Russias president writes an article... shocking one.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Sep 11, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    The article is something outstanding. Something like this could be expected in 'Soviet Russia' - leading communist newspaper but not from the Kremlin.

    Just imagine that mr.Brown writes an article for the Daily Telegraph about corruption in the Labour party and ineffectiveness of ruling elites.

    Let's look at this (final fragment of Medvedev's article (with my comments)

    Empty declarations.

    Mr.president, just act. Remove corrupted officials, nationalise property robbered by so called 'businessmen', these leeches.

    Mr.Medvedev who himself is a puppet of the gang of thieves that run Russia now bash his masters...

    It's interesting would deeds follow after words. Unlikely.
  2. So i take it he will not support Mr Putin's future bid to become president again, and that democracy needs to be strengthened by increaing the free press and rooting out those who murder journalists who expose corruption. It is all true but entirely risible.
  3. At least mr.Putin has never said anything like this. Meanwhile coming elections to Moscow city council are under full control of ruling elites. Oppositioners are not allowed to participate. It is an anecdote. One oppositioner collected signatures in his support, sufficient number to be registered as a candidate. But 104% of signatures were declared invalid. So there are more invalid signatures than presented. Absurd.

    Mr.Medvedev writes:

    It could last for decades.
  4. In the old Soviet Union that article would have caused confusion, with some people responding to the call to show loyalty to the Party, and others worried that it was a trick to make them stick their necks out.
  5. In the Soviet union such an article would be absolutely impossible. Even moron Gorbachev with his Perestroyka wished to modernise Soviet system, made it more flexible. He never blamed Communist party as a source of problems, never pointed to ruling elites as the main obstacle.

    By contrast mr.Medvedev clearly said that current ruling elites is the main obstale, that they have everything and resist any changes, they resist free elections, democracy, free TV, free mass media.

    Some Russian experts see the article as a sign of a division between mr.Putin and mr.Medvedev (personally I don't believe it). That the politicians have different views and different political future.
  6. He could take a major step forward in one easy move: place two of Russia's national TV channels under the control of independent trusts in the model of the BBC, which themselves would be monitored by an independent watchdog to avoid the development of undue bias. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be 100% better than the current arrangement.
  7. You're thinking of this:
  8. Control over all main TV channels is a cornerstone of the Power of ruling elites in Russia. It is possible to bleat about it, how it is wrong. But the elites will control TV further. And mr.Medvedev is a part of the elites.

    There is an interesting political situation. Soon mr.Medvedev will sound his message to the Parliament. And many think that the article prepares it. So now the message would not be so shocking.

    Mr.Putin as a leader of ruling United Russia party will make a major speech on its congress in October. Would he repeat mr.Medvedev or propose another ideas?

    Let's wait. But frankly speaking I don't expect much.
  9. I think the phrase 'elite' has been given a very bad rap. Their is nothing inherently wrong with the existence of or being a member of an elite, all that matters is what they do with respect to the other elites, the non-elite, and the wider world.
  10. Ahhhh yes, the unbiased BBC.

    Is that the same BBC that is now required to "follow a public diplomacy strategy in line with government medium and long-term goals, given that funding is provided through grant-in-aid"?

    See Wilton Report 2002, Carter Report 2005 and Foreign Affairs Select Committee 3rd Report 2006 for further reading.

    It's all well and good having nominal day-to-day hands-on editorial/operational independence if strategically your arms have been cut off at the shoulder.

    Of course, this only (in theory) applies to the World Service. :wink:
  11. It it couldn't be trusted, people wouldn't listen to it in place of the domestic alternative. The truth has been, is, and always will be, the best propaganda for furthering our medium and long-term interests. If you want to see real government foreign service propaganda, the Russia Today website is always a good case study: 'Stop the 9/11 Cover-up' is today's main story. I though I might have spotted an objective piece about the problems in Russia's economy with regards to the downturn in their rural employment figures: 'Crisis breeds generation of unemployable'. It was about Swindon.
  12. The BBC World Service is heading the same way as Russia Today. Still a fair way to go, but...
  13. Any evidence the BBC WS is today any more bias that it has always been? The 'public diplomacy' approach has been in place for decades.
  14. If one looks at the output of a news broadcast, on the surface there is little evidence of particular bias. However, scratch a little deeper, and one has the feeling that certain angles or stories are simply being ignored.

    On the otherhand, if one considers the broader daily programming content, I'd say the World Service has changed quite considerably in the past decade. A change brought about to reflect a change in supplier demands not listener demands. And then there is the cutting of services to some regions and a increases in others which reflect purely government policy interest and have nothing to do with listener figures, expectations or hopes.

    In effect the strategic delivery has been severly politicised, the operational delivery compromised and the tactical delivery remains relatively independent. In otherwords, the presenter can say what he/she wants as long as the programme has been granted permission to be aired to an area considered worthy of transmission.
  15. As the discussion has smoothly turned to the BBC then being a listener of BBC Russian I have to say that last months it looks less and less biased. Moreover, sometimes it doesn't try to cover unpleasant for the UK events.

    For example, the scandal with MPs expenses was presented in details and nearly an hour was allocated for telephone calls from listeners. A Russian-speaking female Conservative activist answered question very sincerely. I rang too and it appeared that she knows an PM Bill Cash who 'hired' a flat belonged to his daughter.

    By the way, time for the telephone calls from listeners was expanded from 20min to 1h20min daily.

    Returning to the theme, I note that BBC Russian asked its listeners about their attitude to Medvedev's article.