Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      The War in Ukraine Threatens Global Food Security

      by

      Russia’s war against Ukraine directly impacts agricultural markets. First of all, the conflict impedes the delivery of existing stocks and the upcoming sowing of many types of grains. Due to the occupation and destruction of major ports, exports will continue to collapse. Agricultural exports from Russia are currently still possible on the main transport route via ports on the Black Sea. 

      However, shipping companies report limiting their transport due to the perceived danger and concerns about loss of business. Recently, Ukraine announced that it would restrict its own exports to secure domestic supply.

      Russian Ballet’s Soft Power: Will Dance Outlast Autocracy?

      READ MORE

      Ukraine and Russia have become key players for the export of both grain and sunflower (oil) in the post-Soviet era. For quite some time, their crop yields have influenced international volumes and prices, with Ukraine providing on average 10% of the world’s wheat export supply, and Russia as much as 24%; for maize, Ukraine supplied 15% of the staple feed and fodder. 

      The international market for fertilizer is even more concentrated. With trade shares of individual fertilizer components reaching up to 50%, Russia dominates the market for ammonium nitrate and Belarus, at 16%, for potash fertilizer.

      Wartime Uncertainty

      Due to general business uncertainty, the financial sanctions of numerous states and the EU against Russia currently affect agricultural exports indirectly while specific sanctions directly target respective exports. For example, last year, in response to the crackdown on the opposition in Belarus, the EU imposed sanctions on the market-dominating Belarusian potash producer Belaruskali, extending them last week.

      Prices for many agricultural products determined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations currently already exceed the historic highs during the food price crises of 2007 and 2011. Fertilizer prices have also been rising to record levels for months. In addition, shortages due to reduced or canceled supplies of grain and fertilizer from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are driving up prices. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia, like many countries, has been using export restrictions on agricultural products to secure its own supplies despite international warnings against these price-increasing measures. Just last week, the government recommended that Russian companies also limit fertilizer exports.

      Besides Ukraine, crop and supply shortfalls initially affect countries that import agricultural products from the war-affected region and are currently looking for readily available alternative sources. This drives up prices on global markets, thereby burdening all importers worldwide but hitting low-income countries and people the hardest. Egypt has an import share of 60% of Russian grain and 20% of Ukrainian grain. 

      To date, other countries that are already vulnerable to supply insecurity, such as Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Bangladesh and Turkey, also purchase the majority of their grain from the region. Chad and Niger imported up to 80% of their fertilizer and raw materials from Russia and Belarus; Europe, as well as many countries in Latin America, also purchased large shares.

      Options for Adjustment 

      Affected countries have different options for adjustment. Egypt still has limited but probably sufficient grain stocks of its own for the time being, despite strong supply dependence vis-à-vis the region. In Lebanon, on the other hand, the 2020 explosion at the port of Beirut destroyed wheat warehouses, reducing storage capacity from six months to one month, necessitating a continuous flow of supplies.

      The remaining supply gaps that cannot be solved in importing countries by means of shifts in consumption toward more food rather than energy use require both food and fertilizer support. However, these are becoming more expensive as a result of rising prices for procurement and delivery. Transport and delivery must be additionally protected when sourcing from the region along vulnerable routes.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Trade must remain open and possibly protected on routes perceived as dangerous by shipping lines. Typical crisis-induced but price-pushing export restrictions must be avoided, both within the EU and internationally. Failing supplies from the major agricultural region will show their full effects in the coming autumn crop season, which may only be offset to a certain extent by crops from other major producers such as Australia, the US and the EU.

      Large agricultural countries could pursue forward-looking, coordinated market relaxation in order to quickly identify food supply potentials. However, in order to avoid symbolic politics or protectionist reflexes to support domestic production, the volume and price effects of possible approaches — suspension of set-aside programs, reduced use of agro-fuels or land rededication from fodder to food production — need to be assessed accurately. If a contribution to market relaxation is to be expected, corresponding measures should be quickly initiated for the upcoming crop year as a temporary crisis measure. 

      Similarly, the US is discussing the suspension of the conservation reserve program to allow farmers to bring set-aside areas into production. Price-driving sanctions with regard to fertilizers and agricultural goods should be avoided — or at least be accompanied by aid concepts to absorb linked supply risks.

      As during the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) — a monitoring mechanism developed by the G20 in response to past food price crises — should be used for an international information campaign to prevent price-pushing export restrictions by means of appeals. However, more important than appeals would be the adoption of strict criteria and deadlines for these measures that are enforceable at the World Trade Organization level.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      In the future, AMIS should cover not only agricultural products, fertilizers and energy sources but also the conditions of and access to trade infrastructure. Here, restrictions heavily influence supply and price and should be included in a comprehensive warning system for international supply potential.

      Furthermore, a future international political offensive for fertilizers and their raw materials is needed. Not only must the market situation be monitored and, in the event of shortages, be accompanied by aid early on. Technologies to make their use more efficient and to increase fertilizer production capacities as well as approaches to their substitution, whether technologically or by cultivation, are also needed.

      *[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions related to foreign and security policy.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      No, the Ban on Russian Athletes Should Not Be Lifted

      by

      In a recent article, Ellis Cashmore raised the provocative question of whether or not we should lift the ban on Russian sport instituted as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. Cashmore advances a number of sensible arguments, most importantly that this ban might turn out to be counterproductive. Instead of coaxing the Russian population to question the neo-imperialist delusions of its “great leader,” President Vladimir Putin, it might provoke an in-your-face backlash, reinforcing rather than weakening the despot’s grip on the minds of his subjects. 

      Should We Lift the Ban on Russian Sport?

