putin – Pike & Hurricane

Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood

Maya Diekmann — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 11:01:11 +0000

“Eastern Europe is free. The Soviet Union itself is no more. This is a victory for democracy and freedom.” When US President George H. W. Bush, declared victory over the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, after a Cold War that had nearly lasted half a century, he set the tone of what would become a given in Western understanding of history. The Soviet Union lost, communism lost, there is no longer any threat coming from the East. Just how wrong this framing of the end of the Cold War turned out to be, would slowly unveil itself over the years to come.

Of geopolitical disasters

Russia’s Vladimir Putin once called the dissolution of the Soviet Union “a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” What he referred to, was the fact that millions of ethnic Russians suddenly found themselves on foreign territory when the Union ceased to be in 1991. Time and time again this disaster turned out to be quite useful as an excuse for Russia to meddle with its neighbours’ politics. It even went so far as to inspire much of Putin’s speech to the Russian Federal Assembly that initiated the annexation of Crimea in 2014. No wonder that in other former members of the Soviet Union, where the integration of ethnic Russians has been rather draggish, fears of the big bad neighbour persist even almost thirty years after the Soviet Union disintegrated.

But would Russia really go as far as to annex a tiny peninsula home to roughly 1.5 million lands-people, despite being aware of the implications of such actions internationally? Of course not. The fact that Crimea’s inhabitants are mostly of Russian descent surely added a nice detail to the story, but ultimately Putin’s real asset on the peninsula were the deep, blue, and, most importantly, warm waters around it––the Russian naval base in Crimean Sevastopol, the only port that does not freeze over in the winter.

Which brings us to the real geopolitical disaster: Russia, like any other country in the world, is a slave to its own territory. There are some developments, which Russia is unlikely to ever accept. Losing the Ukraine would be one of them, and not just because of Sevastopol. Tim Marshall, author of the book “Prisoners of Geography,” writes that if Putin was the religious man he claims to be, he would pray for mountains in the Ukraine. Then, Russia wouldn’t have to worry about security threats from the West effortlessly cruising through the great corridor, the Northern European Plain, straight up to Moscow. Then, Russia wouldn’t have to worry about NATO at their doorstep.

Beware of NATO

And what a worry NATO is. Since its foundation, NATO has been a thorn in Russia’s (western) side. As an alliance created for the purpose of providing collective security against the Soviet Union, not even Mikhail Gorbachev, the ‘liberator’ of the East Bloc if you will, was particularly keen on having the pact’s forces anywhere near the Russian border. Moscow’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy declared that NATO expansion would make “the Baltic states and Ukraine… a zone of intense strategic rivalries.”

Fast forward three decades and we have an armed conflict in the Donbass region of the Ukraine. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has actually listened to the Kremlin’s threats in the 1990s. The case of the Ukraine is a difficult and complex one and it combines the worst of both worlds of Russia’s problems: A big share of its population consists of ethnic Russians and it is of immense strategic importance to Russian territorial security. This makes it virtually impossible for Russia not to act when it sees the Ukraine flirting with the West. With over 3,000 casualties, and roughly 1.6 million displaced persons, the war in the Ukraine and, in particular, potential Russian involvement cannot and must not be justified. But it can be understood. And to understand, we cannot ignore the behaviour of the USA, Europe, and the historic West.

New peace, old fears

Perhaps after the end of the Cold War, one could have attempted what Germany and France managed after the Second World War. A similar mutual distrust, exacerbated by the lack of natural borders protecting against invaders, had kept Germany and France at odds in a similar fashion that Russia is at odds with Western Europe today.

But even if the NATO powers had wanted to, Russia simply could not have been integrated in the existing Atlantic security system after 1991. As Richard Sakwa writes: “In structural terms, Russia was too big, too independent, too proud and ultimately too strong to become part of an expanded ‘West’.” And instead of reforming existing structures and actively seeking cooperation and compromise with Russia, building the ‘Common European Home’ that Gorbachev had envisioned, the capitalist West saw itself to have won the day, leaving Russia with an unjustified sense of defeat, a questionable new ‘Cold Peace’, and old fears of the Great European Plain.

With its continuing “triumphalism”, the USA would go on to unilaterally influence international politics like no other, ultimately turning Russia away from Europe and the West. Sakwa describes 2003 as the year in which Putin decided that US involvement in the Iraq War demonstrated the nation’s true ambitions, its expansionist policies, which were incompatible with his embrace of national sovereignty––a firm position Russia has kept until this day. NATO’s and the EU’s expansion eastwards were a confirmation to Russia of what they were already suspecting. The West was coming for their neighbours, and ultimately, for them. And when the West reached Ukraine, Russia pulled the emergency brake.

Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood

Even as recently as 2014, the USA remains convinced that Ukraine can be anything but Russia’s neighbour. “[T]he future of Ukraine must be decided by the people of Ukraine”, were US President Barack Obama’s words before unleashing sanctions on Russia which, together with those of the EU, nearly “brought the Kremlin to its knees.” But Russia has adapted to the sanctions and proved surprisingly resilient to the external pressure. Rather than forcing the Kremlin to obey, they have been, if anything, marginalized even more, once again turning inwards, relying on no one but themselves––and their Ukrainian buffer.

When we look at a map, one of the first things that stand out are the carefully carved lines that make the borders of a state. The end of the Cold War has added many new lines and shapes to the map of Eastern Europe, but it has not added a new topographical alto-relief, indicating the mountains that Putin keeps praying for. The stretch between Moscow and the Atlantic Ocean remains dark green, and, most importantly, flat. This means that Russia has to rely on other means of creating a defense line––its immediate neighbours. So, when Bush announced the end of the Soviet Union, what he meant was the end of an ideology, rather than the end of geopolitical power struggles. And when he called Eastern Europe “free,” what he meant was: “As free as one can be when sandwiched between Russia and the rest of Europe.”

Related articles:

Ukraine: Revolution of Dignity

NATO Membership: Better Defence at a Lower Cost

Photo credits:

Sam Oxyak, Unsplash

Марьян Блан (@marjanblan), Unsplash

Jeroen, Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

The post Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Lost in Translation

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:57:42 +0000

Walking through Malmö, you can hear a mix of different languages. The same counts for international congresses, parliaments, round tables, etc. Did you ever think about the information you miss out on because you do not understand the people’s native language. Of course there is the possibility of translation, but what if information and meaning gets lost on the way?

Lost in Translation – What does “I am Groot” mean?

Imagine you live in a country with a centuries-old arch enemy as your neighbour. There exists no open conflict, but they are not far away from that. Then, at a conference, diplomats exchange some highly sensitive sentences. It is a fine line to walk on because they want to appear strong, but not aggressive. The problem is that depending on the context, different translations exist for most words.

Thus, to a certain extent, there is always an interpretation that comes with the translation. What can happen is that one diplomat hears from his interpreter a translation, where a critique sounds more like an insult, intentionally or not. And suddenly the two countries are at war.

It sounds like an over-exaggerated script of a bad movie, but I can imagine it becoming reality. It shows the responsibility and power of translation. We all know of examples in the political history of the world, where few words had a significant impact. If you nail it down, words are the essence of politics. And since international politics takes place in dozens of different languages, one may wonder how much the differences between those languages matter. Some words cannot be exactly translated into other languages. Some meanings might be slightly different. Sometimes the translator might not understand the exact intention of the speaker.

Unnoticed, but Decisive

Because we all are simple human beings, mistakes may happen when translating. And just as a snowball can become an avalanche, one incorrect translation or transcription could make a big difference. For example, some historians argue that the slight changes Bismarck made when he gave the Ems Dispatch to the press were responsible for the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.

Usually, the translators and interpreters who work in high positions of politics are not really visible. Their work happens during and in between an international discussion or negotiation. Their task is to enable negotiations and not to record them. The task of translators and interpreters in government services is to equip diplomats with the ability to communicate, negotiate, as well as pass on information to all parts of the world. As an outsider you do not notice the huge significance their job has. But the significance is undeniable since in today’s world politics people with hundreds of different native tongues come together to communicate.

The difference between a translator and an interpreter in this context is, that a translator works with documents that they translate after they are produced, while an interpreter translates simultaneously during a negotiation, so that participants can follow a debate in real time.

Putin, Trump and the third person in the room

It was a politically remarkable meeting of the Presidents Putin and Trump in Helsinki in July this year. It was an unusual situation, that the two state leaders met for more than two hours without anyone else in the room. Usually, when there is a meeting on this level of importance, with this special relationship, there are always some other persons present: aides and official note takers, etc. This time, there were only the two state leaders and their translators in the room, which puts public attention and a level of importance on the translators that they may not have experienced before and triggered some debate about the value, responsibility and right of information.

Since Trump is not exactly known for giving out trustworthy information, many American politicians see the only chance to get reliable insights on what happened in the meeting in the US interpreter Marina Gross . US Congressionals requested her to testify concerning what the two state leaders were really talking about for hours. That caused a loud outcry and fierce debate about what the duties and the rights of translators are.

Tinker Tailor Translator Spy?

The whole community of translators and interpreters got worried about their status as an apolitical “extension of the principal”; somebody who is just there to give the possibility for the politicians to speak to each other as they would if they spoke the same language. Humaira Peroz, an International Relations student of MAU and UF Head Program Coordination, who works as a translator for Språkservice and Tolkresurs, explains the ethical code of the Swedish Kammarkollegiet she has to follow: “We basically have no individual presence during our working hours and are supposed to be a “tool” with no human reaction or emotions”. This ethical code includes that translators are: “‘bound by the strictest secrecy” when they are hired on a high political level, “which must be observed towards all persons and with regards to all information disclosed in the course of the practice of the profession at any gathering not open to the public’” (article 2 of the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) Code of Professional Ethics for interpreters in diplomatic roles). They compare themselves to doctors or priests, who also vow to treat the information they receive confidentially. Some call them “James Bonds of the linguistic world” to show their secretive importance.

