Sochi During the Cold War
Published in Wiener Zeitung
(Austria) on 10 February 2014
by Haimo L. Handl (link to original)
(Austria) on 10 February 2014
by Haimo L. Handl (link to original)
Translated from
by Erica Wilfong Boxheimer.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
It is almost like the days of evil empires, or the "devil’s" empires, as Ronald Reagan named the enemy nations. The United States and its allies are the good ones; all the others are evil. After the beginning of the "war on terror" under George W. Bush, Russia did not belong to the "rogue states;" it is once again an evil empire.
Media analyses and documentaries illuminate and criticize "Putin's Games." Several heads of state are so critical that they will not attend the opening ceremonies. They follow a moral standard and sense of justice that should lead them to shun the U.S. and many others — almost all others, if they would follow their maxims widely and extensively. However, the point of view is as one-sided as it was in the past.
The criticism and morals do not include the "friends." That did not change, like when the Germans learned they were being monitored like no other nation — like scoundrels. The biggest data thieves and spies, the U.S. and United Kingdom, remain friends and allies. Although the espionage business serves to manipulate markets to re-inforce U.S. interests, in Europe, Britain primarily represents U.S. interests, in an anti-European way. Most media outlets broadly support the good guys, first and foremost, the United States.
Now on TV, where many British series run along the all-too-well-known American TV series, which entertainingly "educate" us on the high social levels of England as a cultural nation, analyses are delivered about Vladimir Putin’s empire, which strengthens old enemies and simultaneously emphasizes the old myths of friendships. Trust slightly shaken by the National Security Agency affair will be desperately cemented on both sides; whereas the Americans cynically clarify that at its core, there is nothing to excuse or correct, except for a few cosmetic measures, Europeans participate in it. They belong to the good ones, thinking that they sit in the same boat, gazing at the enemy camp, fueling the fear.
While timely documentary films re-educate people about the demise of the Soviet Union and Putin's rise, and deliver background material about "his" games, there is not a similar eagerness regarding the revelations of the west’s deep-rooted corruption networks — the good ones: for example, in the International Olympic Committee, in FIFA — where Switzerland’s Sepp Blatter has ruled since 1998 — or the Formula 1 organization, FIA, to name only three prominent major event organizers. There are investigations, but no adequate consequences.
So, "Putin Games?" What will we call the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in 2016? Whose games were they in Beijing in 2008, or in Los Angeles in 1984? Were the Winter Olympic Games in Sarajevo in 1984 (then Yugoslavia) politically motivated? The Olympic spirit did not flourish very long there: From 1992 to 1996, Sarajevo was besieged and attacked.
Media analyses and documentaries illuminate and criticize "Putin's Games." Several heads of state are so critical that they will not attend the opening ceremonies. They follow a moral standard and sense of justice that should lead them to shun the U.S. and many others — almost all others, if they would follow their maxims widely and extensively. However, the point of view is as one-sided as it was in the past.
The criticism and morals do not include the "friends." That did not change, like when the Germans learned they were being monitored like no other nation — like scoundrels. The biggest data thieves and spies, the U.S. and United Kingdom, remain friends and allies. Although the espionage business serves to manipulate markets to re-inforce U.S. interests, in Europe, Britain primarily represents U.S. interests, in an anti-European way. Most media outlets broadly support the good guys, first and foremost, the United States.
Now on TV, where many British series run along the all-too-well-known American TV series, which entertainingly "educate" us on the high social levels of England as a cultural nation, analyses are delivered about Vladimir Putin’s empire, which strengthens old enemies and simultaneously emphasizes the old myths of friendships. Trust slightly shaken by the National Security Agency affair will be desperately cemented on both sides; whereas the Americans cynically clarify that at its core, there is nothing to excuse or correct, except for a few cosmetic measures, Europeans participate in it. They belong to the good ones, thinking that they sit in the same boat, gazing at the enemy camp, fueling the fear.
While timely documentary films re-educate people about the demise of the Soviet Union and Putin's rise, and deliver background material about "his" games, there is not a similar eagerness regarding the revelations of the west’s deep-rooted corruption networks — the good ones: for example, in the International Olympic Committee, in FIFA — where Switzerland’s Sepp Blatter has ruled since 1998 — or the Formula 1 organization, FIA, to name only three prominent major event organizers. There are investigations, but no adequate consequences.
So, "Putin Games?" What will we call the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in 2016? Whose games were they in Beijing in 2008, or in Los Angeles in 1984? Were the Winter Olympic Games in Sarajevo in 1984 (then Yugoslavia) politically motivated? The Olympic spirit did not flourish very long there: From 1992 to 1996, Sarajevo was besieged and attacked.
Previous article![]( "China-US Relationship Beginning To Look More and More Like a Chess Match")
