Vladimir Putin is TIME magazine’s Person of the Year for 2007. To accompany their cover photo, which is remarkably suggestive of Lord Voldemort, editors Richard Stengel and Adi Ignatius made a special trip to Moscow to provide us with their trademark up-close-and-personal assessment the man.
Among the many verdicts they render, however, there is one that just does not ring true. “Putin,” they write, “is sardonic but humorless. In our hours together, he didn't attempt a joke, and he misread several of our attempts at playfulness.”
Not funny? Not playful? Putin? I think his G8 colleagues would beg to differ! Recall the summit in Scotland, when Schroeder casually remarked of the Brits: “You can’t trust people who cook as badly as that,” to which Putin deftly added, “but what about hamburgers?”
Or the summit in St. Petersburg when, after acknowledging the accolades of his guests, Putin added, “My next big goal is to find a way that Jacques Chirac won’t complain about the food.” And who can forget Putin’s inimitable repartee to George Bush’s wish that Russia would someday become a democracy like Iraq? “We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly.”
Not funny? To the contrary, Putin's jocular interaction with journalists is something that even the New York Times has picked up on.
So how did Time magazine’s editors get the impression that Putin was humorless? The full transcript of the interview, available on the Kremlin’s web site, reveals how the editors went about attempting to be playful.
At the very outset, after informing the President what an important and serious an interview this will be, one of the editors, presumably Adi Ignatius, tries to connect with Putin on a personal level by informing him that they had been born just two years apart, he in 1948 and Putin in 1946. How then can “our generation” learn to cooperate better?
The only problem is that Putin was not born in 1946. As he gently points out to his very important and serious questioner, since his parents had lost their health as well as two children during the blockade of Leningrad, “I think I was born a bit later—in 1952.”
Not funny? That one had me rolling in the aisles.
Later on during the session, having explained to his questioners in excruciating detail why Russia does not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries--it inevitably causes unforeseen repercussions--they make another stab at playfulness by suggesting that, since Putin feels that external forces are trying to influence the affairs inside Russia, he should do the same to America. TIME magazine would be only too happy to serve as a conduit so go ahead, they say, tell us your choice for the next president of the United States: “Perhaps, in this way, you can yourself influence the American elections.”
But rather than understanding this as an attempt at playfulness, Putin drily responds: “I see that you have understood nothing. The principle that guides us is that we consider it bad to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.”
What a grouch!
Admittedly, a lot gets lost in the translation of Putin’s earthy humor, but it is clearly wrong to call him humorless. Understanding the humor of others, however, does take a conscious effort—the effort of putting one’s self in another person’s shoes.
When this happens, humor can become a bridge and a learning device that allows us to see ourselves as others see us. As when, in an interview with the German news magazine Spiegel, Putin recalled an old East German joke: “How can you tell which of the telephones on [Communist party leader] Honecker’s desk is the direct line to Moscow? The one with only a receiver and no mouthpiece. . . . The same goes for NATO, except that the telephone line goes not to Moscow in this case but to Washington.”
That’s a joke, of course, but as Putin likes to remind his interviewers, every joke contains a grain of truth. One just has to be willing to see it.
Nicolai N. Petro is professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island. He has served as special assistant for policy in the U.S. State Department, and as civic affairs advisor to the mayor of the Russian city of Novgorod the Great. His books include: The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard,1995), Russian Foreign Policy (Longman, 1997), and Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004).
Click on the Feedburner icon to subscribe by RSS or email:
Read the interview for the first time today. I was ...not impressed with the way the TIME guys went about it. I was impressed with one question, a question I too would have posed...had I been the one conducting the interview, albeit perhaps in a somewhat other frameset :
Q: In which category would you put assassinated journalist Anna Politkovskaya?