      READ MORE

      Furthermore, Cashmore maintains, experience shows that sports bans largely failed to have a significant impact on regime policies in the past. South Africa is a case in point. There are good reasons to believe that the bans and boycotts the country was subjected to did little to hasten the collapse of apartheid. The same could, of course, be said about sanctions in general, as Peter Isackson has recently noted in these pages. Cuba is probably the most prominent example of the failure of prolonged sanctions to undermine a regime; Iran is another. 

      This could also be said about resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly condemning acts of aggression. The most recent vote following Russia’s attack on Ukraine has demonstrated once again the futility of symbolic gestures, even if supported by the vast majority of the international community. The reality is that for despots and autocrats, the only thing that counts is brute force. After all, what brought Nazi Germany to heel was not boycotts and sanctions but the overwhelming military might of the allies. 

      The Importance of Sport

      Should we, then, lift the ban on Russian sport? In fact, should we lift all sanctions imposed on Russia, given the fact that, empirically, sanctions more often than not turn out to be counterproductive? The answer to the second question is obvious, at least to me. Sanctions might not be particularly effective in their impact on regime behavior, but they serve as an expression of moral revulsion, a signal that we don’t want to have anything to do with you, or at least as little as possible. This involves all areas, not only economics — and particularly sport.

      Embed from Getty Images

      It is easy to state, as Cashmore does, that “it would be foolish to hyperbolize the importance of sport; obviously it is not as serious as war, or a million other things. So, why hurt people who are not responsible for the original sin?” Anyone who has ever watched Leni Riefenstahl’s 1938 film “Olympia,” which documented the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, is likely to get a sense of the importance of sport to autocratic regimes. 

      The Berlin Games were supposed to demonstrate the superiority of Adolf Hitler’s Aryan race. But a black athlete from the United States, Jesse Owens, had the audacity to steal the show, making HItler’s sport warriors — “swift as greyhounds, tough as leather, hard as Krupp steel” — literally eat dust. The Führer was not amused; he hastily left the stadium so not to have to bear witness to the Aryan humiliation.

      A famous German strategist once characterized diplomacy as war by other means. The same could be said about sport, particularly during the Cold War period. This was certainly true in the case of the SED regime in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). For the regime, sport was more than a competition, it was a Systemfrage — a question of system, socialism vs. capitalism. Sport victories, particularly against West German athletes, meant confirmation of the superiority of the socialist system and, of course, of the Soacialist Unity Party. 

      At the same time, sport provided the regime with the international visibility it so desperately craved. For this, no price was high enough, including the health of the athletes. Starting in the early 1970s, the regime embarked on a broad-based systematic doping program. Already at a young age, promising athletes were pumped full of drugs, designed to enhance their performance and competitiveness. Many of them still suffer from the long-term consequences.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The East German case is extreme but hardly exceptional. Anyone who has ever visited Rome can attest to that. Rome hosts an Olympic stadium that dates back to the late 1920s, initially forming part of the larger Foro Mussolini. In the 1930s, the stadium was expanded, in preparation for the 1940 Olympics. The games were ultimately canceled because of the war, depriving Mussolini of the opportunity to showcase his Fascist revolution: the massive obelisk at the entrance of the Foro, with its “Mussolini Dux” inscription, the mosaics leading up to the stadium, glorifying the Fascist takeover, the granite blocs bearing excerpts of Mussolini’s speeches. 

      Mussolini’s reign ended in April 1945 at a gas station in Milan’s Piazzale Loreto. Yet at the centennial of Mussolini’s March on Rome, later on this year, the obelisk is still there, in Rome, in front of the Olympic stadium, together with the mosaics and the granite blocs — a silent testimony to a dictator’s hubris and the role of sport in it.

      Get Real

      One of the most often heard arguments these days on the subject of the sport ban is that it is the “innocent” athletes who are most directly affected by it. “I only feel sorry for the athletes” has been an often repeated mantra by those commenting on the ban. Let’s get real. Compared to the suffering and anxieties of millions of Ukrainian civilians subjected to Russian terror bombing, the chagrin of Russian athletes deprived of the opportunity to compete internationally is of little consequence — except, of course, for those, like Daniil Medvedev, who lose money. But then, the ATP has so far refused to follow other sports and ban Russian players. 

      Finally, one last thought. Before FIFA banned Russia from its World Cup competition, Poland, followed by Sweden and the Czech Republic, made it clear that they would not play Russia in the playoffs for the World Cup at the end of this year. Robert Lewandowski, Bayern München’s star forward and winner of the Best FIFA Men’s Player title two years in a row, was particularly adamant in his refusal to play against Russia. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      I am quite curious to know what would have happened had FIFA not banned Russia. Would Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic have been sanctioned for refusing to play the Russian national team? What would have it done to FIFA’s already dismal image if, as a result, Vladimir Putin’s aggression against his neighbor had been compensated with Russia’s automatic World Cup qualification? 

      The reality is that international competitions in certain sports, such as football and ice hockey, are more than just sports. They are sources of national pride and national prestige, particularly for countries with autocratic regimes, with star athletes as national icons who are more often than not close to the regime. Alexander Ovechkin, arguably the best hockey player at the moment, has a long history of supporting Putin, including the 2014 annexation of Crimea. 

      As Czech hockey great Dominik Hasek has put it, this is not a personal matter: “Every athlete represents not only himself and his club, but also his country and its values and actions. That is a fact.” It is for this reason that the ban on Russian sport was imposed. It should not be lifted.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Try This Game to Evaluate Levels of Disinformation in Times of War

      by

      Although during her three-decade-long career as a US Foreign Service officer Victoria Nuland has done many things, mostly in the shadows, she has had two moments that projected her into the headlines, both related to crucial events in Ukraine. It is worth noting that on both of those occasions, her superiors expected her to remain in the shadows. In other words, it is merely by chance that she has now become a household name in US foreign policy.

