How Vova and Dima Spent Their Summer Vacation

Russia’s ruling tandem spend some time apart.

CAPTIONS BY JOSHUA KEATING | AUGUST 25, 2010

Growing apart: Last summer, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were rarely seen apart. The Kremlin released a steady stream of photos showing the two leaders frolicking together in Sochi and other resorts, reminding the public of their "friendly" partnership. But this summer, the story is different. Medvedev has largely stayed in Sochi, while Putin has traveled alone throughout Russia visiting disaster sites, riding motorcycles, and tranquilizing endangered species, like the whale he's shooting with a crossbow in the above photo.

REUTERS/RIA Novosti

DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPE
 

SUNICE

9:42 AM ET

August 26, 2010

Education

I understand that we live during times of lazy journalism and blindly copying photos and other info from AP and posting to your website is called an article.

So just you let you know Taganrog was newer "Black sea town". It is on the sea of Azov or Azov sea.

What else can we talk about if you are wriring about a country, but you do not bother even read about it.

Best Regards,

Russian American

 

KIMZIGFELD

9:41 PM ET

August 27, 2010

Russian Education

I understand that we live during times of impulsive, ignorant, lazy commenting on blogs and to blindly, emotionally responding to content generated by others while generating none of our own.

So just to let you know "AFP" stands for Agence France-Press, it has nothing to do with "AP," which stands for Associated Press.

And it's "writing" not "wriring" and it's "never" not "newer."

What else can we say when you throw stones while living in a glass house?

 

SUNICE

8:37 AM ET

September 8, 2010

I do not see a paralel

I do not see a paralel between a typo made by an internet user and a horrible geographical mistake made by a professional journalist. Or is he an "F'journalist"?

My best regards,

Sunice - Concervative Republican

 

SUNICE

10:11 AM ET

August 26, 2010

Exclusively for JOSHUA KEATING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taganrog

 

CEOUNICOM

12:37 AM ET

August 27, 2010

A Man among lesser men!

Whale-hunting with a crossbow? Putin's chest hairs are probably a prized aphrodisiac in Asia, which is why he's always bald-chested; he farms them for millions in profit each year to fund his bear-wrestling, whale-shooting, tiger-strangling expeditions. He must be vaguely related to Chuck Norris.

But seriously, just 'tranquilizing' endangered species? I suppose he drugs them up so he can then beat the shit out them with his bare hands. Shooting is so unsportsmanlike. Or maybe its a catch-and-release deal. He probably has a giant ship with a crane nearby so he can hold it up for the picture.

The subtext of this whole thing seems to be that Medvedev is a big wuss, while Putin rides with a biker crew, puts out forest fires with his ice-cold glare, and occasionally visits his many illegitimate children when not taunting bears: "come on bitch, you want some of this? Thats right, walk away...be very afraid."

And re: TASHASUNNY & SUNICE - I dont know if you actually read this magazine at all, but 99% of it is exactly what you said = domestic and international policy analysis. A little levity from time to time is actually entertaining. And these 'photo essays' are merely a tiny sidebar in the magazine. Don't be so uptight. You could also have noted that the captions to each photo actually DO discuss some of the domestic issues the two were dealing with this summer... so your complaint is a little unfounded.

 

TASHASUNNY

8:09 AM ET

August 28, 2010

the argument

ok...CEOUNICOM, I see what you mean and I am not trying to blame the magazine for being unable to make a "proper" analyses, although in my opinion it is always one-sided. I just cannot stand the articles of this particular type. And I will explain you why:

Firstly, every country has its own historical tradition and ideals. The leaders have to follow some specific rules to create an image of the "right leader" in the minds of their people. Of course some parts of the image-making seem to be exagerated, ridiculous, but they are part of our history - imperialistic splendour mixed with the "superman ideology" of the present based on the desire to be percieved as a "big kind father" of the nation (the idea which goes back to the Soviet period). Shoud we laugh at the American or French heritage too? All these images have a symbolic meaning and have nothing to do with "let´s show the world how cool we are". They are created for "domestic consumption". Of course, we can laugh at them too, but the difference here is the context - we are part of our culture and we have a differnt understanding of the things they do...

The psycological aspect obviously plays an important role too as it is always easier to laugh at yourself then to let somebody else laugh at you.

and finally, the way the information can be presented varies. We can present any situation in a ridiculous, stupid, serious or even threatening way...it only depends on what our ourpose is. A great example you can see in the present article: "tranquilizing endangered species" - what is that about? no context, no explanation, nothing... but the reader immidiately gets a somehow negative image of what the prime minister is doing.

