A week back, Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times and it has since left readers flustered, enraged, impressed or clutching for rebuttals.
While it’s unusual for the premiere of one country to be published in the media of another Putin is an exception. He has previously written for the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy Magazine and even the NYT in 1999. So, what was different about this op-ed that turned so many heads?
For starters, this one was about the USA and its endless wars. In the carefully-worded piece, Putin alluded to their joint victory over Nazi forces and the emergence of the United Nations to prevent another such war. Describing the Syrian conflict as an armed battle for power, Putin reiterated that all countries must follow international law and not attack others unless threatened. Besides, he argued, a US attack on Syria would likely result in a new wave of terrorist attacks.
“Millions around the world” Putin continued, “increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us’.” He concluded with the most incendiary contention that the US must stop encouraging citizens to think of themselves as “exceptional” and remember that God created all as equals.
The placement, timing and tone of Putin’s op-ed were quite brilliant. It was printed in a leading American newspaper, just two days after Russia had successfully prevented yet another unilateral US strike in Syria. Close on the heels of this “diplomatic win” by Putin, the article highlighted the need for international consensus on matters of war and peace and preached a way of diplomacy over bloodshed.
And all of this happened at a time when Obama was raring to strike Syria against the wishes of 60% of the US citizens. On the face of things, it just made the Obama administration look like war-mongering flouters of international law. The Russians were well on their way to taking the lead on the Syria issue.
But it’s Putin’s moral high-ground from where he appeals to rationality and international legal bindings that irked most readers. Given Putin’s legacy of bad governance in Russia, most questioned what gave him the right to lecture the United States.
In fact, a blog post quickly appeared on the NY Times, which purported to explore the story behind the Putin op-ed article. It asked: “Did he [Putin] call up the editorial page editor and say, hey, how would you like 800 words on you, us and Syria, I’ll have it in by Wednesday night deadline, no sweat, I’ll take your usual freelance rates?”
In a broad-based knee-jerk reaction, many other peripheral questions quickly clogged the Internet. “Why write in an American newspaper/NY Times?” “Did Putin write it himself?” “Was he paid usual freelance rates?” or “Does his PR firm also represent Gazprom?” are just some examples. Many sceptically questioned if a Russian newspaper would print an Obama article. Some ruefully wished that Obama had written an op-ed first or that at the very least, he’d reply.
Bypassing all the issues raised in the article, the vital questions became whether it was Putin’s place to preach diplomacy to the US and how exactly a Russian president gets published in the NY Times. Andrew Rosenthal (editor, editorial page, NY Times) had to explain that the NYT prints a lot of articles that are contrary to its own views and that there can really be no ideological “litmus test.” He reiterated that Syria was a big story and that all opinions especially, the Russian President’s were interesting. The newspaper certainly meant the US no harm.
But very few others were as open-minded as Rosenthal, who himself admitted to receiving a lot of flak for his decision. One of his readers described himself as “horrified” and said that the NYT was “aiding and abetting a long-term foe of the United States.” Former Chess World Champion Gary Kasparov tweeted: “I hope Putin has taken adequate protections. Now that he is a Russian journalist his life may be in grave danger!” Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, quipped: “One gets the sense that the vodka and caviar are flowing rather heavily in the Kremlin these days.”
Reacting to the piece, Sen Robert Menendez (D) said: “I almost wanted to vomit. I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests, and what is not.” It may be noted that the senator voted in favour of the Afghan War during the term of George W Bush, who had come up through the CIA. Sen John McCain (R) called Putin’s piece an “insult to the intelligence of every American.” McCain is scheduled to write a reply for the Russian media outlet Pravda.
While most official responses from politicians criticised Putin’s article and made light of his governance record and disapproval of homosexuality they were mostly measured responses intended for mainstream media. A better understanding of how Putin’s words were received may be gained by examining ordinary readers’ responses on the article.