      Nuland has loyally served every administration, Democrat and Republican, since Bill Clinton, with a single exception. Donald Trump most likely refused to exploit her acquired competence on the grounds that she had been tainted by working for Barack Obama’s State Department under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Or perhaps Trump felt she had become too embedded in the culture of the deep state he claimed to abhor.

      A Fictional Debate Between a Biden Administration Spokesman and a Journalist

      READ MORE

      Nuland’s closest direct collaboration with a luminary of American politics occurred between 2003 and 2005 when she held the position of principal deputy foreign policy advisor to Vice-President Dick Cheney. That enabled her to hone her skills as an aggressive agent of US power while playing an influential role in promoting the Iraq War. After that stint, she became George W. Bush’s ambassador to NATO. In January 2021, President-elect Joe Biden named her under secretary of state for political affairs, the fourth-ranking position in the State Department.

      According to Foreign Policy, who quotes Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Nuland “has a high degree of self confidence and an absolute dedication to working for the administration she is working for, whatever administration that is.” In other words, she is a reliable tool of anyone’s policy decisions, however generous, cynical or perverse they may be. That is what she proved when sent to Kyiv in February 2014 to pilot the operations around the peaceful protests that were then taking place that the State Department judged could then, with the appropriate level of management, be turned into a revolution.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The hacked recording of a phone call between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Nuland sealed the otherwise discreet diplomat’s place in history. In the recording, Nuland’s voice can be heard giving Pyatt orders about who the United States had selected to be Ukraine’s new prime minister. Countering Pyatt’s suggestion of the popular former boxer, Vitali Klitschko, Nuland selected Arseniy Yatsenyuk. After the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country and Yatsenyuk struggled to lead a new government, an anti-Russian billionaire, Petro Poroshenko, won the presidency in September 2014. He immediately appealed to the Obama administration for military assistance to counter Russia, but President Obama kept him at bay, reasoning that “Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States.”

      In other words, not only did the CIA work to overthrow the elected president, Yanukovych, but Nuland managed to manipulate Ukrainian politics from within and thus contribute to what was to evolve into a notoriously corrupt regime under Poroshenko. At the same time, her commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, chose to limit the US involvement in Ukraine by defining a prudent arm’s length relationship with the fiasco that was unfolding, even after Russia seized Crimea from the Ukrainians.

      Back in the News in 2022

      The events around the 2014 Maidan revolution provided the only occasion for the general public to become aware of Nuland’s name until last week when she appeared before the Senate where Florida Senator Marco Rubio questioned her about the current situation in Ukraine. That exchange should have been routine, but Rubio felt it was important to use Nuland’s testimony to refute accusations by Russia and China that the US was funding the development of chemical weapons in laboratories in Ukraine. 

      Nuland could have simply denied that any such laboratories existed and Rubio would have been satisfied. Instead, she uncomfortably explained not only that “biological research facilities” exist, but that the State Department is worried the Russians might effectively gain control of the labs, creating the risk of “research materials … falling into the hands of the Russian forces.” Some attentive observers deduced that the worry Nuland expressed concerned the possible revelation of illicit research funded and encouraged by the United States.

      The scandal that exploded after this exchange provoked two reactions. The first was a firm and over-the-top denial by the Biden administration. It was accompanied by a defensive counter-accusation claiming somewhat absurdly that the Russians were only making the accusation to cover up their own intention to use chemical weapons against Ukraine. The second more serious reaction was Rubio’s attempt to clarify the ambiguity of Nuland’s revelation by interrogating Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and CIA Director William Burns.

      Rubio counted on Haines not to make the same mistake as Nuland. Clearly, he expected her to give just enough perspective to dismiss any suspicions that the US may be involved in illegal military research. Claiming that “the best way to combat disinformation is transparency,” to make sure Haines would understand the type of response he hoped to hear to dispel the negative effect of Nuland’s testimony, Rubio spent three full paragraphs framing his question and insisting “it’s really important … to understand what exactly is in these labs.” Haines offered this astonishing response: “I think medical facilities — that I’ve been in as a child, done research in high school and college — all have equipment or pathogens or other things that you have to have restrictions around because you want to make sure that they’re being treated and handled appropriately. And I think that’s the kind of thing that Victoria Nuland was describing and thinking about in the context of that.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Haines tells Rubio not what she knows but what she “thinks,” a verb she uses three times in two sentences. What she describes is nothing more than a subjective memory from her personal past and a vague generalization about medical security. It contains zero information of any kind. The next part of her answer, concerning nuclear power plants, is not only irrelevant but also a vague generalization about the possibility of “damage … or theft.” Her answer clarifies nothing. But Rubio is satisfied and concludes with three words: “All right, thanks.”  

      In his subsequent questioning of CIA Director Burns, Rubio takes four paragraphs to frame his question, again intended to clarify Nuland’s testimony. In the last two paragraphs, however, he veers away from the question of Nuland’s revelation and instead asks Burns about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy concerning negotiations. Burns jumps on the opportunity to avoid answering the initial question about the Ukrainian biolabs. From Rubio’s point of view, the case is closed.

      Growing Curiosity Outside the Circles of Power

      Whereas most news outlets were happy to repeat the Biden administration’s adamant denials that any kind of biochemical research was taking place in Ukraine, various commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, picked up the issue and raised further questions. Greenwald took the time to remind his public of the troubling precedent of the anthrax attacks following 9/11 in 2001. Only months after killing five people did Americans learn that the anthrax originated in the Fort Detrick military lab in Maryland and not in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (I have written elsewhere on Fair Observer about my own interrogations and investigation of that affair.)

