Rant: the demonisation of Putin in Western media

[Matteo]

Putin gets demonised way too much in Western media because he does not bend and succumb to Western hegemony and dominion, unlike say, Boris Yeltsin, who was nothing more than a puppet, and arguably one of the most dysfunctional leaders in 20th century politics.

Still, I'll be the first to admit that Putin has many despotic and oppressive tendencies. He has managed to completely monopolise Russia's political landscape and implemented -- what is to some degree -- an authoritarian way of governing. Funnily enough, he is still as popular as ever. I think a lot of this derives from Russia's history. They do not know how to govern themselves, and I am not being disdainful here. For so long they endured under a despotic communist regime, and, before that, centuries of autocracy. Once the Federation was formed and the shock therapy was implemented, Russia went into complete disarray, and this was supposed to be a time of Western-orchestrated democracy - civil disobedience was alarmingly high, and their entire economy just plunged as a large portion of the nations' wealth was operated by oligarchs. The state fundamentally turned into an oligopoly. Russians during the 90s in Russia wanted communism back because at least there were some degrees of stability embedded in their political and social frameworks (there were numerous communist coups, as we know). This is how bad it was getting. This period of 'democracy' was mismanaged and botched to extreme levels. Then along came Putin who promised prosperity, recovery, and stability only at the expense of centralising power back into the Kremlin. He's also very patriotic, and reinforces Russian traditionalist values as opposed to Western-forced ones. It worked, and the Russian people love him for that, despite Putin being in control since 1999 and probably up until 2030.

Putin has many dictatorial propensities and Russia has numerous problems, but which states don't? The problem with Western media is they neglect to examine the Ukrainian situation from the standpoint of Russian culture, ideology and tradition. They view it through the lenses of Westernisation, and that is simply a bad way to go about it because all you are getting is distortions and fallacious conjectures. Do I agree with Putin's monopolisation of Russia's politics? No. Do I agree with his suppression of free speech, predominately in the field of journalism? No. But the Russian people idealise him and a lot of this stems from their historical reliant on big, centralised government. Many in the West went through periods of democratic transparency, but Russia haven't. They can't govern themselves. They haven't had the opportunity to do so yet. Putin is a good mix between large, commanding government and some democratic tendencies. Many political scientists say Russia is fundamentally operating as an 'illiberal democracy', and I can agree with that.

I just think the way the Western media has covered this crisis in Ukraine, and Putin's image in general, has been outright deplorable. They are equating him with Hitler in terms of mischievous and Stalin in terms of imperialism. I simply can not agree with that. If I was Putin, I'd be worried about NATO's expansionist agenda and the various anti-defence missile systems they've set up across eastern European borders over the last fifteen years, suppressing Russia's geopolitical interests and regional strength, particularly along the Black Sea peninsula. Of course, one thing the West always overlook is how NATO promised Russia they will not expand into eastern Europe since the Cold War threat dissipated. So much for that happening.

In regards to Ukraine, I equally condemn both sides. Putin's annexation of the Crimea and his engineered uprising in eastern Ukraine as a pretext to append more land and the West's funding of -- what is essentially -- an illegal coup with many far-right tendencies are both venal and wrong. Ukraine honestly feels like a pawn on a chess set, being dictated and exploited by two external powers looking to advance their own interests.

Still, the demonisation of Putin in Western media is really riddled with hyperbole, and is mostly all conjecture. I get the media are always going to be sensationalistic, but it's this type of black-and-white thinking that is magnifying the events in Ukraine as a 'you are either with us or against us' scenario, and that's dangerous. I just wish more people saw this crisis and various other political issues through the Russian perspective, as opposed to the Western one. There really is a large disparity between the two, most of which stems from their respective histories. Just my two cents.

[ShaneOfan]

He is demonized because he demonized himself. He is basically a dictator who set himself up as the head of the country for life. He has had unofficial control for years. It is not a western bias to see how he has set himself up to rule Russia. It isn't western bias to see the Ukrainian conflict as a power and land grab by Putin because it is obviously what it is.

[AkydefGoldberg]

Welcome back NoDQ! You've been missed!

I would agree that the Western media portrayal and the West's approach to Putin post-Crimea is slightly hypocritical considering the wars they've been involved in that's included invasion of other countries of false pretexts.

Only positives of Putin is that he's a strong willed leader, patriotic and doesn't bend down to other countries' demands easily, especially the West but his negatives completely out-weight any positives he has gained.

