Pravda On The Potomac-1 (What The Washington Post Wrote About Russia In January 2009)

The Washington Post's January 2009 coverage of Russia was impressive: according to my back-of-the-envelope calculation, a total of 27 reports, editorials, and op-eds were published.  Hardly any other foreign country was blessed with such attention.

(Naturally, I'm talking only about topics related to political and economic developments in Russia.  I'm leaving aside travel book reviews, however politicized, another merciless beating of a Russian female tennis player at the hands of the magnificent Serena Williams, or perpetual marvels at the performance of Washington Capitals' Alex Ovechkin.)  

The Post's January reporting was dominated by Philip Pan's coverage of the gas standoff between Russia and Ukraine.  In a span of three weeks, Pan produced a whopping 14 articles about the politically charged conflict, with his first piece appearing in the early hours of January 1. 

Pan is a fine journalist, and his reporting is crisp, informative, professional and (almost) unbiased.  In the future, however, he might be better served with relying on his own research, rather than on opinions of "guest experts" such as Lilia Shevtsova of Carnegie Moscow Center.  In Pan's January 8 report, Shevtsova insinuated that Russia's prime-minister Vladimir Putin was using the gas conflict to "distract" the Russian public from the economic slowdown. 

Pan's last article on the subject was on January 20; the same day, he reported on double murder, in Moscow, of a human rights lawyer, Stanislav Markelov, and a journalist, Anastasia Baburova.

A few staff writers have contributed, too.  Joel Garreau took on Igor Panarin on January 3 (I wrote about this piece previously).  Walter Pincus highlighted, on January 5, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' renewed optimism about the future of U.S.-Russia cooperation on counterterrorism.  Karla Adam reported, on January 22, on Alexander Lebedev's acquisition of London's Evening Standard.  Finally, on January 29, Carrie Johnson told a bizarre story of an imprisoned ex-CIA spy, Harold J. Nicholson,  who used his son to collect $35,000 in "back payment" from the Russian intelligence services.  

Yet, it's not for the original reporting on Russia that the Post has earned its nickname "Pravda on the Potomac."  No, it's the hard work of its editors and op-ed contributors that is maintaining the newspaper's image of a mouthpiece of anti-Russian lobby in the United States.

It didn't take long for the Post to publish its first diatribe of the year.  On January 2, an editorial under the headline "Mr. Putin's Bailout.  As Russia's economy crashes, No. 1 looks out for himself" informed us that the Kremlin's "crisis strategy…is aimed at rescuing one man — Mr. Putin — and banks more on political repression than monetary tools." 

The editorial expressed concern with a new constitutional amendment extending the presidential term from four to six years; it interpreted this piece of legislation as Putin's attempt, "in the near future", to "retake the presidential office before Russians fully feel the effects of the country's" worsening economic conditions.  The logic of this statement baffles me.  I could understand it if Putin pushed for a law allowing him to immediately retire in the Bahamas.  By why would he want to change one top office for another to escape the anger of ordinary Russians?  Besides, being already in the second month of "the near future", it's worth noticing that Putin is still in the White House, and President Medvedev is still in the Kremlin. 

The editorial also criticized — and rightfully so – a government draft law on treason and espionage.  Since then, President Medvedev authorized his administration to dramatically rework the draft.  But don't expect the Post to tell its readers about this apparently insignificant development.

The next day, the Post — as if running out of ideas — suddenly assaulted French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, for showing "weakness in handling Russia" and "kowtowing to Moscow." La voila!  

The Post regained its footage on January 8,  when it compared Russia's cutoff of gas deliveries to Ukraine to Russia's invasion of Georgia last August.  The editorial went on by saying that the Kremlin's "…real aim [of the cutoff] is to advance Russia's aggressive strategy of using its energy exports to divide Europe and undermine those states it still considers its rightful subjects."  Sounds like 2006?  It sure does, and I wouldn't blame the newspaper for that: in tough economic times, recycling garbage makes economic sense. 

The Post's editors weren't done with Russia until January 20, when they used the tragic death of Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova as a reason to spit another dose of anti-Russian venom.  This time, they recycled their favorite list of "victims of the Putin regime."  Although some names on it look familiar — Viktor Yushchenko, Anna Politkovskaya, and Alexander Litvinenko —  the addition to the list of Karina Moskalenko was somewhat surprising, given that her alleged "mercury poisoning in Strasbourg,  France, in October" was a petty accident at best.  Eh, well, the list of Putin's victims can only grow.  Just like kids.