      Nuland’s testimony was seriously embarrassing. Rubio’s follow-up failed to put the scandal to bed. It was time for the White House to go into full denial mode. Predictably, presidential Press Secretary Jan Psaki stepped up with the intent to kill all debate by peremptorily tweeting: “This is preposterous. It’s the kind of disinformation operation we’ve seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine and in other countries, which have been debunked, and an example of the types of false pretexts we have been warning the Russians would invent.”

      We may be justified in asking whether, in times of armed conflict, anything is more preposterous — and indeed more dangerous — than seeking to kill debate on a serious topic that might permit a better understanding of the context of the war. The refusal of debate would be especially preposterous concerning a war in which one’s own nation is theoretically not involved. (In reality, the Ukraine War is a showdown between the United States and Russia.) But now that fighting on the ground is real, preposterous discourse of any kind from either side becomes dangerous as the perspective of using weapons of mass destruction, either chemical or nuclear, has clearly become part of the equation. Since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the prospect of nuclear war has never been so evident.

      In this case, unfounded speculation about evil intentions cannot be considered an appropriate response. After all, the Russian contention expressed at the United Nations that the Ukrainian “regime is urgently concealing traces of a military biological program that Kiev implemented with support of the US Department of Defense” was at least partially confirmed by Nuland in her response to Rubio. It was met at the UN by a simple denial: “Ukraine does not have a biological weapons program. There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States — not near Russia’s border or anywhere.”

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      The Russian accusation, citing purported facts, should require at least a consideration of those facts rather than a blanket denial or a counter-accusation. Nuland never walked back her statement. Haines mentioned only what she “thinks” and Burns was spared even answering the question.

      Psaki is nevertheless right to bring to the public’s attention the criterion of preposterousness. That is something worth focusing on in times of massive propaganda. Reading the news in all the legitimate press today, it should be clear that, as always, preposterousness becomes the dominant feature of public discourse in times of conflict. Psaki’s tweets themselves are wonderful examples of preposterous blathering.

      A Game for Spectators in Times of War

      It may be time to propose an instructive game for anyone interested in paring down the level of preposterousness in public discourse and even news reporting. Anyone can play the game, but it requires forgetting about the beliefs and reflexes our various authorities expect us to acquire.

      The game simply consists of ranking, on a scale of one to 10 in terms of the degree of apparent preposterousness, any official statement or authoritative-sounding opinion made about the conflict, whether pronounced by political authorities or the news media. In other words, it requires accepting as a default position that every simple assertion one sees or hears is as likely as not to be preposterous. 

      The first criterion is to weigh the amount of emotional force in the assertion in relation to informational content. If emotion is clearly present and dominant, three or more points should be added to the potential preposterousness score.

      The inclusion of some authentic context, real information, can, on the other hand, make the proposition potentially less preposterous, bringing the score proportionately back down. The score can be improved by the inclusion of serious context, including facts drawn from historical background, reducing the level of preposterousness. On the other hand, citing purported trends from the past, what are presented as reflexive patterns of behavior or supposed “playbooks” will add points, pushing the preposterousness level further upward. A simple denial or the categorizing an opposing comment as “disinformation” will add two or more points to the preposterousness.

      An important consideration is the identity of the source of the statement. If the author of the proposition is clearly associated with one or the other of the two opposing sides, five points will be added to the level of perceived preposterousness. Those points can only be reduced by the citation of facts. Neutral sources, unaffiliated with one side or the other, receive no preposterousness points but they may still say preposterous things. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      This neutral or non-neutral identity of the source can become complicated by other considerations, some of which may themselves prove preposterous. For example, anyone aware of the track record on controversial events of Glenn Greenwald, cited above, knows that he has no loyalty to either Vladimir Putin or Joe Biden. That fact can be easily proved. But because he is American and criticizes American leaders and pundits who demonize Russia, some preposterously believe he is favorable to Putin. This phenomenon of seeing nuance as opposition is a direct consequence of a longstanding trend in US culture that consists of believing that those who are not for us (i.e., those who do not automatically endorse all our actions) are against us.

      Another important rule of the game is that an identical counter-accusation, of the kind Psaki has made, should automatically add six points to the preposterousness index. In some cases, the counter-accusation may be true, so it cannot be assumed to be totally preposterous. If that can be established, some of the points can be canceled. The reason for adding so many points for an identical counter-accusation is simple. It is almost always an attempt not to clarify but to avoid addressing the evidence that exists. It goes beyond simple denial, which is worth only two or three points at best. A truthful counter-accusation should be accompanied by some form of concrete evidence other than vaguely reputational. If not, the six points should stand.

      Another rule is that citing sources for whom the suspicion of preposterously lying has become part of a standard mindset merits two supplementary points of preposterousness. This is a standard trick of lawyers in criminal cases who conduct research to impugn a witness who may have lied on another occasion. They want the jury to believe that lying on one occasion means lying on all occasions. Case dismissed.

      Two other significant factors of preposterousness that often go together are, first, the attempt to account for the psychology of the adversary by reducing to a particular (and generally ignoble) cause, and, secondly, predicting bad behavior to come. This last is often a clever gamble to the extent that the predictor may have some ability to provoke the predicted bad behavior. Depending on the odds, such predictions are worth two to four points. 

      Finally, repetition of stereotypes — often cited accusations or memes built up by past propaganda to provoke a predictable reflex in the public — may be worth from three to five points, depending on the status of the stereotype in the ambient culture.

      Those are the basic rules. Now, let’s look at a practical example to see how the game can be played. Jan Psaki provided another tweet that can serve that purpose: “Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.”

