Recently, the Russian President is very open up to foreign journalists. This love for Western journalists is understandable. First, they broadcast treatment Putin to the West, while listening to the politicians themselves don’t want it. Secondly, to speak of external challenges for the Russian leader, failed in all positions of the internal agenda, better than to talk about the problems in Russia. You can always rely on Russophobia, and in the discussion of the Russian problems is difficult ever to blame the West, although manage this trick quite often.
And of course, communication with foreign journalists is an active element actually began the campaign as the Russian media snapped up the President’s words on quotes and re-create a cardboard image of a powerful leader. Did it benefit the country such candid conversations Putin with journalists of the French newspaper Le Figaro, communication on the sidelines of SPIEF, and an interview with the American TV channel NBC News?
Specifics of communication with Western journalists is that they are almost not interested in the internal problems of Russia, with the exception of one or two stories that affected mainly the situation with observance of human rights. And in the last interview series reporters ‘ questions dealt with such problematic sites, as Russia’s intervention in the election campaign, the situation in Syria, in Ukraine, relations with NATO and with the United States.
THE TONE OF THE CONVERSATION
If Russia emerged from the ‘ 90s, it was still possible that the President is trying to talk in street slang, to the world President with such eloquence in a negative light exposes itself as a country and plays an adverse way. The tone of the Russian leader’s speech to the press charitably could be called rude and aggressive, demonstrating rather his temper and erratic conversation with Kelly, for example, he made statements like: “are You crazy?”, “You’re out of your mind?” “They what place of your body think?” “Nonsense. You understand what You’re asking, or no?” “You don’t understand that this is nonsense?”, “It’s just hysteria of some sort, and I can not stop. A pill that really give you something.” Not surprisingly, such an emotional speech without specifics has created the replica a leading American — “sounds like an excuse”.
The main issue of concern to the West, was the theme of Russian intervention in elections in foreign countries. In this issue, the Russian leader has surprised the world community, departing from the usual rhetoric that a Russian hacker attacks are irrelevant, it is the machinations of russophobian sentiment and all the reports are not evidence. When communicating with journalists before the SPIEF, Putin admitted the Russian involvement in the attacks, but rejected their relationship with the government: “if they are Patriotic, they begin to contribute as they think right in the struggle against those who speak badly about Russia. Possible? It is theoretically possible. At the state level, we never do.” If you have previously Putin tried to create the image of an experienced former intelligence officer who knows a lot about evidence and show that evidence has no power, but now he moved to analytical abilities and began to put forward various hypotheses, discrediting the country even more. After his comments about hackers-a leading American patriots instantly grasped this version — “You said that Russia has nothing to do with intervention in the American elections, and this week You suddenly talked about some Patriotic hackers. Why have You started to talk about it, about the Patriotic hackers who can somehow act?”. The apparent incompetence when the President can not media not only give concise and reasoned response, instead slipping to the level of emotional outburst, puts forward new hypotheses, respectively, that only creates unnecessary background information.
Convincing the Russian leader was because used in response to the tactics of attack, while could make out every piece of evidence, if of course he really is such evidence have seen and read reports. He accused the us of interference in internal Affairs: “the United States is everywhere, all over the world to actively intervene in election campaigns of other countries”. Other receptions were these: I know nothing, I don’t know, I was sitting at the same table with Flynn, I just brought and planted. I don’t know what the negotiations hold my ambassadors. Direct questions about the evidence in the form of fingerprints and the IP address responds mildly strange: “What are fingerprints? The prints of the hoofs, horns. Whose are these footprints?”. And how such responses could the press get the impression that Russia is innocent? And that generally this person is the President in their understanding, not the leader of a different sort?
On the Syrian issue, the President has remained true to its classic formula that the political future of Syria will be determined exclusively by the Syrian people. While the West clearly shows that Assad has no place, the Russian leader himself the particular protection does not show, giving hope to Russia’s willingness not to defend Assad.
In his new Syrian position was the revelation about the future of Syria. De-escalation, which called on the parties, it is in fact dividing the country into zones of influence. And while Putin says that “the zone of de-escalation, if there is to be peace, people who will be there to stay and control the situation, will interact with the official Syrian authorities,” any policy it is obvious that the result of these measures in each area will have its own government — the Governor, which the Central government in the face of Assad is not necessary. Going to partition Syria, Putin is trying to save face and deny the obvious fact that the country is dismembered and divided. After Descalzi Putin is waiting for “political reconciliation, if possible — develop constitutional rules, the Constitution and the elections,” that’s just the question about the possible involvement of al-Assad they traditionally shy away from. As a matter of liquidation of integrity.
If you carefully follow the Russian leader, then you can find a lot of contradictions in his words. He spoke first of the one and indivisible Syria, now on the agenda of de-escalation, with its division into zones. Previously, he said the interests of the Syrian people, now to journalists, he said that considering how to “ensure the interests of all countries of the region in the South of Syria… namely Jordan, Israel and Syria”, although the interests of Israel and Syria clearly lie in opposite planes.