The editorial then made a remarkable confession:

It is possible that Mr. Putin and his security services had nothing to do with any of these murders.

Wow!  What is the point then?  The point is that if you are to believe the Post, Putin had created a "political climate" in which all these real and unreal "murders" occurred.

(That, I guess, begs a larger question: to what extent is a leader of a country responsible for the violent crimes taking place there?  Are we to hold responsible presidents Clinton and Bush for creating a "climate" in which massacres at Columbine and Virginia Tech became possible?)

Russia uber-basher, Anne Applebaum, has added some spice, too, as usual.  She began, on January 13, with an op-ed about the gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine.  Sharing with the Post's editors a habit of not reading what the newspaper's own journalists report, Applebaum first called "exceptionally hollow" claims that Ukraine "is not paying a fair price" for its gas.  She proceeded with a suggestion that "the Russians…wanted the lights to start going out in Bratislava or Brindisi, just to give everyone a scare."   She concluded with a call on the European Union to launch a Holy Energy War against "unreliable" Russians.    

Applebaum's next exercise in creative Russia writing came on January 27, as she set out to criticize "negative…foreign response to Obama's inauguration." Do you think that Applebaum began with her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who joked that Barack Obama's grandfather was a cannibal and ate a Polish missionary?  Do you think that she disapproved of a Polish parliamentarian, Arthur Gorski, who called President Obama "black crypto-communist" and further complained that Obama's election "is a disaster, it is the end of the white man's civilisation"?  Think again.  Applebaum got upset because called Obama's presidency "a sham."  

(Applebaum admitted that she had chosen this quote "selectively."  And I understand why: in a Freudian slip of the mind, she was subconsciously driven to soulmates.)

Then, there was Robert Amsterdam who, on January 27, wrote an op-ed under the tasteful headline "Partners in Crime.  Why Lawlessness Works for Chaves and Putin."  Amsterdam has recently visited Venezuela to attend "a congress of student leaders."  Being apparently unable to resist the urge to boast about his bravery — but, at the same time, eager to maintain his reputation as a Russia "expert" — Amsterdam came up with an awkward hybrid, in which he attempted to prove that the "shooting of Politkovskaya" in 2006 and "510 violent deaths" in Venezuela in December 2008 alone was conceptually the same thing.

Linking Putin to places of Amsterdam's international travel is an interesting approach.  I strongly suspect that should Amsterdam visit Romania, he'll compare Putin to Count Dracula.

The last in line was David Ignatius who, on February 1, presented an account of Putin's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.  Sure, Ignatius reminded us that Putin was "an ex-KGB man", but,  remarkably enough, he did so only after describing what Putin had to tell to the audience.  Let me repeat: Ignatius first described Putin's speech and only after mentioned Putin's KGB background.

A strange man he is, this David Ignatius.   

About Eugene Ivanov

Eugene Ivanov is a PMI-certified Innovation Management Consultant who helps organizations increase the efficiency of their internal and external innovation programs.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Pravda On The Potomac-1 (What The Washington Post Wrote About Russia In January 2009)

  1. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Igor privet!
    Thanks for your comment. I think I was soft on the WP in terms of “tough economic times.” Their recycling of garbage is recession-proof.
    As for Sikorski, a nice NATO General Secretary we’re going to have, aren’t we?
    Please, stay in touch.

  2. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Dear W.Shedd,
    Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
    No, I don’t equate the murder of a journalist with a murder of a teenager at school. I think that killing of an innocent kid whose only “sin” was going to school is much more abhorent crime — and should be less tolerated by any civilized society — than a murder of a jourmalist who recognizes the perils of his/her profession. Go and tell to a mother of a slain schoolchild that his/her death was less “dangerous” because this kid didn’t belong to “a political system.”
    Yes, journalists are part of a political system. In the West. But not in Russia, where political system is simply not mature enough to “include” journalists. Yes, Russia is a violent country where murder is still a very popular way to “do business.” But keeping meticulous count of every killed journalist — with mandatory attempts to make every murder “political” — is not the right means to gauge the maturity of the political system in Russia.
    This is not to say, of course, that I’m not outraged with Margelov’s murder (who, to keep the record straight, was a human rights lawyer, not a journalist). I totally agree with you that Putin’s reaction to the death of Politkovskaya, however mistranslated and taken out of context, was regretful. I totally agree with you that Medvedev’s explanation of his silence about recent murders was bogus. (However, comparing to Putin’s reaction to Kursk…). And yes, the fragility (I appreciate your restraint in choosing this term) of Russian legal system is such that the police will immediately arrest anyone they think the president points to.
    Just a couple of points to keep polemics live. The murder rate in Russia migth be higher than in the US. But the US finds itself in a good company of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea — countires executing people. AND, the US is the only country executing teenagers and mentally retarded. How is that for a compassionate president Clinton?
    “Russia would like to be considered as an equal with the EU, just as civilized, just as cultured, just as wealthy.” Have you got a source, a quote for such a bizarre statement?
    Best Regards,

  3. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Thanks very much.
    It wasn’t obviously my intention to compare crime and punishment in both countries. However, after having read a WP report saying “With more than 2.3 million people behind bars at the start of 2008, the United States leads the world in both the number and the percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving even far more populous China a distant second.” (, I’d be reluctant to throw stones in a glass house.
    As for W.Shedd’s line you also picked up, I’d really love to know why he’s using it in such obvioulsy negative sense. What’s wrong with measuring yourself up to higher standards?
    Besides, comparing to, say, Romania, Russia is already, perhaps, “as wealthy.” And I’d strongly object to any attempt to say that Russians are less “civilized” and “cultured” than the bulk of Europeans. What kind of criteria is W.Shedd trying to apply here in the first place? Literacy? Levels of secondary education? Number of publisged book per capita? What?
    Best Regards,

  4. Igor privet!
    Well, not really. I’m certainly NOT the inventor of the term, and a Google search immediately gives you about 36,500 hits.
    I don’t know the exact reason, but they often date on-line versions a day or two ahead. My guess is that this particular version of the New Republic won’t be updated until Wednesday, Ferbuary 18 (we have a state holiday tomorrow).

  5. I concur with the comments about Mr. Pan.

  6. Panarin’s KGB background is highlighted in that piece.
    How often is Paul Goble’s CIA background highlighted?
    A recent commentary by the latter suggests that Tatarstan might break from Russia away as a result of instances like Turkish President Gul’s recent visit to that Russian republic. IMO, that meeting and its after effects (at least so far) show a healthy relationship of how a republic can carry on within a federalized nation. In comparison, some other countries don’t appear as well. If post-Soviet Georgia had an effecitvely implemented federalized system of republics, Abkhazia and South Ossetia might not have developed the separatist mode.
    Panarin, Garreau and Goble remind me of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Foreign Affairs article of a few years back, when he suggested a Russian Federation breakup. When compared to Brzezinski’s native Poland, Russia seems to have been more successful at attracting others into their national way of seeing things. Russia had an “internationalist” spirit before 1917. In point of fact, no republic right now is seeking to break from Russia, whereas others outside of Russia would like to be reunited with Russia. Refer to the referendums in Pridnestrovie and South Ossetia. It’s within reason to believe that some other areas of the former USSR would express the same desire if given the choice.

  7. Eugene:
    I meant to post those comments under your piece on Panarin.
    No disagreement with you.
    I’ll add that the CIA/KGB hangup can at times be played out. As has been suggested elsewhere, Bush Sr. was put into the CIA as an outsider (non-career CIA), with the view that he could perhaps give a different if not more neutral assessment of that org. Maybe a bit of a stretch: perhaps this is something along the lines of Trotsky overseeing the newly formed Red Army to trouble shoot against officers who were more military/pro-Russia inclined as opposed to being seen as ideologically trustworthy. In Soviet times, I recall it said that a future reformer could come from a KGB background on account of such people having a comparatively better understanding of the actual comparative situations in the East and West. The general gist being that one shouldn’t be knee jerkingly typecast on having either a CIA or KGB background. There’re some seemingly pretty decent analysts out there with such an intell. background.
    I’ll get back to you in a bit on your last set of comments at the most recent post dealing with US-Russia relations.

  8. I’m in general agreement Eugene. Your comments concern what’s relative to the given situation.
    As an example, Pridnestrovie’s government has received a good deal of flack in some circles. For accuracy sake, comparing that government to established Western democracies shouldn’t overlook how Pridnestrovie’s government compares to the governments of other disputed former Communist bloc territories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s