      Psaki has accomplished a lot in this tweet to achieve a high score in preposterousness. “False claims” and “propaganda” are gratuitous assertions that need to be supported by evidence, which she has no intention of providing. This indicates the presence of a strong emotion of indignation. Citing China is an example of discrediting anything a witness has to say as being unreliable. The suggestion of being “on the lookout” appeals to the reflex of fear. The “false flag” accusation repeats a meme that has occurred so often in recent weeks that it deserves being compared to the boy crying wolf.

      And finally, Psaki uses the idea of a “pattern,” with the intention of making the public believe there is no reason to explore the facts, since the discourse is a simple repetition of predictable behavior. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      Psaki has a reputation for making preposterous statements sound reasonable, unlike, for example, Donald Trump’s former spokesperson, Kelly-Anne Conway, who excelled in sounding preposterous. In all fairness to Psaki, the state of war she is commenting on admits of so much ambiguity and uncertainty, even concerning basic facts, that the preposterousness level of her tweet should not be considered to have attained the maximum of 10;  seven or eight may be a more fitting appraisal.

      Other Applications of the Game

      Those interested in this game might try applying it to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s latest stab at being preposterous on the same issue in this clip from Sky News. In videos like this, body language and speech cadences can add a significant element to the score, two factors that became evident to observers in the Nuland hearing. 

      Of course, the same game can be played with Russia’s or any other country’s official discourse. War is not only an assault on people, infrastructure and property. It is always an assault on dialogue, curiosity and truth itself. Commenting on the “1984” communication atmosphere that we are now subjected to, Matt Taibbi notes that a “healthy person should be able to be horrified by what’s happening in Russia and also see a warning about the degradation that ensues from using “pre-emptive” force, or from trying to control discontent by erasing expressions of it.” Preposterous statements are just one way of disqualifying and erasing discontent. They may also seek to stir up the kinds of emotions that could trigger a nuclear war.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Volodymyr Zelenskiy expected to urge jet transfer in address to US Congress

      by

      Volodymyr Zelenskiy expected to urge jet transfer in address to US CongressLeaders prepare to welcome Ukraine president before Wednesday speech amid divisions over question of planes

      Russia-Ukraine war – latest updates
      Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the president of Ukraine, will address Congress on Wednesday in what could prove his most powerful plea yet for the west to take a tougher line against Vladimir Putin.Kremlin memos urged Russian media to use Tucker Carlson clips – reportRead moreZelenskiy is expected to use the virtual address to urge members of the House of Representatives and Senate to intensify pressure on Joe Biden to allow the transfer of MiG-29 fighter jets from Poland.The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said in a joint letter to members: “The Congress, our country and the world are in awe of the people of Ukraine, who have shown extraordinary courage, resilience and determination in the face of Russia’s unprovoked, vicious and illegal war.”They added: “The Congress remains unwavering in our commitment to supporting Ukraine as they face Putin’s cruel and diabolical aggression, and to passing legislation to cripple and isolate the Russian economy as well as deliver humanitarian, security and economic assistance to Ukraine.“We look forward to the privilege of welcoming President Zelenskiy’s address to the House and Senate and to convey our support to the people of Ukraine as they bravely defend democracy.”Zelenskiy, who will speak at 9am Washington time on Wednesday, has been seeking to drum up support with video briefings of foreign audiences. Last week he received a standing ovation from the British parliament and echoed William Shakespeare (“The question for us now is: ‘To be or not to be’”) and Winston Churchill (“We will fight in the forests, in the fields, on the shores, in the streets”).On Tuesday, the TV actor and comedian turned resistance leader, who has proved adept at communications under siege, is scheduled to address the Canadian parliament in Ottawa. He is also due to speak to Israel’s parliament at some stage.On 5 March, dressed in a military-green T-shirt and seated beside a Ukrainian flag, Zelenskiy spoke to more than 280 members of the House and Senate in a video call. He is said to have made a “desperate plea” for aircraft to fight Russian invaders.Most members of Congress back the White House’s refusal to attempt to impose a “no-fly zone” that could entail US pilots firing on Russians and trigger a wider conflict.Chris Murphy, chairman of the Senate appropriations homeland security subcommittee, told the Hill: “This is the most dangerous moment since the Cuban missile crisis. We have never been this close to direct conflict with Russia.“We made the right decision to openly support the Ukrainians but we just should understand the unprecedented moment that we’re living in today where we’re openly funding war against a nuclear power.”But there is a growing split over Poland’s offer to send Soviet-style MiG-29 fighter jets, which Ukrainian pilots are capable of flying, to Ukraine via a US airbase in Germany.The White House and Pentagon have rejected the proposal, wary that an increasingly reckless Putin could perceive it as escalatory and saying it raised “serious concerns” for the entire Nato alliance. Republicans and some Democrats say Zelenskiy’s request should be met.Mitt Romney, a Republican senator from Utah, said last week: “He has asked us for aircraft – specifically MiGs. We need to get him those MiGs. It is a bipartisan message.”Rob Portman, a Republican senator from Ohio visiting the Ukraine-Poland border, told CNN: “What we’ve heard directly from the Ukrainians is they want them badly. They want the ability to have better control over the skies in order to give them a fighting chance. I don’t understand why we’re not doing it.”The Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar, from Minnesota, was also on the visit. She said she had spoken to Biden “about 10 days ago” about the fighters, adding: “I’d like to see the planes over there.”The Democratic-controlled Congress approved $13.6bn in humanitarian and security aid to Ukraine last Thursday, as part of a $1.5tn spending bill that funds US government operations through 30 September.The US and allies have imposed broad sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February. Biden has announced a US ban on Russian oil imports, seen as politically risky amid soaring gas prices.Last Friday the president took more steps to punish Russia economically, targeting trade and shutting down development funds while announcing a ban on imports of Russian seafood, vodka and diamonds. On Saturday he authorised $200m in additional military equipment for Ukraine.About 59% of Americans believe Biden has been making the right decisions when it comes to the situation in Ukraine, including more than one in three Republicans, according to Navigator Research. However, asked whether they approve of Biden’s handling of the issue, Americans are more polarised, with 49% disapproving and 43% approving.‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas pricesRead moreBiden’s predecessor as president, Donald Trump, again refused to condemn Putin at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday.“It happens to be a man that is just driven, he’s driven to put it together,” Trump said, while claiming the war would never have happened if he was still in the White House.On Monday a fourth round of talks between Ukraine and Russia were held via videoconference amid deadly air strikes in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv. At the weekend, Russian airstrikes killed 35 people at a military base near Yavoriv, outside Lviv – perilously close to the frontier with Poland, a Nato member.In a video address, Zelenskiy warned: “If you do not close our sky, it is only a matter of time before Russian missiles fall on your territory, on Nato territory, on the homes of Nato citizens.”He urged Nato to impose a no-fly zone – a request he is likely to repeat to Congress on Wednesday.TopicsVolodymyr ZelenskiyUkraineRussiaUS CongressJoe BidenHouse of RepresentativesUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden adviser to meet top China diplomat in Rome over Russia relationship

