I’m going to suggest that my readers listen to this. I couldn’t find a full transcript, and I usually don’t listen to interviews myself (too inefficient), but this is worth your time. To be sure, RT is English language, most of its audience are Americans, and Putin is speaking directly to Americans. This is, to a large extent, propaganda. But it is vastly interesting propaganda and, as usual, it is a reminder that Putin is a smart, well-read man and skillful politician. This isn’t a dunce, this is one of the most adroit politicians and leaders on the planet today.
Especially amusing is his (I suspect accurate) description of the “liberal opposition” as wanting less wage increases and less social spending (aka. pensions and so on.) How stick a shiv in. You have to understand, in the Russian context (and in most country’s context) reform and liberalization means “fucking ordinary people”. Russians who are old enough to remember the 90s are especially aware of this.
One day Americans and Europeans may figure it out.
Dan H
I cant get past the ridiculous English narrator for Putin. Like nails on a chalk board with advertising dramatics added for good measure…
S Brennan
Ian, your continued effort to look at this with some objectivity is traitorous, never-mind that you are not a US citizen, that’s just a detail.
Hillary Clinton has told us that us that Putin is as evil as Hitler…we must attack NOW! Or be seen as appeasement monkeys..attack NOW!!!
Life is so much easier…now that I’ve gone mainstream “liberal”.
Celsius 233
It’s interesting trying to reconcile the propaganda against an obviously competent and erudite leader. His knowledge of America would indicate he’s studied history.
I’m left with the impression our “leaders” are deficient in a deep knowledge of history, even their own.
I’m certainly not going to charge one as worse than the other; history would back up that position.
I’m not sure, but I’d swear Putin had a twinkle in his eyes…
Jeff Wegerson
There is an endgame here. It’s mate in like twelve and it’s not obvious like mate in four so perhaps Putin can’t see it even if he’s inclined to play it.
An early move is MMT money to pensions 4 followed by MMT money to Construction stimulus 2. But Putin must take out his own internal liberal opponent oligarchs (assuming that he’s not one) who oppose the stimulus moves. He does that with Troops to Eastern Ukraine 1. The west follows with Sanctions to Russia 6. But see Putin plays the sacrifice of Oligarchs to west since they are the big sufferers from sanctions, and by his allowing Ruble to Dollar 0 currency plunge because the west has to follow with Euros to Russian resource extraction 4, and, of course, mooting the Sanctions move.
In addition to the Oligarch sacrifice Putin plays the Protectionist economics move with his devalued ruble with a special focus on the most critical move of all, inviting the Chinese (and/or others) to play the Solar and Wind manufacturing, not just installation but manufacture, inside of Russia. This is critical because it is a lead up to the mate move of BRICs to alternate global currency 2. It is critical because the U.S. king is protected by the Queen of oil. But if the BRICs are backed by the new clean distributed energy rooks then World wide sanctions on the use of Queen oil neutralizes that protection ending the game with mate in 12.
RJMeyers
Wow. Yes, propaganda, but unless this is staged to an unbelievable degree, you’re right about his intellect and education. Starting around 19:40 especially, but in pockets before then. Makes a huge contrast with most US Presidents, though I think US politicians are pretty much required to play it dumb in public so the contrast may only be a surface issue.
RJMeyers
Also, I’m reminded of these recent comments from David Graeber (hope the embedding works here):
different clue
RJMeyers,
Since a lot of American personal and institutional oligarchs have major investments in China, might they be covertly working with (or at least passively supporting) the Chinese leadership in actions based on this belief?
Ché Pasa
Good thing you posted this. When I saw it last year it was clear as crystal that a) Putin is no “madman,” nor is he “desperate,” b) he’s smart as a whip, c) he knows what’s going on more thoroughly than anyone in the media and he knows exactly what he’s doing, d) he’s charming when he wants to be, e) he’s a masterful politician.
No wonder he’s so popular in Russia, but more than that is his ability to stride the world stage with complete assurance while appearing to be nearly the only adult in the room.
The Western propaganda barrage against Putin and Russia often looks silly and it sounds strained and artificial.
But at the same time, the propagandists do not want the general public to see Putin in this light. They might get ideas…
Putin just goes on about his business.
Hairhead
Heh. I once pointed out in conversation that Bush was a monstrous, amoral, violent scumbag. My companion sputtered, “But what about Putin!”
I replied, “Putin is a monstrous, amoral, violent, COMPETENT scumbag.”
It really does make a difference.
Pelham
Like Dan H, I found the narration ridiculous. Putin is speaking in conversational tones, and narration in that vein would have helped a great deal.
Granted, this was a propaganda exercise. Hence the softball questions. But notice the much higher level of softball narrative than one ever, ever finds in Q&A’s involving U.S. journalists.
It may have been a bit of a show, but one comes away feeling somewhat informed and enlightened — albeit with a grain-of-salt seasoning required. By contrast, similar exercises on these shores leave the listener sickened and disgusted at the low state of politics and journalism.
scott
What struck me was that one of the reasons we won the Cold War was that we demonstrated through persuasion, “soft” power, and the example of an evolving and more tolerant society that we had a better model. We came across to some extent to many audiences, through these means, as a reasonable and enlightened people, capable of self-awareness, reflection, and growth. Very casually but adroitly, however, Putin in this clip manages to put the shoe on the other foot, painting himself and his country as the reasonable country trying to bridge differences in a reasonable way while confronted by an imperial state determined to insist on its own view through force and dominance. Did we somehow manage the neat trick of winning the Cold War battle of persuasion against a truly frightening adversary only to begin to lose it against the weakened remnant of that adversary?
Celsius 233
@ scott
March 13, 2014
Did we somehow manage the neat trick of winning the Cold War battle of persuasion against a truly frightening adversary only to begin to lose it against the weakened remnant of that adversary?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aren’t we, in fact, the weakened remnant? What is the saying? Everything that goes around comes around…
Strontium-90
Thanks for point this out, Ian. The transcript is now posted on Atomic Reporters (http://atomicreporters.com/2014/03/14/crimea-iran-kremlinology/). Still significant signaling in interview, especially in light of Crimea vote this weekend.
Jerome Armstrong
” You have to understand, in the Russian context (and in most country’s context) reform and liberalization means “fucking ordinary people”.
That’s what the basic impulse was for the uprising of Occupy and Tea Party here too– banking corporation structure owning people. Different shadows, different projections, but a reaction to the same disorder.
James
I think US politicians are pretty much required to play it dumb in public
I would suggest that most are not playing acting.
S Brennan
The first, not completely insane article I have read in the mainstream media on Putin’s reaction to the US led coup in the Ukraine.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/experts-argue-west-should-be-cautious-in-approach-to-putin-a-958952.html