Friday, July 11, 2008

This nuanced and cautious take on Anglo-Russian relations from the Daily Mail.....


Unknown said...

It is simply mind-blowing that you are allowed to write on issues pertaining to Russia for the Economist. While you certainly are entitled to your own opinion (but not your own facts), I am continually floored that the editors of the Economist would allow you to right such one-sided anti-Russian editorials and pass them off as journalism.

You seem like a nice fellow but the Russia you think you know, no longer exists.

We we to focus on any country in the world we could find anti-Democratic decisions, trends, and people. We could also find lots of negative developments and situations.

As Malcolm Gladwell so excellently explained in his book, what one thinks s/he sees is based as much of his/her preconceived notions as on the reality in front of him or her.

You don't like Russia. Therefore, anything Russia does will be seen by you negative. This tendency should immediately disqualify you from covering anything to do with Russia.

Veiko Spolitis said...

Perfectly concise position, no comments needed because we have returned to square one, unfortunately...

I disagree with you Timothy. Preconceived or lately acquired assumption are, still the task of journalism is to INFORM. If you do not like Ed Lucas texts, you may simply read liberal scripts in Guardian or other forums.

The saddest part Timothy is a fact, that when persons like Ed Lucas WARN US all about rise of Kremlin barbarians in sheepskins for years now, there are persons like You who want to control the free flow of informations - I JUST CANT BELIEVE IT!!

Veiko Spolitis said...

And to add one more comment Timothy. Yes, I agree and pretty much know that Edward agrees as well on the fact that Russia is not USSR! However, the article and his latest book is about the fact that Kremlin governors and their retinue is the Soviet educated NOMENKLATURA (teachers indoctrinated them about the superhuman race who could even turn Siberian river current around), that does not lead the new Russia forward, but instead back to the suspicious and authoritarian past of gouvernance a'la Union Sovietique...unfortunately

Edward Lucas said...

Hi Timothy

1) I don't know how I could have made it clearer that this was _not_a piece for The Economist. Look at the headline!

2) It is not a piece of factual reporting but an opinionated commentary. That is what the Daily Mail commissioned and I was glad to write it. If you want nuanced, balanced reporting, then look at the Economist's news pages.

3) Why do you think this gang of crooked chekisty who infest the upper reaches of power in Russia is good for the country?

Unknown said...

If anybody knows anything about flair, a handshake with the Russians should not be on the agenda, for Russia is the biggest hypocrisy, the biggest makeover ever to appear on the planet. Just go and visit the country, Siberia and you will see how deep seeded nation decay Russia is. And I don't blame the peasants. The problem is that the Kremlin could not care less about the people and it's a shame. Instead, the Kremlin invests money in bribing politicians, plays havoc, even kills those who criticise them. To me, the Kremlin disgust overrides everything that I've been trying make out.

Giustino said...

Therefore, anything Russia does will be seen by you negative. This tendency should immediately disqualify you from covering anything to do with Russia.

A very interesting idea, but I wonder how far the "only those who like Russia, should write about Russia" concept can really go.

Surely, Mr. Lucas has an interest in Russia. He speaks to some extent Russian, and, in my mind, only some one who is truly motivated can learn a foreign language without constant exposure to it.

I, for example, have a limited interest in southeast Asia. Yet I know some people who visit Vietnam, learn Vietnamese, and are sure to criticize the government there. Should they not be entitled to write about Vietnam -- or should we trust these embitttered 'Namophiles as great sources of information?

One does not need to worship the local authorities to demonstrate an interest in a place: and Russia is a place, not a leadership, correct?

Unknown said...

I mean... every time I hear anything about Russia makes me shake all over. The Kremlin gawk is now over the Czech's soil.

I understand that societies play down their problems, put their best foot forward and try to make a good impression, but Russia takes this tendancy to the extremes. Russia supports almost all dictators all over the world: Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just to name a few, tries to nip every democracy in a bud. Why?

It seems to me (and what scares me the most) that most Russians are proud of it. Russia is ok, the West - oh no no no...

To my mind what makes the false fronts so much misleading in Russia than those of other countries is the lack of controversy. An entire veneer of people has been created by the Russia system and those who speak freely take risk to be hammered.
It is like a national sport to deceive others.

I'd be grateful if anyone could help me and say something good about Russia... without pulling the wool over the eyes.

Väring said...

People like "Timothy" will never understand anything...

My appreciation for your articles, they portray russia as it is - a criminal bully, big but with a small brain.

Greetings from Sweden

PS. We will stop the Nord Stream pipeline.