      by

      Biden adviser to meet top China diplomat in Rome over Russia relationshipAmid reports that Russia has requested military help in Ukraine, Jake Sullivan says Washington is watching Beijing closely Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan, who is due to meet China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in Rome on Monday, warned on Sunday that Beijing will “absolutely” face consequences if it helps Moscow evade sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.US film-maker Brent Renaud killed by Russian forces in UkraineRead moreThe White House national security council declined to comment, however, on reports that Russia has asked China for military equipment since its invasion of Ukraine on 24 February.The Financial Times, Washington Post and New York Times reported the request on Sunday, citing US officials.Russia and China have tightened cooperation as they have come under western pressure over human rights and other issues. Beijing has not condemned Russia’s attack on Ukraine and does not call it an invasion but has urged a negotiated solution.The Washington Post said the unidentified US officials did not state the kind of weaponry that Russia requested or how China responded.Earlier, Sullivan told CNN the US believed China was aware Russia was planning action in Ukraine before the invasion took place, though Beijing may not have understood the full extent of what was planned.Now, Sullivan said, Washington was watching closely to see to what extent Beijing provided economic or material support to Russia, and would impose consequences if it did.“We are communicating directly, privately to Beijing, that there will absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions evasion efforts or support to Russia to backfill them,” Sullivan said. “We will not allow that to go forward and allow there to be a lifeline to Russia from these economic sanctions from any country, anywhere in the world.”A senior US administration official said the war in Ukraine would be a “significant topic” during Sullivan’s meeting with Yang, which is part of a broader effort by Washington and Beijing to maintain communication and manage competition between the world’s two largest economies.“This meeting is taking place in the context of Russia’s unjustified and brutal war against Ukraine, and as China has aligned itself with Russia to advance their own vision of the world order, and so I expect … the two of them will discuss the impact of Russia’s war against Ukraine on regional and global security,” the source said.No specific outcomes were expected from the Rome meeting, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.The US on Saturday said it would rush up to $200m of additional weapons to Ukrainian forces as they try to defend against Russian shelling in the largest conflict in Europe since the second world war.The Russian assault has trapped thousands of civilians in besieged cities and sent 2.5 million Ukrainians fleeing to neighboring countries.The US and its allies have imposed unprecedented sanctions and banned Russian energy imports, while providing billions of dollars of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.Individually and together they have appealed to China, Gulf nations and others that have failed to condemn the invasion to join in isolating Russia.Beijing has refused to call Russia’s actions an invasion, although President Xi Jinping last week did call for “maximum restraint” after a virtual meeting with the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and French president, Emmanuel Macron.Xi also expressed concern about the impact of sanctions on global finance, energy supplies, transportation and supply chains, amid growing signs that western sanctions are limiting China’s ability to buy Russian oil.Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of the state-backed Chinese Global Times newspaper, said on Twitter: “If Sullivan thinks he can persuade China to participate in sanctions against Russia, he will be disappointed.“The International Monetary Fund last week said the crisis could see China miss its 5.5% growth target this year, and its chief said she had spoken with China’s top central banker and expected mounting pressure on Russia to end the war.While in Rome, Sullivan will also meet with Luigi Mattiolo, diplomatic adviser to the Italian prime minister, Mario Draghi, to continue coordinating the strong global response to Vladimir Putin’s “war of choice”, the source said.The US and the Group of Seven advanced economies on Friday ratcheted up pressure on Russia by calling for revoking its “most favored nation” trade status, which would allow them to jack up tariffs on Russian goods.Trade made up about 46% of Russia’s economy in 2020, much of that with China, its biggest export destination.TopicsBiden administrationRussiaUkraineEuropeUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden adviser rejects Republican call to ‘close skies’ over Ukraine

      by

      Biden adviser rejects Republican call to ‘close skies’ over UkraineRob Portman of Ohio urges US and Nato as US intelligence community says creating no-fly zone risks escalation of conflict

