Nina Khrushcheva has a new op/ed in the IHT taking on Putin's Russia from a literary analysis:
In Gogol's Russia, which is also, sadly, Vladmir Putin's Russia, individual needs are neglected, the state's needs are overstated, and everyone is condemned to a life of cheating and stealing, consoling themselves that, while there is no justice, they are at least part of a great country. ..."We take from the West what we want," goes this way of thinking, "but we won't allow their values imposed on us." In other words, "We'll take Nokia cellphones, but gay parades in the center of Moscow we will crush." When I hear this kind of talk I want to scream back: "Cellphones and street marches go hand in hand - they are both part of the freedom to think, to communicate and to act."
So, how does Putin's Russia answer the question of what is to be done? It uses news broadcasts, entertainment programs, billboards and even childrens' cartoons to remind everyone that Russia is great.
Subway loudspeakers recite poems about the country's greatness. Posters call for strengthening the military.
Uniforms are in and patriotic youth organizations such as Nashi (Ours), successor to the Soviet-era Pioneers, are on the march. The economy is great, Gazprom is great, the military is great, Putin is great: The empire remains ours.
...
The classics of Russian literature should make us proud - their words have proven durable. But wouldn't Russians rather see their nation step out of the dreamland of fiction and start living in modernity, not in some imagined greatness?
| Permalink
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Comments (3)
And, the news continually highlight how Russia will be even greater in the future.
This can be ascertained simply by skimming through the news report on the Russian News and Information Agency: rian.ru.
Some of the headlines: "Russia should increase aircraft production by 2025." Here Putin insists that "Russia should produce 300 passenger airliners annually and double production of military aircraft by 2025, the Russian president said Saturday." Here Putin is projecting about what Russia "should" be producing almost a generation from now.
"Russia to build fifth-generation fighter prototype soon" according to RIAN.RU. How do you define "soon"? The article writes how "Russia will soon start construction of a prototype fifth-generation fighter plane, Air Force Commander Alexander Zelin said Wednesday." In other words, they have developed a design on paper, yet the artice affirms that "Russia's fifth generation fighter will take to the skies by the end of 2008." In other words, they will go from paper design fully functioning plane in a little over a year? Seems like somebody is living a a dreamland!
Or, there is this article: "Gazprom could become world's richest company-Medvedev" Again, why put so much emphasis on things that "could" or "should" happen or vague promises as to what "soon" will happen?
The answer in my opinion is quite simple. It is difficult to argue for Russian greatness on what "is" but it is possible to argue that one day Russia will be the richest and the greatest. This is nothing new: the Soviet Union always foretold about the eventually coming of Communism and how history was on its side...
Posted by Michel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.robertamsterdam.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
Posted on August 11, 2007 19:35
Interesting points. However I think it's important to recognize that the potential of Russia to exceed is unparalleled - it's just that the state constantly gets in the way of their people.
Posted by Robert Amsterdam![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.robertamsterdam.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 13, 2007 3:59 PM
Posted on August 13, 2007 15:59
I agree that there is much potential, and you are right in that the state constantly gets in the way. However, the goal of focusing on the distant future and the greatness that it will bring is simply a means to justify present policies. I would say that this is a very subtle form of propaganda: the future will be great because we have such a strong president in the present. If another leader was at the helm, then of course the future would not be so bright. The same logic existed in Soviet times: everybody waited for the arrival of Communism and the wonderful life that would mean for the Soviet Union.
Posted by Michel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.robertamsterdam.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 13, 2007 4:14 PM
Posted on August 13, 2007 16:14