THE UKRAINIAN QUESTION
Controversial and sly were the answers the Russian leader over the conflict in the South-East of Ukraine. As before, he insisted that the conflict is “internal Ukrainian conflict.” But given Russia’s economic ties with the unrecognized republics, only an internal conflict can not be named. Contrary to Putin himself that at first he declares that a conflict occurred field “unconstitutional power takeover in Kiev”, in recognition of the illegitimacy of power in Ukraine. And then appeals to “official Kiev authorities”, “forgetting” that until recently they were unconstitutional. Slukavil Putin and that the source of all problems called seizure of power in Kiev, although Donbass has risen not so much against Kiev, how much for reunification with Russia following the example of Crimea. Without Crimea, the unconstitutional seizure in the country would have ended exactly the same as in 2005, when the wave of the Orange revolution came to power Yushchenko.
RUSSIA — USA
Journalists were interested in the question of a new stage of Russian-American relations, which are not, in fact, become a new start, as Washington maintained the bellicose rhetoric. Putin replied: “We did not expect, nothing special.” And this is contrary to what the President said a year ago in June at SPIEF: “Mr trump said that he is ready for a full restoration of Russian-American relations. What’s the harm? We all welcome that”. It is not correlated with the mass hysteria that gripped the population from the official to the journalist during the election campaign in the United States and in the first month after it. Waited, still as expected, had huge expectations, while experts asserted that trump is a pawn of the course is built based on their traditional lines of Washington. But then these experts in the Kremlin, no one listened, and now these words Putin shamelessly says Western journalists “the Man has chosen, he comes with some ideas, people come to him with cases…and start to explain how to do it, and then everything changes. This comes from one administration to another.” But more recently, in Internet such dimension was attacked by the whole army kremlebotov.
As for the Kremlin, despite the apparent confrontation, he continues to curry favor with Washington in the hope of again zadruzhitsya. Putin continually refers to the United States and the EU “partners”, Russia at a huge financial deficit in the country is investing money in American securities, and about American business, the President says: “we believe your friend, and will help them to implement their plans in Russia.” But does any normal leader is not interested in protecting national interests in protecting domestic producers? How long the Kremlin will kowtow to the West? While there is control of some interesting personal account?
RUSSIA AND NATO
Talking about NATO, it became clear why until 2008, Putin, in his discourse was not even called NATO’s expansion to the East threat. Russian President cherished the hope that Russia will become a NATO member or similar structure under the auspices of Washington, hoping for the proposal of some German politicians about “creating a new system of security in Europe with and the United States, incidentally, and Russia.” This prototype is probably Putin, and seen in the Council “Russia-NATO”. When these hopes fail, Putin spoke about the threats of the enlargement to the East. But even to do nothing has become.
Interesting phrase Russian leader, thrown into the Western side “in Europe and the United States carried out the short-sighted policy, they don’t look ahead — there is no habit, the habit has already disappeared from our Western partners.” But these words are valid in the Kremlin. Isn’t there watching on the West to step forward, when he persuaded Gorbachev to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, giving only a verbal promise not to expand NATO to the East? Never seen a step forward, while build relationships through the Council “Russia-NATO”, while continuing to freely expand to the East? Never seen a step forward when brought military infrastructure to Russia’s borders at a critically close distance? Was there a calculation from the Kremlin to step forward when he decided to join the Crimea? Was the forecast that it will rise up wholly new Russia, and the West will impose sanctions and the country will be isolated? The security of the country will not only increase, but will fall significantly?
So is it possible now after the annexation of Crimea, which was under the jurisdiction of the once-fraternal republics, to say that in the West “invents a mythical Russian threat, some hybrid war and so on. Themselves head and share, and then scare themselves”. In Russia the return of Crimea — is the restoration of historical justice, protection of compatriots. At least all tried to make. But from the standpoint of international law it is a political racket, when one country took the other, those areas that once belonged to her. How would Russia react if the Kurile Islands and half of Sakhalin referendum has attached itself to Japan? Or moved to the Crimea Turkey? Or Derbent would go back to Iran? Or the far East would have voted for an Alliance with China?
From the answers of the Russian President to foreign journalists followed the way of a strong Russia to combat the threat, and Russia, cornered numerous initiatives of NATO. The responses of Japanese journalist Juno Condo Putin created the image of a desperate Russia, where threats from NATO on all sides are growing like mushrooms and in the West ABOUT, and East missile defense on the Korean Peninsula and in Alaska. Russia is forced to constantly respond to threats, she had no offensive tactics, but the defensive stance: “we think all the time: how to respond? We think about how to improve the system to overcome missile defenses”, “action begin the militarization of these Islands. No, it’s just a necessary response to what is happening in the region.” According to Putin, Russia is not only weak, but also deceived. First lied about the Iranian threat, now cheat Korean threat. Such responses, even journalists, not politicians, to face the cheerleader, not the leader of the nation.