The role of the media is to influence the people´s minds and this really functions. So I think you should understand our reaction to the articles like this. If the magazine is about domestic and policy analyses there is no place for the biting irony and sarcasm. They ARE responsible for the image they create. If people perceive it as an athority, they do not distinguish (even if they think they do) between analytical material and articles of "just for fun" type while building their attitude to some particular issue. And as a result quite educated people say to me then "you seem to be a nice girl, but I hate your country". and the reasons for this hatred are often based on the information we got through the media.

 

CEOUNICOM

12:31 AM ET

August 30, 2010

re: The Media Strategy To Emasculate Manly Russian Leadership

"" Shoud we laugh at the American or French heritage too? ""

Uh, yes? Americans and French already do. Here you see a small sample mocking Obama and Bush in the same way..http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/29/who-is-more-macho-2010-edition

"The role of the media is to influence the people's minds... If the magazine is about domestic and policy analyses there is no place for the biting irony and sarcasm."

Uhm, I'm starting to see what you mean about this "Stalinist Heritage" type thing. I am aware that the word "propaganda" in Russia never had a particularly negative connotation; and that media has for a long time been seen as an necessary extension of the State in creating a jingoistic populist ideology (to support the state, naturally)...but we have a different tradition of media in the West (i.e. the Fourth Estate')... where the function of the media is to provide an adversarial or counter-balancing role to the political class. Basically, mock politicians and their rhetoric, and expose them as the shallow poseur hacks that they are (when that is the case: some media may do the opposite; the point is that adversarialism *is normal*). We've been mocking our leaders incessantly for 230+ years. So, no, there is *plenty* of room for biting irony and sarcasm in any publication.

I honestly think you misunderstand how Westerners read this; you see it as anti-russian propaganda driven by a publication with an agenda: we see it as perfectly normal commentary on what, to any dispassionate viewer, is genuinely funny. It may not be funny to you, but then, so what? Its not their job to protect your need for hero-worship.

I mean, jesus, you really *are* being uptight. Your prime minister...shooting whales with a crossbow? Is that really supposed to be seen as a perfectly normal for a "politician" to be doing? Do they not have, like, biologists in your country, or does the prime minister get called for all wildlife related shootings? Making Judo Movies? Posing barechested with guns? If you don't find it funny; FINE! Everyone else does. Not because of some anti-Russian media conspiracy, but because its *fucking hilarious*.

If anyone says they "hate your country", I'd ask them why. I don't think anyone reads stories like this and "hates russia" because of it. Maybe they take Russia less *seriously* (which is nobody's fault but Putin), but hate? Not so much. Keep in mind, most older American's memories of the 20th century were of a Soviet Union parking nukes on our doorstep, promising to "Bury" the US, and instigating & financing communist revolutions in 3rd world countries that produced millions of deaths and left behind some of the most odious regimes in the world. Since the end of the Soviet Union, I dont think most Americans have any particular reason to "Hate" Russia. If they do, I'd ask why. I think most Americans don't think about Russia all that much, or care all that much. But your leaders can be pretty amusing from time to time, so, you might occasionally see some articles like this...

If Americans 'hate' any counties in a broad sense (and it would be an interesting topic of analysis: I think since the fall of the Soviet Union, no one figures importantly enough to raise the ire of everyone universally, really), it would be Iran and North Korea - and in those cases, its largely because they REALLY hate us already! Its either "The Great Satan", or "Black Hearted Running Dog Imperialists! We will drown you in a sea of fire!!"... I mean, they're jerks. But I wouldn't even think most people "hate" them, because despite nuclear weapons, they're pretty harmless and mostly just hurting themselves. They're funny too.

Now Al Qaeda? Now there you have winner. We hate the shit out of them. But they're not a country, so that doesn't count I guess. But we still make fun of them.

If it upsets you, maybe you should read USA Today or something. They're pretty inoffensive and unfunny in every way possible. Or better yet = NK News...

http://www.nk-news.net/index.php

That will get your pro-state propaganda heart beating! But its hilarious too.

 

NALANO

1:22 PM ET

August 31, 2010

Because there are no parallels, right?

America never devolves into propaganda, or seeks to undermine regimes in other countries for its own economic ends, or fosters hero worship-like myths about its leaders, right?

Only other countries do that. Our hands are clean! Nobody fought the Cold War but the commies. Okay.

 

CEOUNICOM

3:20 AM ET

September 12, 2010

no...

No one is claiming innocence here. Just that making the argument "who was worst" is ultimately stupid. If you think Kruschev's policy was fantastic, fine, make the case. I'm not arguing might makes right -im pointing out the soviet union 'buried' themselves... is that so controversial?