Putin and Obama: The Dictator and the PR Expert
The Snowden case is strengthening Moscow’s position in the international arena. Putin’s message is clear: Don’t count on Americans and abandon hope of receiving help from the other side of the Atlantic, writes journalist Krzysztof Rak.
Even the best PR expert will lose to a ruthless politician — such is the moral of the story of the American IT specialist Edward Snowden, who betrayed the secret of the American program used for electronic surveillance. The moral is uplifting: Public relations has its limits after all, so traditional politics isn’t for losers just yet.
Image War
What happened behind the scenes of the Snowden case will surely remain unexplained. We will not find out what role the secret services played in his escape. Did the Russians and the Chinese plan it from the start, or did they simply take advantage of the situation? In the end, this isn’t what’s most important. Only the end result matters: By offering Snowden asylum, Putin has made a laughingstock of the United States and its president.
Snowden revealed what is perfectly well-known to the general public opinion, even if it may simply be from big-budget Hollywood productions. You remember Tony Scott’s 1998 film “Enemy of the State,” in which Gene Hackman and Will Smith heroically fight against Jon Voight, acting as an evil official of the omnipotent National Security Agency?
Worldwide, everyone eavesdrops on everything and everyone. Only finances and the technological advance of computers limit global surveillance. And that is why the U.S., which allocates the most resources for this goal and which has the most advanced technology, must be the world leader in surveillance. This is obviously obvious.
So what exactly is Snowden’s role? Russia and China used him as a propaganda attack against America.
Today, a country’s international position is determined not only by its “hard power,” meaning its population, the size of its economy and its army, but also, to an increasing extent, by its so-called “soft power,” meaning the attractiveness of its image. In this domain, the Americans used to be absolute champions. They managed to portray the U.S. as a country of freedom, democracy, prosperity and equal opportunity for everyone. As a modern promised land, where anyone can go from being a bootblack to being a millionaire. As a noble sheriff ensuring that good triumphs in the world. Russia and China are seen as the opposite. They are seen as the heirs of evil empires, where authoritarian regimes stifle the freedom and happiness of their people.
The Snowden case has shaken this asymmetry. Washington has turned out to be a Big Brother threatening the freedom and privacy of every inhabitant on Earth, while Beijing and Moscow have turned out to be their noble defenders. In recent days, the media has spread his pretty little tale across the whole world.
The Triumph of Machiavellianism
Asylum for Snowden is a personal failure for Obama and his democratic political world view. For the current U.S. president is not a politician. He is a PR expert. He became president because he is good with the media and he can use them to communicate with the Americans. He doesn’t have a program. He only has specially prepared “messages” and precisely learned gestures and facial expressions which he constantly repeats. He says exactly what journalists, who are mostly enthusiasts of leftist political correctness, and electors, who are mostly adherents of a philosophy of materialistic progress, want to hear.
First-past-the-post politics is ruled by the general principle of something nice for everyone. The issue of what’s best for social groups and for the country, which is key for classic politics, becomes unimportant, since as a rule the benefit of one group means the disadvantage of another and the loss of a percentage of the electorate. Only one who understands these principles and knows how to implement them effectively has a chance of ruling Western society in the 21st century.
Obama would have nobody equal to him if everyone accepted the first-past-the-post political paradigm. There are some societies, however, where it does not prevail. Vladimir Putin is the creator of a system which resembles a puppet theater with him and his co-workers pulling the strings. The Kremlin controls everything: the media, the public services, the army and the administration. Without his approval, no political party can function and no person may run in any elections. Everything is controlled, and democracy is a spectacle in which only the blind and the deaf believe.
A small, oligarchical group exercises power in Russia. Former KGB officials make up its core, for whom interest is of crucial importance: their own interest. Anna Arutunyan, author of “Czar Putin,” remarks that Russia, and more importantly its resources, are simply their property — in the sense of a feudal patrimony. They couldn’t care less about the average Russian, but they do care about the Russian state, because its interests are also their own. Putin and his friends can boldly say: Russia is us. For this reason, they ruthlessly fight to strengthen their country’s position in the international arena because it directly affects their material well-being. This is where the key difference lies. Obama is merely a carrier of a certain administrative function. His salary does not depend on whether he is successful or not. He only has to be liked, and his only reward may be re-election. And only one.
A PR expert will never replace a politician. He uses marketing strategies which are based on trust and reciprocity. In foreign politics, they are useless. This is because foreign politics still relies on the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest. A buffalo who decides to trust a hyena will be doomed to be devoured. Obama placed his trust in Putin. As a consequence, for years he opted for a "reset" with Russia. He abandoned the doctrine of unipolarity, according to which global order is organized around a single pole — Washington. He decided that the world is made up of several poles, and one of them is Moscow, so it is necessary to take its interests into account. He has made a fundamental change in American foreign policy.
In exchange, Putin made a hostile gesture toward him and humiliated him. Why? Russians treat trust as a sign of weakness which has to be ruthlessly abused. They only understand the language of brutal force.
The Game of Power
Obama undoubtedly has no idea that one of the few foundations that legitimize Putin’s power is an anti-Western ideology, in particular anti-American. And for an authoritarian power, its legitimization is its "to be or not to be." Especially during electoral campaigns, Russian media simply relish in anti-Americanism (I had the opportunity to experience this for myself). Russians are constantly told that Putin’s Russia exists only to repulse the satanic and degenerated America. They are being convinced that the mission of the host of the Kremlin is a battle for life and death with the host of the White House. Putin’s every success in his fight with Obama is treated like a great success of the Russian power and the Russian man. Just imagine what must happen within the Russian soul when the Russian president gives the U.S. president a massive kick in the rear end.
What’s most surprising in all this is that Americans do not react to such signs of hate in the media. After all, the main responsibility of their diplomats is to monitor the Russian media and to inform on them. Clearly they tolerate them, thinking they do not affect American-Russian relations. Snowden’s case proves that they are making a fundamental mistake.
In order to validate its propaganda and the ideology which constitutes the basis of its existence, Putin’s regime must, from time to time, take a spectacularly hostile step against America. So that there is no discrepancy between propaganda and reality. It’s about keeping power over the Kremlin and the trillions of dollars of income that come from that title. It’s interesting to note that Putin would never allow himself such demonstrations of force toward China, a genuine rival and a potential threat to Russia in Eurasia. For Putin well knows that in response Beijing could shatter him.
The Snowden case strengthens the Kremlin’s position in the international arena. In many regions of the world, Washington’s interests collide with those of Moscow. After their defeat in the Cold War, the Russians want to rebuild their influences in some of these regions at the cost of the U.S. As part of the reset politics, Obama has, for instance, abandoned the plan to install anti-missile defense systems in Central-Eastern Europe. This was a severe blow for Warsaw, Prague and Kiev when it comes to trusting the U.S. Now Putin is trying to destroy this trust. The Kremlin’s message is clear: Don’t count on Americans and abandon hope for receiving help from the other side of the Atlantic; we’re the ones dealing the cards here and you have to adapt to our interests.
The rules of foreign policy are similar to those of boys playing in the backyard. Hierarchy is determined by strength. Putin, a pupil of one of Leningrad’s backyards, understands this perfectly. In Masha Gessen's biography of Putin, “Putin: The Man Without a Face,” Gessen even suggests that in his political activity, Putin follows the code of drunkards. So if Obama does not repay him in due course — and with interest — then for the guys in the yard he’ll be a “soft fud.”
Even the best PR expert will lose to a ruthless politician — such is the moral of the story of the American IT specialist Edward Snowden, who betrayed the secret of the American program used for electronic surveillance. The moral is uplifting: Public relations has its limits after all, so traditional politics isn’t for losers just yet.
Image War
What happened behind the scenes of the Snowden case will surely remain unexplained. We will not find out what role the secret services played in his escape. Did the Russians and the Chinese plan it from the start, or did they simply take advantage of the situation? In the end, this isn’t what’s most important. Only the end result matters: By offering Snowden asylum, Putin has made a laughingstock of the United States and its president.
Snowden revealed what is perfectly well-known to the general public opinion, even if it may simply be from big-budget Hollywood productions. You remember Tony Scott’s 1998 film “Enemy of the State,” in which Gene Hackman and Will Smith heroically fight against Jon Voight, acting as an evil official of the omnipotent National Security Agency?
Worldwide, everyone eavesdrops on everything and everyone. Only finances and the technological advance of computers limit global surveillance. And that is why the U.S., which allocates the most resources for this goal and which has the most advanced technology, must be the world leader in surveillance. This is obviously obvious.
So what exactly is Snowden’s role? Russia and China used him as a propaganda attack against America.
Today, a country’s international position is determined not only by its “hard power,” meaning its population, the size of its economy and its army, but also, to an increasing extent, by its so-called “soft power,” meaning the attractiveness of its image. In this domain, the Americans used to be absolute champions. They managed to portray the U.S. as a country of freedom, democracy, prosperity and equal opportunity for everyone. As a modern promised land, where anyone can go from being a bootblack to being a millionaire. As a noble sheriff ensuring that good triumphs in the world. Russia and China are seen as the opposite. They are seen as the heirs of evil empires, where authoritarian regimes stifle the freedom and happiness of their people.
The Snowden case has shaken this asymmetry. Washington has turned out to be a Big Brother threatening the freedom and privacy of every inhabitant on Earth, while Beijing and Moscow have turned out to be their noble defenders. In recent days, the media has spread his pretty little tale across the whole world.
The Triumph of Machiavellianism
Asylum for Snowden is a personal failure for Obama and his democratic political world view. For the current U.S. president is not a politician. He is a PR expert. He became president because he is good with the media and he can use them to communicate with the Americans. He doesn’t have a program. He only has specially prepared “messages” and precisely learned gestures and facial expressions which he constantly repeats. He says exactly what journalists, who are mostly enthusiasts of leftist political correctness, and electors, who are mostly adherents of a philosophy of materialistic progress, want to hear.