      Russia-Ukraine war: latest news
      A senior Republican senator on Sunday urged the US and Nato to “close the skies” over Ukraine, hours after a logistics hub and training base for foreign fighters 11 miles from the Polish border was struck by Russian forces, killing 35.Russia missile strike on Ukraine base close to Polish border kills 35, governor saysRead more“The message coming loud and clear is close the skies,” said Rob Portman, a senator from Ohio on a visit to Poland. “Because the skies are where the bombs are coming, whether it’s the missile attacks or the airplane attacks or with artillery.”The US intelligence community has assessed that any attempt to create a no-fly zone would risk escalation. The US has also turned down a Polish offer to supply jets to Ukraine via an American airbase in Germany.Asked if supplying Ukraine with Russian-made MiG-29s could trigger a third world war, Portman told CNN’s State of the Union he “didn’t know why that would be true”.“The Russians have complained about everything,” he said. “Vladimir Putin has said that the sanctions are an act of war.”Russia, Portman said, “complained when we provided Stingers directly from the US government, which can knock down an airplane and have been successful in doing that at lower altitudes. We have given [Ukraine] helicopters.“… What we have heard directly from the Ukrainians is they want [the jets] badly. They want the ability to have better control over the skies in order to give them a fighting chance. So I don’t understand why we’re not doing it.”Portman welcomed an indication from Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, that anti-aircraft systems could be provided. Sullivan repeated Joe Biden’s opposition to the transfer of “offensive” weapons while underlining commitment to supplying “defensive” arms, telling CBS’s Face the Nation the US and allies “believe in our capacity to continue to flow substantial amounts of military assistance, weapons and supplies to the front in Ukraine.“We have been successful in doing so thus far and we believe we have a system in place that will allow us to continue to do so, notwithstanding Russian threats.”Russia claimed the strike on the Yavoriv base was against foreign fighters and weapons. The Pentagon spokesman, John Kirby, told ABC’s This Week no Americans were at the facility.US film-maker Brent Renaud killed by Russian forces in UkraineRead moreBut Kirby reiterated that the US and allies would “continue to flow and to move and to reposition forces and capabilities along Nato’s eastern flank to make sure that we can defend every inch of Nato territory if we need to.“We’ve made it very clear to Russia that Nato territory will be defended not just by the United States, but by our allies.”Of calls to supply jets or announce a no-fly zone, Kirby said: “We can all understand the kind of escalatory measure that might be perceived as.”The US deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman, said Russia showed signs of “willingness to have real, serious negotiations”, despite four sets of talks having failed.Sherman told Fox News Sunday the US had been working to “put enormous pressure on Vladimir Putin to try to change his calculus, to end this war, to get a ceasefire in the first instance, to get humanitarian corridors, and to end this invasion”.“That pressure is beginning to have some effect,” Sherman said, though she added: “It appears that Vladimir Putin is intent on destroying Ukraine.”On Saturday, the White House approved an additional $200m of military assistance.“We are determined and the Ukrainians are determined to ensure that anti-tank, anti-armor, anti-air capabilities, ammunition and other forms of assistance actually do make it to the front to blunt the Russian advance,” Sullivan told NBC’s Meet the Press. “We’re coordinating the efforts of our allies and partners to do the same thing.”Last week, Biden warned of a “severe price” if Russia used chemical or biological weapons. Sullivan said Russian claims about supposed Ukrainian bio-weapons labs signaled that Moscow could be preparing to do so.“When Russia starts accusing other countries of potentially doing something, it’s a good tell that they may be on the cusp of doing it themselves,” he said.“What we’re here to do is to deny them the capacity to have a false flag operation to blame this on the Ukrainians or on us, to take away their pretext and to make the world understand that if chemical weapons are used in Ukraine, it is the Russians who will have used them. And the response will, as the president said, be severe.”Sullivan will meet China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in Rome next week. Sullivan said the US would respond to any attempts to work around western sanctions on Russia.Ukraine mourns its fallen as Zelenskiy says 1,300 soldiers killedRead more“We have made it clear to not just Beijing but every country in the world that if they think that they can basically bail Russia out, they can give Russia a workaround to the sanctions that we’ve imposed, they should have another thing coming because we will ensure that neither China, nor anyone else, can compensate Russia for these losses,” Sullivan told NBC.He declined to lay out what steps the US might take, saying: “We will communicate that privately to China, as we have already done and will continue to do.”Later, in response to reports Moscow had asked Beijing for military equipment, the Chinese embassy in the US said China’s top priority was to prevent the situation in Ukraine from getting out of control.The economic consequences of the war in Ukraine have yet to register heavily in US polls. On CNN, Portman deployed a Republican attack line, blaming Biden for not expanding domestic drilling for oil. Biden has countered that US oil companies have not exploited existing permits.A CBS poll found that 77% of Americans across the political spectrum are willing to pay more for gas as a result of sanctions to punish Russia. According to the poll, 69% said economic pain now might be a wise hedge against bigger problems later.Americans largely believe Russia has designs on invading other countries.TopicsBiden administrationRepublicansUS politicsUS foreign policyRussiaUkraineEuropenewsReuse this content More

    • 238 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US and allies set to revoke normal trade relations with Russia over Ukraine war, says Biden – follow live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      2.15pm EST

      14:15

      Texas court deals fresh blow to abortion rights

      1.54pm EST

      13:54

      Interim summary

      12.59pm EST

      12:59

      Biden to House Democrats: November midterms are the ‘most important in modern history’

      11.07am EST

      11:07

      Biden: Russia would pay a ‘severe price’ for use of chemical weapons

      10.37am EST

      10:37

      Biden: US and allies to deny ‘most favored nation’ status to Russia

      10.02am EST

      10:02

      Pelosi: US will seek to end normal trade relations with Russia

      9.31am EST

      09:31

      Harris: US commitment to Nato’s article 5 ‘ironclad’

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      From

      10.37am EST

      10:37

      Biden: US and allies to deny ‘most favored nation’ status to Russia

      Joe Biden has announced that the US was moving to revoke Russia’s “most favored nation status” in coordination with allies.
      Revoking Russia’s permanent normal trade relations will “make it harder for Russia to business with the United States”. He said the US was “taking the first steps” to ban imports of Russian vodka, seafood and diamonds.
      Biden thanked Pelosi for pushing the US to take this action, and for holding off on a measure in Congress until he “could line up all of our key allies.”
      “Putin is the aggressor and Putin must pay a price,” he said.
      He also detailed other economic sanctions the US has taken to destabilize the Russian economy and squeeze Putin and those around him.
      Biden said the US and its allies were targeting an expanded list of Russian oligarchs,and ramping up efforts to capture their “ ill-begotten gains.”
      “They support Putin. They steal from the Russian people and they seek to hide their money in our countries,” Biden said, emphasizing one of the most popular aspects of the west’s crackdown on Russia. “They’re part of that kleptocracy that exists in Moscow and they must share in the pain of these sanctions.”
      In addition to seizing their “superyachts” and vacation homes, Biden said the US was also banning the export of luxury luxury goods to Russia, calling it the latest, but “not the last step we’re going to take.”

