Why is Russia’s Leadership So Annoyed with Obama?

The biggest thing to happen last week, without a doubt, was the new American president’s assumption of office. I ended up watching the event twice, both times on television.

The first time, I was in a foreign hotel, watching as a handful of Spanish, Italian, French, German, and English reporters – without the usual intellectualizing – reported on location, interviewing both cynical pundits and average joes, all of whom were trying to express their excitement at such a momentous occasion. Overall, there was an elevated tone, and it was obvious that something serious was taking place that would affect not only Americans, but everyone on the planet.

Back in Russia, I observed Russian journalists from the four government-controlled, nationally syndicated channels racking their brains, trying to outdo each other in slinging mud at the inaugural ceremonies. There was some banter about these two million “American airheads,” duped by clever propaganda, who had gotten together in Washington; and the talking heads who – without any sort of evidence – had managed to infuse them with the hope of new perspectives. It was considered a small miracle that Obama’s cortege meandered down Pennsylvania Avenue as slowly as it did; but the parade took too long, and surely the poor citizens were freezing.

Of course, one would expect that the younger staff reporters from some of the channels would arbitrarily take a dislike to the president of the United States; but it seemed to me that everyone here was on the same page.

Which begs the question: how has Obama–who has yet to do anything, good or bad-–managed to irritate the Russian elite?

This oddity hasn’t escaped the attention of Yevgeny Primakov, himself no fan of the U.S., whose latest book was recently published. Primakov is amazed at the fact that nobody in Moscow is rejoicing over the complete absence of Neoconservatives (who swarmed around Bush and informed his foreign policy) in Obama’s circle. According to Primakov, it was the Neocons who played the leading role in America’s attempts at advancing democracy, by any–including military–means possible, while completely ignoring the conditions inherent in individual countries. “Obama has not included a single Neoconservative in his administration. It is now possible-–and vital–-that we engage the Americans.” This from the man for whom the term Primakov’s Loop was coined.*

What is more, the new administration has already begun to talk about efforts to engage Russia on exactly the issues on which Russia has been trying-– unsuccessfully, until now- to initiate negotiations with Washington. So why is Russia’s leadership so annoyed with Obama?

As ridiculous as it might seem, I think it is because he is black. Because now the old adage that “over there they shoot black people” no longer holds water.

One of the foundations of Russian foreign relations is the abiding conviction that “over there” everything is just like it is “over here”: manipulated elections, strict control over the media, corruption, and nationalism. The Americans are just better at covering it up. This is why Putin, at recent talks, suddenly broke into a rant about firing American journalists for censorship.

And no “democratic values” exist it all; it’s all just a scam to keep the populace reined in.

I suspect that Obama’s election will cause even the most loyal viewers of [Russian pro-government television program] Vremya to experience doubts about this scheme. How utterly annoying.

The other disconcerting factor is that Obama has already begun, in an all too decisive way, to part with Bush’s legacy. Indeed, despite Primakov’s estimation, the aggregate of Neocons did not (a la the Trotskyites) hold “permanent democratization” as their primary goal. The Busheviks did the most harm to America by adhering to the principle of “the end justifies the means.” In the name of the War on Terror, and under contrived pretenses, they barged into Iraq (in much the same way as the Bolsheviks, they picked the easiest target in the Middle East, and tried to turn Iraq into a showcase of democracy), and they constructed secret prisons.

Putin, whose foreign policy came of age during Bush’s administration, took America’s actions to be the norm.

But now, Obama insists that all of this was an anomaly. He is closing the secret prisons, and in his inaugural speech, he states:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake…our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Some may say that this is simply rhetoric. They may be right. But if Obama is speaking earnestly, then Putin–-who is firmly convinced that power, unrestrained by anyone or anything, is not only the means, but the end, of politics–-is in for a rude awakening. And that is what is so irritating about Obama.

*Translator’s Note: Primakov once cancelled a visit to the United States, mid-flight over the Atlantic, upon learning that NATO had bombed Yugoslavia]