Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
The Americans claim that the missile defence sites are to protect themselves and Europe from potential Iranian missile strikes. The Russians believe that a serious threat from Iran is so unlikely, that there must be an ulterior motive. Is the USA trying to flex its millitary muscle by impinging on Russia's former occupied territories? Does the USA's latest missile defence scheme pose a direct threat to Russian security?
Vladimir Putin certainly seems to think so. "It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world… in effect, we are forced to retaliate, to take corresponding decisions," declared President Putin, sounding more like a propaganda minister from Rocky IV than the rational leader of the world’s largest nation.
Such bolshy war mongering is not to be taking lightly. Russia is in many respects the strong nation hailed by Putin. They are still the only nation with the nuclear capability to provide a genuine threat to the United States and the vast natural resources at their disposal, if harnessed correctly, could turn the country into a bona fide force (Russia has the world's largest reserve of natural gases and the 8th largest oil reserve). Furthermore, it has the world's 7th largest GDP (gross domestic product) and a middle class of 55 million people, up from only 8 million in 2000.
However a source I managed to get into contact with believes that Putin is not quite as confident about Russia's strength as he would have us believe. Ian (for the sake of anonymity) is a businessman who has been shuttling between the UK and Moscow since 2001 and knows more than most about Russia and the Russian mentality.
I asked him about the reaction of the Russian public to this piece of news. "The missiles are presented on TV as being a threat to the security of Russia and a provocation by the Americans trying to take advantage of a perceived weak Russia... Putin wants (and needs) to be perceived as strong by the domestic public as he maneuvers to stay in power and this is an issue that raises passions in Russia. If it upsets the US so much the better, especially if it annoys the wretched Poles as well."
With a paper tiger like Russia, it is far easier to hark back to the glorious defence of Stalingrad than to deal with the difficult, process of Democratisation.
According to Ian and many other foreign observers, Russia's admittedly astounding progress is built on unstable foundations. "Russian prosperity is based on a superabundance of raw materials of every kind rather than manufacturing or financial excellence...they are entirely dependent on the rest of the world to buy their low added value products." Factor in the declining population and the disastrous war in Chechnya (around 18, 000 Russian soldiers have died since 1991) and Putin's masquerade becomes ever more understandable.
Vladimir Putin has used his KGB credentials to entrance a nation who desperately crave strong leadership, and he must do everything in his power to maintain this image. His popularity rating is consistently above 70% yet he continues to crush political opposition, most notably chess grandmaster turned politician Gary Kasparov and 'The Other Russia' party. Why resort to illegitimate means of gaining votes when there is simply no need to? Just another dictatorial way of saving his own skin if things do eventually go belly up.
Putin's reaction to America's actions seems to be a classic diversionary tactic used to deflect from potentially unfavourable domestic conditions. No-one managed it more perfectly than the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. In 1982, Britain was in an economic mess; most of it, it is fair to say, was not Thatcher’s fault. She inherited a plodding dinosaur of a civil service manned by complacent and overly influential mandarins and it was clear that some radical streamlining needed to take place.
Inevitably, when the idea of radical change was brought before the British population, the ‘steady as she goes’ types who made up a large percentage of the nation balked at the idea. The Falklands War was a blessing. Thatcher raised the Union Jack and got the whole country to salute, united against the hostile Argentinians behind a leader of Churchillian gravitas. With a paper tiger like Russia, it is far easier to revive the us versus them mentality of Stalingrad than to deal with the difficult, time-consuming process of Democratisation.
You must log in to submit a comment.