“I’m sickened by the fact that we live in a time when a foreign leader has the ear of the American people,” wrote a Richmond reader. Many others quickly pointed out that it is precisely this attitude of not wanting to listen that has eaten away at the popularity of the US. “How dare he lecture the USA on morals?” asked a Miami reader. She continued to explain that Putin has a dismal human rights record and it was sad to see the article getting such positive responses. More accusations related to the KGB, Goebbelian propaganda, arming terrorists, aiding Iran are abound on the site.
A Stamford reader wrote: “Despite the hypocrisies in President Putin’s writing, he makes sense simple, common sense. He appears to cut through all the fog and word-spinning we are used to hearing from politicians certainly from our own president and gets to the kernel of the matter.” Another said that if the Russian plan (for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons) worked, then Obama should hand his Nobel Prize over to Putin. The readers seemed clearly divided.
Putin’s last paragraph caused the most stir. It said that “American Exceptionalism,” based on its policies, was an extremely dangerous idea and that Americans were no more (or less) special than all other people in the world. Many US readers who weren’t bothered by unilateral wars or constant bypassing of international laws by their government seemed devastated upon being called mediocre. Unfortunately, the paragraph has diverted the debate away from international law and consensus and toward determining what makes Americans “exceptional.” This has earned some backhanded quips that it might be “self-obsession.
Over the past 2-3 days, more detailed analyses have appeared. For example, Putin had written, “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.” But according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 2008–12 Russia sold 71% of Syria’s weapons imports. Similarly, Putin defended the use of force in Chechnya and Dagestan an action he now condemns.
Regardless of all the hue and cry, The Obama administration may actually be relieved. Before the Russian diplomatic route, Obama had been committed to a strike but decided to defer to the Congress. Now, had the Congress refused, he would’ve looked like a weak commander. Yet, had it approved the strike, Obama would become embroiled in another unpopular war. It is Team Putin that gave the US a way out of the political quagmire. So, when two days later, Putin’s article was published, White House officials just said, “He [Putin] now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver.”
Moreover, Putin’s op-ed seems to have struck a chord with many commoners. For years, the world had seen Putin through the kaleidoscope of US/international media. But last week, the world heard his words without a filter many for the first time. And it was a voice of reason, sanity and respect for international cooperation.
With his seemingly-naive criticism of “American Exceptionalism” Putin may have been pandering to a largely non-US/minority audience, many of whom have been long tormented by American wars, sanctions, interference and hubris. With the US media and polity falling over each other to malign the messenger and defend their exceptionality, the Russian president may just have boosted his global image and strengthened Russia’s claim as the re-emerging superpower.
Much of the mainstream criticism of Putin’s argument is based on his or his government’s eligibility to lecture the US on international law or moral authority. Some commentators are trying to revive Putin’s image of a bear-wrestling, pectoral-flexing strongman with little aptitude for democracy or diplomacy.
But apart from these misguided strains, there’s another side to the reactions that warrants a mention. A vast number of (mostly US) readers have asserted one of three things: a) regardless of what Putin had to say, I support the printing of his views, b) say what you will of Russia/Russians, I think Putin is right this time, and c) if it’s the truth, it doesn’t matter who said it or why.
If we brush away the knee-jerk reactions, the American people have demonstrated the utmost dedication to “defending one’s right to say it.” A Chicago reader commented: “Putin’s claim that the originators of the gas attack likely were Syrian rebels requires the same evidence of proof as Obama’s claim that the attack was made by the Syrian government. ‘Trust me, I know’ isn’t sufficient.”
It takes a lot of discipline to maintain such dispassionate rationality under constant consent-manufacturing by the likes of Fox News/CNN which constantly broadcast unverified youtube videos as news. Without a tradition of independent, critical thinking, very few readers can state: “Let’s not just blindly trash Putin. He is probably no saint on many issues, but his op-ed piece was right on the mark. Accepting the truth doesn’t mean we don’t love our president or our country.”
It was Aristotle who wrote: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Following an incendiary Vladimir Putin op-ed, a possible consensus on focusing on the message instead of bashing the messenger will be quite impressive. And any people or person American or otherwise who can contemplate an idea without prejudice or preconceived bias, with sincerity and reason, is quite exceptional.