But I was even more impressed with Vlad's answer :
"A: Well, you know, each situation is unique. In the case of Politkovskaya, it was implied that she was a danger to the state. You know that's nonsense. If you're a Russian expert you know that Ms. Politkovskaya did not play any meaningful role in Russian political life. She was no threat, no danger whatsoever. Her murder was a provocation against the authorities, I believe. Nobody ever so much as mentioned her until she was killed. Her activities were known within just a restricted circle of people. You could count them all on one hand—but now the entire country and the whole world are talking about her. I see it as deliberate provocation: they chose a sacrifice and destroyed a woman. Still, we'll do whatever it takes to complete this investigation to the successful end."
Vlad gave us a pointer in that answer.
Backing up, to the opening Q:
Despite the cold war, Russia and the United States have found themselves aligned in many of history's big conflicts: World War I, World War II and now, thanks in large part to your response to 9/11, there seems to be some alignment in the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. With that history in mind, how do you envision the relationship between Russia and the U.S. going forward?
Vlad's response sent a chill up & down my spine. I was hoping Vlad would reveal something else...his personal view and maybe opinion on 9/11. Instead, Vlad delivered a "live long and prosper" statement in regards to the (imho) artificial war on terror :
A: Indeed, Russia and the U.S. were allies during the two tragic conflicts of the Second and the First World Wars, which allows us to think there's something objectively bringing us together in difficult timess, and I think—I believe—it has to do with geopolitical interests and also has a moral component. Of course, the cold war marked a tragedy in relations between our two countries, and I wouldn't want to see the vestiges of those relations prevailing in the future. And I'll be frank with you. In the past decade or so, maybe in the last 50 years, the idea that the United States is a unique nation seems to have taken root in the U.S. public psyche. It's perhaps not an absolutely groundless notion. It's a historical phenomenon that in 250 years, a nation could move from a colony into the most prosperous nation of the world and the leader of the world. It is indeed an achievement, a tribute to the talent of the American nation, the American people and an optimal political and economic system. However, as a rule, leaders do not have rights; they mostly have commitments and obligations. When they come to think that they have rights, they tend to lose their position and authority. When we used to have two world groupings, the so-called Western bloc headed by the United States and the so-called Eastern bloc headed by the Soviet Union, both sides instilled strict discipline among members of their communities. That worked at the time. Today, when the vast majority of actors in the international scene do not feel such an external threat, this manner of conduct of dictating to anyone—please don't take offense at this—indicates a lack of understanding and utter rejection. Today other forms and instruments of international intercourse are called for, as well as other means of countering the prevailing threats. Today to be successful, one must be able to reach agreements, to compromise. The ability to compromise is not a diplomatic politeness toward a partner but rather taking into account and respecting your partner's legitimate interests.
I still like the guy and am convinced he said the right things at the right time ...to support the official russian strategy...which is something I cannot cozy up to no matter how cold the next twenty winters may be in central Europe...with GazProm literally breathing warm air down our rubber necks !
But get this next one. Is this guy smart or is this guy smart ?:
Q:What do you think should be done in Iraq?
A: Well, our position on Iraq is well-known. From the very beginning, I considered that it was a mistake, and I was public about it. The developments in recent years have proved that we were right. People consider the occupation not as a fight against Saddam's regime. They take it as a personal matter, and terrorism is capitalizing on this, and terrorists who were not present in Iraq are now present there. What we differ over is that the U.S. believes it is impossible to impose time frames for the withdrawal. In my view, it would prompt the Iraqi authorities to be more proactive. If they know they will always have American armed forces behind their backs, they may feel comfortable under such an umbrella, but if and when they know that the deadline is there, they would be forced to think about what they need to do from then on.
I'll end my mini analysis of the interview with this one last, selected Q & A which really opened me back up to Vlad and my Russian friends :
Q: Do you believe in a Supreme God?
A: Do you? ... There are things I believe, which should not in my position, at least, be shared with the public at large for everybody's consumption because that would look like self-advertising or a political striptease.