If Marina Gross testifies it could be used as a precedence and no statesmen would ever use an interpreter at that level again, when they know that the confidential information they are dealing with could be revealed. That is what Republicans argue for. It is feared, that diplomacy in itself would be threatened. However, Democrats point out that the public has the right to know, what the meeting was truly about. So far the state department and the justice department protected translators in legal cases from having to testify. But it has also never happened before that in such a meeting no official note-taker was present which makes the situation new and difficult for everyone.

As the New York Times formulates it, the origin for the politicisation of the translator’s is the mistrust in President Trump. Eventually they were able to agree on at least revealing Gross’ notes from the meeting. Despite the ethical questions, the practical issue is that interpreters’ notes are taken for simultaneous translating and not for keeping record. They are taken in a personal shorthand for the short-term memory of translating something in the situation of the moment—they are useless for anyone else and interpreters often cannot make sense of their own notes later anymore. Their ethical code can limit translators “from taking actions in situations where you normally would take a stand”, says Humaira Peroz, “but while one is working it is difficult to know what’s appropriately right or wrong”.

So, what does “I am Groot” mean? – It’s up to you…

What do we conclude from that? That a big deal in world politics is about knowledge. About knowing the truth. That this is not an easy thing to figure out. Many of the stages, information goes through, we do not even see or notice. And we can barely reveal all the influences, that alters information before it reaches us. Think about the news, about when you cannot understand the original because the news interpreter talks over it: how does the image of a situation change through the translation people hear? How differently do we judge happenings depending on the amount and type of information we get? How differently do we understand things within a conversation, on the basis of our different native tongues. How much can meanings be altered through translations?

All these are questions we do not ask ourselves often but the issue has a bigger importance than we might think. So this is my message for you: question and trace back the information you get!

By Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

“Flags at the UN”, by http://www.worldislandinfo.com/ (CC BY 2.0)

“Language, Learning, Books” by Oli Lynch (CC0 1.0 Universal)

The post Lost in Translation appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Propaganda by Body Image

Yaroslav Mikhaylov — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 09:05:25 +0000

Political photos are usually a fairly boring subject, but modern internet trends and ubiquitous high-definition cameras have given us some very peculiar images – intentional or not – of some of today’s top political leaders. Some are caught shirtless at the back of a wedding and others are caught with their hands around a mysterious glowing orb, while another merely looks knowingly at packages of chicken. However, all of those images have one thing in common: they are designed to shape public perception of the subject. No matter how weird or peculiar, they try to make their subjects look good. Here are some successful and some unsuccessful attempts at propaganda by body image.

Politicians using images of themselves for political purposes is hardly a new phenomenon. Kings and political leaders as far back as the middle ages had portraits of themselves painted that exaggerated certain traits and concealed others in order to elicit a certain kind of feeling in their subjects. When one thinks of England’s Henry VIII, it is almost certainly Hans Holbein’s painting that comes to mind. In it, a well-dressed and muscled Henry is standing tall, a master of his domain practically daring the viewer to challenge him. The painting would make a great representation of Henry, if it wasn’t completely made up. Henry had just suffered an injury that left him physically weakened and, as a result, was losing strength and gaining weight. He had also lost control of the northern part of the country to a tax rebellion, making his defiant and in-control posture in the painting a complete farce. In short, the portrait was a brazen attempt at propaganda: “I’m still tough; let me show you!”. However, given that it is the image that we remember Henry VIII by 500 years later, one can say it was a quite successful attempt at passing a lie off as reality.

Being able to read their patrons and predict how they wanted to be portrayed was a key skill for medieval and early modern painters. Rembrandt van Rijn is considered to be one of the great Dutch masters, but even his legacy was not immune to the whims of the political leaders he was depicting. One of his most famous paintings is The Night Watch, depicting a group of Dutch upper class men engaging in their civic duty to defend the Dutch Republic. Like Holbein’s painting, it was also a lie: as the town’s mayor, Frans Banninck Cocq – the man in the center of the painting – would have almost certainly never seen actual combat. It was a success however, in no small part because it depicted the subjects exactly as they saw themselves. However, his most ambitious work was the giant 25 square meter painting of the revolt of the Batavians – the germanic people who lived in what is now The Netherlands during Roman times. The Conspiracy of Claudius Civilis, named after the leader of the Batavians, was met with far from the same acclaim as The Night Watch. Instead of depicting the Batavians, with whom the Dutch aristocracy identified, as civilized modern Europeans, he painted them as historically-correct rugged barbarians, led by a warlord Civilis. Instead of hanging the painting in the Amsterdam city hall, for which it was commissioned, it was returned to Rembrandt, who had to cut it down to a much smaller size before he managed to sell it for a small portion of its worth. While the two paintings were probably not intended as propaganda pieces, their different fates still show that powerful individuals are very aware of how they are depicted and strive to maintain an image that shows them in a good light.

