Guardian on Putin's speech

[Michael Denner]

I thought Jenkins' article was very good, very even-handed, unlike the recent Roger Cohen article (from the International Herald Trib)*, which sought, I think, to confirm absolutely every negative claim about attitudes that Putin made in his Munich speech:

(quoting from Cohen): " Putin's portrayal of the post-Cold War United States as a marauding power overstepping "its national borders in every way," igniting a new arms race and imposing an "unacceptable" model of "pernicious" unilateral domination, brought Moscow close - however fleetingly - to the ABC school of international thought. That's the Ahmadinejad/Bashar al- Assad/Chávez school."

And again from Cohen, a bit later:

"The "hyper-use of force" of which you complain appears not to apply to your own scorched-earth policies in Chechnya. Taking as a measure the harshness of violence there, in the storming of the Moscow theater in 2002, and at Beslan's school in 2004, it is legitimate to ask how Russia would have responded to a terrorist attack that took not tens, nor hundreds, but thousands of lives in two major cities. As you recall, Vladimir, we suffered just such an attack."

Oy. So, we're back to the line that Iraq was behind 9/11? Compare that bellicose and incredibly wrong-headed rhetoric with Jenkins':

"All this makes for good realpolitik. But what Putin actually said in Munich reflected not belligerence but puzzlement at the aggressive course of western diplomacy. In the old days, he said, "there was an equilibrium and a fear of mutual destruction. In those days one party was afraid to make an extra step without consulting the others. This was certainly a fragile peace and a frightening one, but seen from today it was reliable enough. Today it seems that peace is not so reliable."

Jenkins' article sent me back to red, and more importantly listen to Putin's speech:

http://tinyurl.com/2zjd2z

Without a lot of retrospection, after listening carefully to the speech, I'd point out that, judging by the pauses and tone, much more of it was off the cuff than is apparent from the written transcript.What's more, Putin is much often angrier and his words much sharper than the translation convey.

*(Now behind a firewall but available if you have an NYT subscription: http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2007/02/21/world/IHT-21globalist.html?pagewanted=print)
 


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
   Dr. Michael A. Denner
   Editor, Tolstoy Studies Journal
   Director, University Honors Program
   
   Contact Information:
      Russian Studies Program
      Stetson University
      Campus Box 8361
      DeLand, FL 32720-3756
      386.822.7381 (department)
      386.822.7265 (direct line)
      386.822.7380 (fax)
      www.stetson.edu/~mdenner

-----Original Message-----
From: Slavic & East European Languages and Literature list [mailto:SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of Elena Gapova
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:13 AM
To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Subject: [SEELANGS] Guardian on Putin's speech

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2017816,00.html

The west may yet come to regret its bullying of Russia

Putin has no interest in a new cold war and is struggling to modernise his
economy. Yet he is rebuffed and insulted

Simon Jenkins in Moscow
Wednesday February 21, 2007
The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------