeks to explain why the White House hasn't been pushing for swift and serious sanctions before. Some probably thought the President was dragging his feet. Perish the thought. No, it's just that Iran wasn't sufficiently vulnerable to sanctions. Now that it is, watch the fur fly. Should Iran's hostile government collapse altogether as the result of internal unrest, the Obama administration will apply swift and serious sanctions against it without delay.
The White House's leak into the Times goes through the mainstream press like breakfast through a goose. Progressives of the world, take heart: Super-President Obama is on the ball. Once a hostile regime becomes vulnerable, he'll boldly talk about applying sanctions, and once a hostile regime collapses, apply them he will. And not only that, but he'll consider closing the barn door, too, as soon as the horse has bolted.
Next topic.
Is Russia a friend or a foe? A friend, if you ask Vladimir Yakunin, president of the state-run Russian Railways. He proposes to link North America with Russia by rail. In a recent interview with Britain's Sunday Express, Yakunin expressed the view that a 64-mile tunnel under the Bering Sea could be built within the next 10 years.
Yakunin may sound like a dreamer, but the thing to remember about the 61-year-old functionary is that he's Czar Vladimir's buddy -- Vladimir Putin, that is. Building a tunnel under the Bering Sea to link Vladivostok and Washington may sound far-fetched, but an 18th-century Czar's dream to build a European city in the northern swamps of his realm sounded far fetched, too -- yet behold St. Petersburg.
What is it about ex-president and current Prime Minister Putin, Russia's macho, dour, shrewd, athletic, sinister and faintly ridiculous ruler that appeals to Russians so much?
Is Russia less of a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in a mystery than it was when Winston Churchill described it as such? Nearly two decades after the implosion of the Soviet empire, are Russians moving towards a democratic future or an autocratic past?
What kind of people would we encounter in Russia? Would we meet heroic defenders of a historic homeland, courageous dissenters, magnificent storytellers, superb musicians, inventive scientists and kindly, self-sacrificing souls? Or would we bump into thieves, drunks, snitches, corrupt officials, pettifogging bureaucrats, cruel oppressors and merciless mafiosos?
The answer is all of the above, like anywhere else; except in Russia, they may be rolled into one person.
From a land of drab poverty, Russia metamorphosed into a land of drab poverty with a veneer of lavish, even decadent, luxury. In addition to a near-Houston-style entrepreneurial spirit and a near-Calcutta-style disparity of wealth, what strikes today's visitor to Moscow is an inexplicable nostalgia for the past. One sees it in books, pop music, theatrical performances, even items of apparel. Older people go to concerts wearing their Soviet-era medals. It makes travellers wonder: If Russians miss their old system so much, why did they change it?
The probable answer is that Russians don't miss their dysfunctional Communist system; what they miss is their Soviet empire. They aren't nostalgic for a Gulag society of shoddy scarcity; they're nostalgic for being citizens of a superpower. What they see in Czar Vladimir is a potential of regaining their former dominance while retaining capitalism's blessings. Call it a Sinofication of Russia.
Russians aren't yearning for fewer consumer goods or less liberty -- they aren't stupid -- but as patriots (chauvinists, really) they can't adjust to their loss of empire with perfect grace. Or even as much grace as the British. Russians want respect.
Yakunin dreams of linking America and Russia by rail, but grumbles in his interview about Western forces in Afghanistan. Putin's pal believes it's arrogant of us to think we can succeed where Russia failed. (He may be right, too -- but that's for another day.)