Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Kremlinology

In Yezhednevnyi Zhurnal, political correspondent Alexander Golts writes (Russian, my quick tr.):
The work of a political journalist in Moscow increasingly resembles the work of the Western kremlinologists of Soviet days. It was built on the fact that not even the Soviet propaganda apparatus was able to falsify the entire flow of information about the country. The kremlinologist’s task consisted in endlessly correlating data and restoring the truth by following indirect signs… In this connection I highly recommend www.kremlin.ru (the official presidential site). Its editors do not rest at allowing themselves to correct the speeches of the American resident. They also boldly correct the interviews given by Vladimir Putin himself. To take just one recent example – the interview given to the American television company Fox News. The American journalists were trying to put what for them was the most important question in such a way that Putin would have to give a perfectly straight answer. Presenter Chris Wallace reminded Putin of the American President Sherman, who said that if he was nominated for the presidency he would not take part in the election campaign, and that if he was elected then he would refuse to work.

"Can you say the same thing about your presidency in 2008?", asks the presenter.

"You want me to give a blood oath and repeat for the hundredth time what I’ve already said 99 times. I think I formulated my answer to the previous question rather clearly. That is enough," says Putin, trying to avoid answering, and showing irritation.

"So you won’t run for election?" - says Wallace, trying to make the most of this.

And in reply gets what he wants: “I’ve already given you my answer. I will not.”

But now, take note. The presidential site gives a completely adequate translation of the interview. With the exception of one moment. Putin answers "I will not" to a question which Wallace did not put. "So you won’t run for election for the next term?" – this is how the question appears in the Kremlin transcript.

You must agree, this correction, if it was made consciously, may tell us many things. For example, about Putin’s intention of Putin return to power with the aid of some trick. Let us say, to let someone else be elected, and then find (or create) a pretext for holding elections and to be elected himself - and formally that will not be for the next term. After all,Vladimir Vladimirovich is so very fond of holding on to the literal meaning of words. For example, he promised not to bankrupt YUKOS - and did not make it bankrupt. But not to sell the company’s most profitable asset to a certain one-day firm: that he promised no one.

In any other country the liberties which the editors of the presidential site permit themselves would not pass unnoticed – there would be a scandal. The President would be forced to state unambiguously, once and for all, whether he was going to remain in power (whether in the post of the President or in some other capacity, it doesn’t matter) or not. Only not in Russia. One additional similarity between Russian journalists and Western kremlinologists consists in the fact that no matter what sensational facts they reveal, it will in no way change public opinion in the country.

And Golts concludes:

[Putin’s] reputation in the foreign press (with one or two exceptions) cannot be damaged any further. Everyone is certain that he is an authoritarian leader. But Putin is safe in the knowledge that this has absolutely no effect on the ceremonial side of his relations with Western leaders. They haven’t kicked him out of the G8, they will go on buying the oil and gas. Well, and they will wash their hands immediately after the handshake – but we are not that proud. At spy school we were taught all kinds of things.

No comments: