Russia House

editorial

2014-04-18
Ukraine, Through the US Looking Glass

By Robert Perry
More Information...
2014-04-17
Stratfor's Second Quarter Forecast 2014

Stratfor, USA
More Information...
2014-04-16
How to Save Ukraine.
Why Russia Is Not the Real Problem.

By Keith Darden
More Information...
2014-04-15
America's Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953
U.S. efforts to overthrow foreign governments leave the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful.

By Nicolas J.S. Davies
More Information...
2014-04-13
Seriously, What Did You Expect Russia to Do?

By Edward Lozansky
More Information...
2014-04-13
Ukraine Learns the Problem With Revolutions

By JAMES CARDEN
More Information...
2014-04-05
U.S. double standards

By John Cherian
More Information...
2014-03-30
The Enemy We've Been Waiting For.

Vladimir Putin could be the perfect gift to an American president desperately in need of a foe.

BY JAMES TRAUB
More Information...
2014-03-25
U.S. Take Note: Russia Is Back as a Global Power

By Edward Lozansky
More Information...
2014-03-13
Is there a way out of Ukrainian crisis?

By Edward Lozansky
More Information...
Russia House

2012-05-10

Stop the pointless demonization of Putin

Stephen F. COHEN, professor of Russian studies at New York University

American media coverage of Vladimir Putin, who today began his third term as Russias president and 13th year as its leader, has so demonized him that the result may be to endanger U.S. national security.

For nearly 10 years, mainstream press reporting, editorials and op-ed articles have increasingly portrayed Putin as a czar-like autocrat, or alternatively a KGB thug, who imposed a rollback of democratic reforms under way in Russia when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He installed instead a venal regime that has permitted corruptionism, encouraged the assassination of a growing number of journalists and carried out the killing of political opponents. Not infrequently, Putin is compared to Saddam Hussein and even Stalin.

Well-informed opinions, in the West and in Russia, differ considerably as to the pluses and minuses of Putins leadership over the years my own evaluation is somewhere in the middle but there is no evidence that any of these allegations against him are true, or at least entirely true. Most seem to have originated with Putins personal enemies, particularly Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of his policies or, in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of Putins Russia.

Even the epithet commonly applied to Putin is incorrect. The dictionary and political science definition of autocrat is a ruler with absolute power, and Putin has hardly been that. There are many examples of his need to mediate, sometimes unsuccessfully, among powerful groups in the ruling political establishment and of his policies being thwarted by Moscow and regional bureaucracies. Moreover, if Putin really were a cold-blooded, ruthless autocrat, tens of thousands of protesters would not have appeared in Moscow streets, not far from the Kremlin, following the December presidential election. Nor would they have been officially sanctioned as were the thousands who gathered yesterday before a small group breached the sanctioned lines and violence ensued or shown on state television.

But consider the largest, and historically most damning, accusation against Putin. Russian democratization began in Soviet Russia, under Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1989-91. De-democratization, as it is often called, began not under Putin but under Yeltsin, in the period from 1993 to 1996, when the first Russian president used armed force to destroy a popularly elected parliament; enacted a super-presidential constitution; privatized the former Soviet states richest assets on behalf of a small group of rapacious insiders; turned the national media over to that emerging financial oligarchy; launched a murderous war in the breakaway province of Chechnya; and rigged his own re-election. (On February 20, outgoing president Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by finally admitting that Yeltsin had not actually won that election against the Communist leader Gennadi Zyuganov.) Putin may have only moderated those fateful policies, but he certainly did not initiate them.

The catastrophic Yeltsin 1990s, which have been largely deleted from the U.S. media narrative, also put other anti-Putin allegations in a different perspective. The corruption rampant in Russia today, from seizures of major private investments to bribes demanded by officials, is a direct outgrowth of the violent and other illicit measures that accompanied privatization under Yeltsin. It was then that the swindlers and thieves denounced by todays opposition actually emerged.

The shadowy practices of that still-only-partially reformed economic system, not Kremlin politics, has led to the assassination of so many Russian journalists, most of them investigative reporters. The numbers, rarely cited by era, are indicative. According to the American Committee to Protect Journalists, 77 Russian journalists have been murdered since 1992 41 during Yeltsins 8 years in power, 36 during Putins 12 years.

The exceptionally vilifying charge that Putin has been behind the killing of political opponents focuses mainly on two victims the investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot to death in Moscow in 2006; and a reputed KGB defector, Aleksandr Litvinenko, who died of radiation poisoning in London, also in 2006.

Not a shred of evidence or an element of logic points to Putin in either case. The editors of Politkovskayas newspaper, the devoutly anti-Putin Novaya Gazeta, believe her killing was ordered by Chechen leaders, whose human-rights abuses were one of her special subjects. And there is no conclusive proof even as to whether Litvinenkos poisoning, despite the media frenzy and rupture in British-Russian relations it caused, was intentional or accidental. (Significantly, Scotland Yard still has not released the necessary autopsy report.)

In other circumstances, all of this ritualistic Putin-bashing would be merely a cautionary example of media malpractice, an anti-textbook for journalism schools. But it has made Putins Russia toxic in Washington, in both political parties and especially in Congress, at a time when U.S. national security requires long-term cooperation with Moscow on vital fronts: from countries and regions such as Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and the entire Middle East to issues such as nuclear weapons reduction, stopping nuclear proliferation, and preventing terrorism.

In all of these regards, the relentless demonizing of Putin makes rational U.S. policymaking all the more difficult. Mitt Romneys recent assertions that Russia is Americas number one geopolitical foe and that Moscow has made no meaningful concessions seem to reflect widespread ignorance or amnesia. Are U.S. policymakers aware of Putins extraordinary assistance to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan after 9/11, his crucial help in supplying NATO troops now there or his support for harsher sanctions against Iran? Do they know that for these and other pro-American concessions he is viewed by many Russian national security officials as an appeaser?

Many years ago, Will Rogers quipped: Russia is a country that no matter what you say about it, its true. Evidently, it is still true, but its no longer funny.

"Reuters"