Why the Russian government is reacting strongly to old corruption allegations
Last weekend, Russian media was buzzing about BBC One's recently released documentary. Called Putin's Secret Riches, it alleges that the Russian president is wealthier than official records suggest - and that the wealth was obtained through some cozy insider dears. The sort of things Chicago aldermen go to prison for.
As a Gazeta.ru article from last Saturday points out, the allegations aren't really new. What is new is that BBC got US Treasury official Adam Szubin on record as saying that, yes, Putin is definitely corrupt, and US government knew that for years. White House spokesman Josh Earnest subsequently confirmed that this is a US government position.
Carolyn Kaster/AP (via Gazeta.ru)But what's really weird has been the Russian government's reaction. The Gazeta.ru article points out that United Russia apparatus usually ignores Western allegations of corruption. So why did the state media spent hours calling it "informational warfare attack on Russia?"
The reaction from Putin's spokesman is also... interesting.
Putin's press secretary Dmitriy Peskov says that the negativity that has been coming from British and American media outlets in regard to president Putin was laying the groundwork for Russia's 2018 [presidential] elections.
"Obviously, they are building up negativity, particularly negativity against the head of our state, which, of course, is being used to put pressure and influence the course of the upcoming election campaign," Peskov said.
Seriously - I'm not sure what to make of this. As far as I know, Putin has no meaningful opposition. If one was to emerge, the full force of United Russia apparatus would descend upon them and try its damnest to grind them to powder.
Granted - as I've written many times before, the events in Ukraine caused the government to tighten the screws and try to clamp down on anything that would present opposition. The new restrictions on blogs and websites, the new rules making it impossible for foreign companies to own majority stakes in Russian media outlets, the talk about "fifth columnists"... Before the Maidan protests, the government was willing to tolerate some criticism, knowing that the extent of state media's reach would ensure that most people wouldn't see anything outside the official party line. But since then... Even if the odds of Maidan-like scenario are low, they don't want to take any chances.
The fact that, as I wrote earlier, the country's economy is showing no signs of rebounding, probably doesn't help. We've know that, when things get tough economically, UR cranks up patriotism and tries to evoke cultural memory of self-sacrifice in the face of greater adversity. Western media slandering the great and mighty president doesn't have quite as much punch as Nazis in Ukraine, but when life gives you lemons...
That is not to say Peskov's statement is completely wrong. If a strong opposition figure emerges that might actually stand a chance against Putin, I highly doubt US government would just sit on the sidelines. But I don't think it would create a strong opponent from scratch - it knows that any politician that doesn't have legitimate political support wouldn't last very long. Instead, we'd see what happened during the Maidan protests, with American government trying to figure out which one of the many factions to support and just how much it would do.
(And no, I don't think it would've done anything if Yanukovich actually cracked down on the protestors early and put them down violently. There would've been condemnations, perhaps even sanctions, but that's it. And, a few months later, Russia and America would act like nothing happened)
One final thought. The Gazeta.ru article speculates that the White House's statement on Putin's corruption was meant to encourage discontent within Russia. Which I don't buy. If it was the case, it wouldn't be a very effective attack. The allegations against Putin aren't new, and having Western officials repeat them isn't going to make them actually stick. And, more importantly, if they did try to use it as a big political gesture, it would've been presented as a much bigger deal. The Obama administration would've brought a lot more bells and whistles to get the message across. It knows how to get the media to pay attention. But as it stands... I'm not sure about UK, but in United States, this news barely caused a ripple. The results UK inquiry about the death of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko got way more coverage, but even that was overshadowed by campaign news.
I think it's more likely that Bloomberg View opinion columnist Leonid Bershidsky had it right. Obama's term is almost over. As we've seen with plenty of other political issues, the president just doesn't feel the need to play nice.
As a Gazeta.ru article from last Saturday points out, the allegations aren't really new. What is new is that BBC got US Treasury official Adam Szubin on record as saying that, yes, Putin is definitely corrupt, and US government knew that for years. White House spokesman Josh Earnest subsequently confirmed that this is a US government position.
Carolyn Kaster/AP (via Gazeta.ru)But what's really weird has been the Russian government's reaction. The Gazeta.ru article points out that United Russia apparatus usually ignores Western allegations of corruption. So why did the state media spent hours calling it "informational warfare attack on Russia?"
The reaction from Putin's spokesman is also... interesting.
Putin's press secretary Dmitriy Peskov says that the negativity that has been coming from British and American media outlets in regard to president Putin was laying the groundwork for Russia's 2018 [presidential] elections.
"Obviously, they are building up negativity, particularly negativity against the head of our state, which, of course, is being used to put pressure and influence the course of the upcoming election campaign," Peskov said.
Seriously - I'm not sure what to make of this. As far as I know, Putin has no meaningful opposition. If one was to emerge, the full force of United Russia apparatus would descend upon them and try its damnest to grind them to powder.
Granted - as I've written many times before, the events in Ukraine caused the government to tighten the screws and try to clamp down on anything that would present opposition. The new restrictions on blogs and websites, the new rules making it impossible for foreign companies to own majority stakes in Russian media outlets, the talk about "fifth columnists"... Before the Maidan protests, the government was willing to tolerate some criticism, knowing that the extent of state media's reach would ensure that most people wouldn't see anything outside the official party line. But since then... Even if the odds of Maidan-like scenario are low, they don't want to take any chances.
The fact that, as I wrote earlier, the country's economy is showing no signs of rebounding, probably doesn't help. We've know that, when things get tough economically, UR cranks up patriotism and tries to evoke cultural memory of self-sacrifice in the face of greater adversity. Western media slandering the great and mighty president doesn't have quite as much punch as Nazis in Ukraine, but when life gives you lemons...
That is not to say Peskov's statement is completely wrong. If a strong opposition figure emerges that might actually stand a chance against Putin, I highly doubt US government would just sit on the sidelines. But I don't think it would create a strong opponent from scratch - it knows that any politician that doesn't have legitimate political support wouldn't last very long. Instead, we'd see what happened during the Maidan protests, with American government trying to figure out which one of the many factions to support and just how much it would do.
(And no, I don't think it would've done anything if Yanukovich actually cracked down on the protestors early and put them down violently. There would've been condemnations, perhaps even sanctions, but that's it. And, a few months later, Russia and America would act like nothing happened)
One final thought. The Gazeta.ru article speculates that the White House's statement on Putin's corruption was meant to encourage discontent within Russia. Which I don't buy. If it was the case, it wouldn't be a very effective attack. The allegations against Putin aren't new, and having Western officials repeat them isn't going to make them actually stick. And, more importantly, if they did try to use it as a big political gesture, it would've been presented as a much bigger deal. The Obama administration would've brought a lot more bells and whistles to get the message across. It knows how to get the media to pay attention. But as it stands... I'm not sure about UK, but in United States, this news barely caused a ripple. The results UK inquiry about the death of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko got way more coverage, but even that was overshadowed by campaign news.
I think it's more likely that Bloomberg View opinion columnist Leonid Bershidsky had it right. Obama's term is almost over. As we've seen with plenty of other political issues, the president just doesn't feel the need to play nice.