He's another power-hungry Russian who initially was seen as someone who could re-form Russia but as soon as he took power, began steps to clamp down on oil oligarches and media moguls like Boris Berezovsky (have to admit maybe worth doing that because he did have an awful lot of power with Yeltsin; and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea because he was worried he'd be targeted next); the murky deaths of Litvinenko and the refusal to let British authorities interview suspects; the murders of journalists at Novaya Gazeta (Anna Politkovskaya) which weren't truly investigated despite the public sentences. Lest not forget how he installed his puppet Medvedev as President whilst he took a backseat to PM then returned as President and finally his uncompromising support for Bashar al-Assad, supplying weapons to his regime that in turn kill civilians.

Sorry, his reputation is what it is because of the power he's assumed and the acts he's done.

[CavingSiberian]

He just got divorced... I wonder what his exwife has to say about him... ha ha


No, but really... I LOVE Russian culture, I speak a little (very little) Russian. I love reading about he Romanovs... but, someone in Putin's legislation, whether it be him or someone he is choosing to work with, is not making smart choices in regards to the Ukrainian situation. I don't think it is simply a western view, either. China isn't too happy with Russia right now...

[ShaneOfan]

Welcome back NoDQ! You've been missed!

I would agree that the Western media portrayal and the West's approach to Putin post-Crimea is slightly hypocritical considering the wars they've been involved in that's included invasion of other countries of false pretexts.

I agree that most western nation especially the US as a nation don't have much ground to stand on when it comes to aggression. We have more legal means for land grabs by flat out buying land elsewhere as of late but we did acquire our fair sure be war in the past, as have a lot of nations. That said most developed nations no longer do that I mean we saw some gains pre-WW2 but after the war most nations got rid of their assets. All that aside involving ourselves in other nations affairs is something the west loves to do. But that doesn't mean the people support it as a whole. I personally think Ukraine was none of Russia's business nor was Iraq ours.

[Matteo]

He is demonized because he demonized himself. He is basically a dictator who set himself up as the head of the country for life. He has had unofficial control for years. It is not a western bias to see how he has set himself up to rule Russia. It isn't western bias to see the Ukrainian conflict as a power and land grab by Putin because it is obviously what it is.

Do you know what is Western bias? Vilifying Putin whilst deliberately overlooking the highly conspicuous far-right tendencies of -- what is essentially -- an illegal coup that were not democratically elected and is directly funded by the West. Of course Putin wants eastern Ukraine as a political shield from NATO and Western powers. He also wants it so he can freely exercise his naval infrastructure along the Black Sea peninsula. And considering NATO's imperialist and expansionist movement of the past fifteen years, you can see the political logic in it.

[ShaneOfan]

He is demonized because he demonized himself. He is basically a dictator who set himself up as the head of the country for life. He has had unofficial control for years. It is not a western bias to see how he has set himself up to rule Russia. It isn't western bias to see the Ukrainian conflict as a power and land grab by Putin because it is obviously what it is.

Do you know what is Western bias? Vilifying Putin whilst deliberately overlooking the highly conspicuous far-right tendencies of -- what is essentially -- an illegal coup that were not democratically elected and is directly funded by the West. Of course Putin wants eastern Ukraine as a political shield from NATO and Western powers. He also wants it so he can freely exercise his naval infrastructure along the Black Sea peninsula. And considering NATO's imperialist and expansionist movement of the past fifteen years, you can see the political logic in it.

You are treating Putin like the victim here. Do you seriously support him and think he is in the right?

[Matteo]

He is demonized because he demonized himself. He is basically a dictator who set himself up as the head of the country for life. He has had unofficial control for years. It is not a western bias to see how he has set himself up to rule Russia. It isn't western bias to see the Ukrainian conflict as a power and land grab by Putin because it is obviously what it is.

Do you know what is Western bias? Vilifying Putin whilst deliberately overlooking the highly conspicuous far-right tendencies of -- what is essentially -- an illegal coup that were not democratically elected and is directly funded by the West. Of course Putin wants eastern Ukraine as a political shield from NATO and Western powers. He also wants it so he can freely exercise his naval infrastructure along the Black Sea peninsula. And considering NATO's imperialist and expansionist movement of the past fifteen years, you can see the political logic in it.

You are treating Putin like the victim here. Do you seriously support him and think he is in the right?