QUESTIONS ABOUT RUSSIA
Short questions from journalists sounded on the subject. Usually, these aspects to a lesser extent care, because the issues can not be called particularly acute. In an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, Putin was asked about the willingness to nominate his candidacy in 2018 and the possibilities of the opposition to nominate their candidate. To answer the question about the person the President has traditionally gone, since it is likely the decision will be announced in a more pretentious setting, for example, during a straight line on 15 June. As for the elections, he assured that “the last election campaign is held in strict accordance with the Russian Constitution.” So I want to ask: is not the last election was to bypass the Constitution? Of course we have the elections will be democratic, and the outcome is already defined in the President’s Administration a year before the election by the formula 70 to 70: 70% of Russians turnout and 70% of them vote for Putin. This is the specifics of Russian democracy. That’s why the President, knowing in advance how much he will gain in the elections, genuinely surprised that the hackers could affect the outcome of the election — “I’m just deeply convinced that no hackers are unable to dramatically affect the course of the election campaign in another country.” Indeed, when running the administrative resource hackers not a hindrance. But in countries where the media is free to criticize the ruling elite, where the people actually vote and has the choice of candidates or vote against all, where stuffing information before the election could have an impact.
If you have previously Soviet propaganda talked about inequality in America and broadcast stories about the homeless on the streets of new York, now Russia has “survived” up to the moment when American journalists tell us about the enormous social inequality in Russia: 1% of the population owns 70% of the country’s wealth, and the Russian people mainly from their budget is spent on food, clothing. But what is a solution to this problem the Russian President? Implementation of the digital economy? It is that there will solve the problem of inequality in the country? Modernization is not decided, innovation breakthrough has not helped. But digitisation will certainly help, says the President. Although the President talks about targeted support to the needy, remember that amendments to the budget for 2017 include reducing social expenditures. As for the rich, how offshore worked and continue to work. Russian money does not serve the domestic economy. And the deoffshorisation law quickly learned how to get around. According to the Agency Reuteurs part of the richest Russians have ceased to be tax resident of the country in order not to disclose their offshore assets. Why this happens can be explained on the example of the fate of the oligarchs. Remember, as recognized by the Kremlin are honest businessmen suddenly fell out of favor — Khodorkovsky, Yevtushenko. With such features of internal policy of the domestic oligarchs, who, as Putin said, “honestly earned their money”, will not dare to keep their savings in Russia. In response, the President may not care for the needy, and the attempt to justify the top 1% of the population, to prove to journalism, they’ve earned the 70% of the wealth.
There was another recognition of the Russian President, after which it’s time to finally see what is Putinism. After discussion about the fact that Russia has sovereignty, he said the following about US: “You should see what your colleagues have us do. Yes, they are just feet climbed in our domestic politics, on the head, we sat down, swung his legs and chew the cud… It is systematic, for many years, rude, totally inconsiderate, even at the level of foreign Ministers, the right interference in our domestic politics”. That is, in the Russian internal politics systematically intervene US and our answer is simple — the call to end it all? So maybe it is time to recognize explicitly that as it lost a quarter of a century ago sovereignty, it still has not returned. As began to carry out Pro-American course and continue through persons trained in leading Western Universities. But no, Putin appointed to the post of head of the Central Bank, Minister of Finance and other senior posts. Turns out the United States to interfere, because the Kremlin allows them. What did not make for the sake of “partners”.
A favorite answer to the question about sanctions, Putin is unchanged: the President continues to prove that the sanctions have gone in our favor, it “encourages the development of entire industries high-tech industries. Had to turn on their brains, not just oil and gazodollary. We were forced to push the development of certain technologies.” And what were you thinking? What kind of governance and strategy, when the brain is included only in a situation of force majeure? And if to be objective, looking at the numbers, you realize that no push was not. There was a decline in very first in the energy sector by reducing the cost of oil. This artificially increased the share of non-oil exports and production. In volumes all of this fell. Therefore, from whatever side you look at the sanctions, they attacked a non-sovereign economy, and was not able to configure the ruling elite in the service of the interests of the Russian state. Myths about the benefits of sanctions, voiced by the President because of purely psychological characteristics: it should be the same in front of the offender something to boast of, when you realize that you have lost.
From Putin’s communication with foreign journalists was quite clear what Putin’s Russia appears to the world. A country with a permanent President, in which 70% of the wealth owned by 1% of the population, “immersed in corruption”, it “journalists who are critical of expressing my point of view, kill”, “dissidents can end up in jail”. A third world country, which in addition to oil produces nothing. Unfortunately, the expert community is forced to admit that in the world there was an objective picture of the situation in Putin’s Russia.
The foreign policy of the Kremlin has shown the West that built a sound foreign policy, for which there is a crowd of experts, no. There is a personal emotional-narrative and absurd routine, the mechanism of its reproduction carried out by diplomats. The component of voluntarism when decisions are made by one person, not thinking about the consequences of such a decision. What are the implications of such a policy over the past decade, Russians see: the number of supporters of Russia in the world fell, Russia reduced its presence in the world, NATO came close to the borders of the sister Republic run by Western economic and military blocs, Russia is in isolation and under sanctions. Outcast. In this picture is scary to think about the new prospects of the next Putin’s term.
© 2017, z-news.xyz. All rights reserved