When it comes to propaganda images, few are as bizarre and peculiar as those of North Korea’s ruling Kim family. While they do their share of autocratic speeches in front of mass rallies or military parades, it is the North Korean media’s steady flow of pictures of their leaders looking at things that stands out as the most peculiar. All of the images follow roughly the same format: Kim Jong Il or Kim Jong Un, surrounded by government and military officials hanging on to every word, looking at something comically mundane. From food to industrial machinery, there is practically nothing the Kims have not literally taken a look at. While it may seem like a strange form of propaganda to Western eyes, this ritual actually has great significance to the North Korean regime. One of the duties of North Korea’s leader is to observe various activities – mundane or otherwise – and suggest how they can be improved. The practice is referred to as on-the-spot guidance, and represents both the Kims’ vast knowledge and their ceaseless quest to improve North Korea. While its effect on the actual productivity of North Korea is debatable, it is nonetheless a brilliant, if perplexing, propaganda effort.

The reigning king of absurd propaganda photos is, however, Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Based on the official photos released by his staff, the president of Russia is the most interesting man in the world. He has done everything in the past two decades, from horseback riding and wrestling with tigers to piloting submarines and leading a biker gang, making one wonder when the arguably most powerful man in the world has time for the actual business of governing. The idea behind those propaganda shots, however, is easy to understand: Putin is a strong and powerful man, projecting an image of a strong and powerful Russia abroad. The unspoken corollary – that he is too strong to be opposed – is likewise an effective message in a country fond of revolutions. However, as Putin has aged – he is turning 65 this year – his displays of machismo have increasingly began bordering on ridiculous. It is very difficult to imagine him outscoring Olympic hockey players, for example, without seeing the whole thing as an exaggerated photo-opp. Nonetheless, Putin continues to be very popular both in Russia and abroad, making the mighty sexagenarian act a successful propaganda coup.

Putin’s shirtless world leader’s club has recently been joined by an unexpected new arrival – Canada’s Justin Trudeau. Yet while Putin’s photos depict him engaging in exciting and extraordinary activities, Trudeau is often not even the center of attention in his photos. Many of his most popular photos are of him in the background or joining ordinary Canadians in activities such as hiking or surfing. Even when he is pictured with other celebrities or world leaders, it is their reactions – usually very positive – to Trudeau that draw the eye. It is all, of course, much more likely to be a well-organized propaganda strategy than a series of lucky coincidences, but it nonetheless tells us a lot about how Trudeau sees himself – as a youthful and captivating frontman for Canada’s inclusive, welcoming and engaged society. Considering the collective Internet excitement every time a new photo of Trudeau pops up, the unorthodox strategy seems to be working quite well.

While some of the strange PR strategies seen in this article worked out well, it is important to keep your audience in mind, which is something that the US President Donald Trump’s team clearly did not when a photo emerged of him clutching a glowing orb together with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Meant to symbolize the opening of a Middle Eastern anti-terrorism surveillance center, the image of three men holding a globe in their hands may have served as an effective message in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, neither of which can be classified as a democracy. In the US and Europe however, the image was immediately met with ridicule, comparing Trump and his fellows to comic book villains. The story of the Orb should serve as a cautionary tale that a propaganda photo that goes viral is not always bound to be successful.

Oscar Wilde said that “there is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” For politicians in today’s 24-hour news cycle, that adage continues to hold true. Thanks to the ubiquity of access to digital media, even in closed-off countries like North Korea, politicians have to compete with cats, ponies and Harambe the Gorilla for the public’s attention. With the internet’s natural attraction to the surreal and the peculiar, it is no surprise that some of the most well-known politicians in the world are those with weird and unusual media strategies. While shirtless Justin Trudeau is unlikely to enter the canon of world art the same way Hans Holbein’s Henry VIII did, the two are both part of the same ancient artistic tradition.

By Yaroslav Mikhaylov

Photo credit

Cover Photo: Amanda Lucidon, Official White House Photo, official government work

Image 1: Workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger 1497/8, Public Domain via Google Art Project

Image 2: Rembrandt van Rijn, Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Image 3: Rembrandt van Rijn, Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Image 4: Korean Central News Agency via kimjongillookingatthings, official government work

Image 5: Office of the President of the Russian Federation, official government work

Image 6: GoToVan, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

The post Propaganda by Body Image appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.