Those quotes are ctrl-c & v from pravda online. The TIME feature article wasn't even mentioned last night. I have the impression Vlad & Co. were not impressed with the result and that the pravda article was put in place, as can be expected from a good chess player, to set the record straight and to add a bit more authenticity to the interview....for those willing to read the PRAVDA version.
Please allow me to say a few words about GazProm. GazProm, or Gasprom, depending on where you read about it, is like a giant squid. It has many far-reaching tentacles. One or more such tentacle now reaches Germany. Well, many of us know the Russians are the World experts in District Heating. With Energy & Heating becoming more and more of an issue, it is also becoming more of a political weapon ; a pawn in the big chess game of international strategies. Germany, at present, is more Washington-oriented than Moscow-oriented. The turn-around came with the change of guard from G. Schroeder to A. Merkel. Well, the truth is, those two are just carrots dangling in front of our faces just like that Dubya carrot. They're there to help us focus on SOMETHING tangible while in truth (pravda) the real players are seated way up high in the major banks and corporations....in multiple countries. Anyway, out goes Schroeder and in comes Merkel. Bush gropes Merkel and Merkel learns to forget. Schroeder is presented with a leading position with GazProm. GazProm moves in as main endorser (?) for the German soccer team Schalke.
Intermezzo: I wrote a lot about GazProm long before 9/11 and at the time, I wondered what it would be like if they ever got a grip on our market. People yawned. But with one of Germany's premier league soccer teams now running around with the name GazProm on their chests (backs?), people are now senstized to accept the far-reaching yet deadly tentacles of Russian District Heating and ALL it brings with it.
Q: So what happens when GazProm turns a valve to the right ?
A: Germany moves east, my son....without moving a single centimetre.
I like Russia, have wanted to visit Moscow since I received an invitation over twenty years ago. Haven't been there yet and don't have any plans to go there any time soon. There is no need to do so, these days ! Our Russian friends are coming here. This is no joke. This is central Europe in the year 2007. As US soldier stationed in central Europe along the Fulda gap during the last phase of the cold war, I was afraid of the Russians. Today, I drink to their and my health ! Why shouldn't I ? The USA is very far away and baby, it's cold outside !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks Prof ! Good work and a very, very important topic. One which most USAns will never be able to fully grasp.
curtis
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 10 quicklinks, 116 diaries, 1006 comments)
on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 1:40:50 PM
"Now I could not help but laugh out loud about this one, I mean members of the Bush administration saying the Russian President has amassed too much power? Now I am non too thrilled about the reemergence of the Russia with such a crafty and almost introverted man behind the wheel but, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
MOSCOW - The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.
The U.S. is concerned about the centralization of power and democratic backsliding ahead of Russia's legislative and presidential elections in December and March. Putin will step down next year as president. He has said he would lead the ticket of the main pro-Kremlin party in the parliamentary elections and could take the prime minister's job later.
Maybe Putin should remind Rice about the Cuban missile crisis, you think?
Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Friday received a chilly reception from Putin and senior Russian officials on U.S. proposals for cooperating on a missile defense system in Eastern Europe that Russia vehemently opposes.
So, I guess we might not bring up the Patriot Act, our invertebrate Democratic Congress that gives blank checks to this administration nor should we say anything about there being Presidential candidates who claim they don't even need the approval of Congress to go to war. Dick Cheney, please pick up the white phone in the lobby, there is white smoke emanating from the chimney of the White House"
But I know some dear friends are glowing with anger despite or perhaps because of all of this. For them, I also hold the greatest respect. Putin, the person, I like. The scene behind the scenes is a different story ....according to some.
Does the man have a humorous bone in him ? Of course he does. And I would like to think he's more than just another carrot. At any rate at all, he's become a major player.
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 10 quicklinks, 116 diaries, 1006 comments)
on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 2:22:25 PM
is a former spy and his humor is a humor of the former spy. The organization he represents is POLICE in all its forms and the humor of that sort is called in Russia the POLICE HUMOR.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3219 comments)
on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 3:11:38 PM