First-past-the-post politics is ruled by the general principle of something nice for everyone. The issue of what’s best for social groups and for the country, which is key for classic politics, becomes unimportant, since as a rule the benefit of one group means the disadvantage of another and the loss of a percentage of the electorate. Only one who understands these principles and knows how to implement them effectively has a chance of ruling Western society in the 21st century.
Obama would have nobody equal to him if everyone accepted the first-past-the-post political paradigm. There are some societies, however, where it does not prevail. Vladimir Putin is the creator of a system which resembles a puppet theater with him and his co-workers pulling the strings. The Kremlin controls everything: the media, the public services, the army and the administration. Without his approval, no political party can function and no person may run in any elections. Everything is controlled, and democracy is a spectacle in which only the blind and the deaf believe.
A small, oligarchical group exercises power in Russia. Former KGB officials make up its core, for whom interest is of crucial importance: their own interest. Anna Arutunyan, author of “Czar Putin,” remarks that Russia, and more importantly its resources, are simply their property — in the sense of a feudal patrimony. They couldn’t care less about the average Russian, but they do care about the Russian state, because its interests are also their own. Putin and his friends can boldly say: Russia is us. For this reason, they ruthlessly fight to strengthen their country’s position in the international arena because it directly affects their material well-being. This is where the key difference lies. Obama is merely a carrier of a certain administrative function. His salary does not depend on whether he is successful or not. He only has to be liked, and his only reward may be re-election. And only one.
A PR expert will never replace a politician. He uses marketing strategies which are based on trust and reciprocity. In foreign politics, they are useless. This is because foreign politics still relies on the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest. A buffalo who decides to trust a hyena will be doomed to be devoured. Obama placed his trust in Putin. As a consequence, for years he opted for a "reset" with Russia. He abandoned the doctrine of unipolarity, according to which global order is organized around a single pole — Washington. He decided that the world is made up of several poles, and one of them is Moscow, so it is necessary to take its interests into account. He has made a fundamental change in American foreign policy.
In exchange, Putin made a hostile gesture toward him and humiliated him. Why? Russians treat trust as a sign of weakness which has to be ruthlessly abused. They only understand the language of brutal force.
The Game of Power
Obama undoubtedly has no idea that one of the few foundations that legitimize Putin’s power is an anti-Western ideology, in particular anti-American. And for an authoritarian power, its legitimization is its "to be or not to be." Especially during electoral campaigns, Russian media simply relish in anti-Americanism (I had the opportunity to experience this for myself). Russians are constantly told that Putin’s Russia exists only to repulse the satanic and degenerated America. They are being convinced that the mission of the host of the Kremlin is a battle for life and death with the host of the White House. Putin’s every success in his fight with Obama is treated like a great success of the Russian power and the Russian man. Just imagine what must happen within the Russian soul when the Russian president gives the U.S. president a massive kick in the rear end.
What’s most surprising in all this is that Americans do not react to such signs of hate in the media. After all, the main responsibility of their diplomats is to monitor the Russian media and to inform on them. Clearly they tolerate them, thinking they do not affect American-Russian relations. Snowden’s case proves that they are making a fundamental mistake.
In order to validate its propaganda and the ideology which constitutes the basis of its existence, Putin’s regime must, from time to time, take a spectacularly hostile step against America. So that there is no discrepancy between propaganda and reality. It’s about keeping power over the Kremlin and the trillions of dollars of income that come from that title. It’s interesting to note that Putin would never allow himself such demonstrations of force toward China, a genuine rival and a potential threat to Russia in Eurasia. For Putin well knows that in response Beijing could shatter him.
The Snowden case strengthens the Kremlin’s position in the international arena. In many regions of the world, Washington’s interests collide with those of Moscow. After their defeat in the Cold War, the Russians want to rebuild their influences in some of these regions at the cost of the U.S. As part of the reset politics, Obama has, for instance, abandoned the plan to install anti-missile defense systems in Central-Eastern Europe. This was a severe blow for Warsaw, Prague and Kiev when it comes to trusting the U.S. Now Putin is trying to destroy this trust. The Kremlin’s message is clear: Don’t count on Americans and abandon hope for receiving help from the other side of the Atlantic; we’re the ones dealing the cards here and you have to adapt to our interests.
The rules of foreign policy are similar to those of boys playing in the backyard. Hierarchy is determined by strength. Putin, a pupil of one of Leningrad’s backyards, understands this perfectly. In Masha Gessen's biography of Putin, “Putin: The Man Without a Face,” Gessen even suggests that in his political activity, Putin follows the code of drunkards. So if Obama does not repay him in due course — and with interest — then for the guys in the yard he’ll be a “soft fud.”
Previous article![]( "Attention! This Is a Terrorist Alert!")