Absolutely not. If you read my OP, I equally condemned both sides and I am well aware of Putin's despotic tendencies. I just like to evaluate a crisis that is riddled with disparity from various viewpoints, instead of brainlessly absorbing the information the mainstream media is giving me. The West are vilifying Putin whilst overlooking the far-right ideological stance of -- what is -- an illegal coup that were not, and I stress this, democratically elected into government. The West is financially supporting a fairly radical political party, and this is problematic.

I have numerous criticisms of Putin and disagree with his annexation of the Crimea, as well as his engineered and funded pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, but this thread is about the Russian side. I am viewing this crisis from the Russian standpoint, and it is imperative to do so in an event like this.

[Matteo]

Welcome back NoDQ! You've been missed!

I would agree that the Western media portrayal and the West's approach to Putin post-Crimea is slightly hypocritical considering the wars they've been involved in that's included invasion of other countries of false pretexts.

Only positives of Putin is that he's a strong willed leader, patriotic and doesn't bend down to other countries' demands easily, especially the West but his negatives completely out-weight any positives he has gained.

He's another power-hungry Russian who initially was seen as someone who could re-form Russia but as soon as he took power, began steps to clamp down on oil oligarches and media moguls like Boris Berezovsky (have to admit maybe worth doing that because he did have an awful lot of power with Yeltsin; and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea because he was worried he'd be targeted next); the murky deaths of Litvinenko and the refusal to let British authorities interview suspects; the murders of journalists at Novaya Gazeta (Anna Politkovskaya) which weren't truly investigated despite the public sentences. Lest not forget how he installed his puppet Medvedev as President whilst he took a backseat to PM then returned as President and finally his uncompromising support for Bashar al-Assad, supplying weapons to his regime that in turn kill civilians.

Sorry, his reputation is what it is because of the power he's assumed and the acts he's done.

Hi mate. Glad to see you are still around.

Ultimately, I agree with you. I am highly critical of Putin's monopolisation of the Kremlin. He has implemented an authoritarian regime that started from 1999 and will probably last up until 2030. And this is all legal, from a constitutional standpoint - that's the alarming thing. This essentially means he'll be in power for a quarter of a century. He is very dictatorial in some aspect, but the people of Russia love him, and I think this derives from their history of being reliant on large, centralised government. When Russia went through a phase of ostensible democracy, it was Western backed and orchestrated. Turns out it was a disaster of prodigious proportions, and many in Russia blame Yeltsin and his Western counterparts for mismanaging it to such extreme levels. Putin came in at the right time, with the right attitude, and the right ideological approach.

It's amazing how quickly he embedded stability and then oversaw expansion in Russia's economy. He managed to turn his nation into an energy superpower in less than a decade.

A lot of the criticisms we see out of the Western media in regards to Putin is accurate, I am not denying that. He is suppressing free speech, he is riddled with venality, and he is, at heart, somebody who subscribes to communist ideologies. But the line has to be drawn once the media begin talking about how he has aspirations to restore the Soviet Union or his actions can be compared to that of Hitler's or he is just another version of Stalin. This is precisely what I am getting at.

I condemn Putin's unabridged support and funding to Assad's regime, but like with every country in the world, foreign policy and international relations is all about advancing your interests. The reason why Putin is arming a despot like Assad is because Tartus hosts their only warm-water port in the Mediterranean sea and this is hugely instrumental to their interests in the region. If Assad gets toppled by the rebels, Russia loses that port. It's just like the US sharing a strong alliance with Saudi Arabia which is a ruthless monarch full of oppression and various human right violations. It's all about the oil in that case. Putin isn't arming Assad because he wants to help him continue slaughtering the Syrian people, but because he is essentially looking out for his own geopolitical interests.

It's the same with Ukraine. Putin annexed the Crimea because it hosted their naval fleet on the Black Sea peninsula. The Black Sea is an accessible and perfect gateway into Mediterranean where they've got that port. Had Crimea stayed with Ukraine and the country eventually became part of the EU or even a NATO member, Russia loses its fleet, and lacks the infrastructure to access that port in Syria. From there, they'd have to use the Arctic and Northern Atlantic oceans to access that port, and that is largely inaccessible during winter. It's so obvious why Putin annexed the Crimea and it is heavily obvious why he is trying to snatch eastern Ukraine. It is all about protecting your regional strength, and Putin is doing that at the expense of many lives and a failing state. It sucks. I condemn it. I hate it. But you can see the logic behind it. If Ukraine was situated in central Africa, would the US voice so much concern? Would they give $5 billion in foreign aid to the state? Probably not and that is because they won't get anything out of it. With Ukraine, they will, hence the funding.