      Updated
      at 10.59am EST

      4.52pm EST

      16:52

      State department spokesman Ned Price denounced Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, for downplaying the strike on a maternity hospital during a security council meeting convened by Moscow earlier today.
      “This was a brutal strike against a maternity hospital that killed innocent Ukrainians,” he said.

      The Recount
      (@therecount)
      State Deptartment spokesperson Ned Price calls out Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya for peddling misinformation at the Security Council:“This was a brutal strike against a maternity hospital that killed innocent Ukrainians.” pic.twitter.com/W38FHUNxNV

      March 11, 2022

      4.43pm EST

      16:43

      The Senate confirmed George Tsunis to be the US ambassador to Greece on Friday.

      Senate Press Gallery
      (@SenatePress)
      The #Senate confirmed by voice vote: Executive Calendar #782 George J. Tsunis to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Greece.

      March 11, 2022

      Earlier this year, The Guardian’s David Smith wrote about Biden’s nomination of Tsunis, a hotel developer and Democratic donor with no diplomatic experience. Tsunis was previously nominated by Obama to be the ambassador to Norway. It did not go well, per Smith’s report.

      On that occasion Tsunis was Barack Obama’s nominee for ambassador to Norway. Bumbling and ill-prepared, he admitted that he had never been to Norway and referred to the country as having a president when, as a constitutional monarchy, it does not.

      4.18pm EST

      16:18

      Martin Pengelly

      At an Oval Office meeting with the then Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, in 2017, Donald Trump asked his national security adviser if US troops were in Donbas, territory claimed by Russian-backed separatists, which Vladimir Putin last month used as pretext for a full and bloody invasion. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Russian Ballet’s Soft Power: Will Dance Outlast Autocracy?

      by

      The soft power of Russian ballet survived the two world wars, Joseph Stalin’s terror and Holodomor, the Cold War boycotts, the fall of the Soviet Union and the difficult transition to 21st-century capitalism. Ballet has served as a visiting card for Russia for centuries and even helped to soften the hearts of political adversaries like the United States. It is, arguably, one of Russia’s most sophisticated cultural soft-power tools. 

      Should We Lift the Ban on Russian Sport?

      READ MORE

      Now, with the war in Ukraine, that soft power is facing a major crisis. Since Russia launched its invasion at the end of February, many ballet performances are being canceled around the world: The Bolshoi Ballet’s summer season at London’s Royal Opera House, “Swan Lake” by the Royal Moscow Ballet at the Helix Theatre in Dublin and concerts by the Vienna Philharmonic — led by the Russian conductor and Vladimir Putin’s supporter, Valery Gergiev — at the Carnegie Hall in New York have all been called off. 

      The Danish minister of culture, Ane Halsboe-Jorgensen, suggested the Musikhuset Aarhus, Scandinavia’s largest concert hall, should cancel Russian National Ballet’s performance. The UK tour by the Russian State Ballet of Siberia has been interrupted as a stand against the war. 

      Because of the conflict, former dancers and Ukraine natives Darya Fedotova and Sergiy Mykhaylov changed the name of their school from the School of Russian Ballet to the International Ballet of Florida. Tyneside Cinema, in Newcastle, canceled the screenings of Bolshoi Ballet’s “Swan Lake” and “Pharaoh’s Daughter.” A Japanese ballerina with the Russian Ballet Theater in Moscow, Masayo Kondo, is dancing for peace during a tour in the US, but a restaurant refused to serve lunch to the cast when they learned they were from Russia. 

      Business Card

      The boycotts may just be starting, bringing financial loss to Russia’s cultural establishment amid already crippling economic sanctions. But the damage to Russian ballet’s soft power can be even more everlasting, taking years to recover. After all, soft power is the ability to seduce rather than coerce, strengthen a nation’s image abroad and thus enhance cultural and diplomatic relations as well as tourism. It takes years, even decades, to cultivate the tradition, like Hollywood in the US, the carnival in Brazil and MAG (manga, anime, games) culture in Japan.

      Both the USSR and Russia could never compete with truly global pop-culture exports emanating from America. There were no music icons to rival Michael Jackson, blockbusters like “Star Wars” or TV stars like Oprah. The country produced incredible cultural products, especially when it came to film. Sergei Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” (1925), Andrei Tarkovsky’s sci-fi “Solaris” (1972) and Alexander Sokurov’s “Russian Arc” (2002) are masterpieces that earned Russian cinema a place in every art book and class around the world, but they were far from being international hits. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      Russian composers like Igor Stravinski and Alexander Scriabin, and writers such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Lev Tolstoy, similarly occupy high positions in the world’s literary and music canons but can hardly be described as widely popular, especially in the Anglophone cultural sphere. 

      Ballet, on the other hand, has always been a lucrative export for Russia. In her book “Swans of the Kremlin,” Christina Ezrahi looks at how Russian ballet, whose tradition stretches back to the imperial court as a celebration of the Romanov dynasty, with ballet schools established during the rule of Empress Anna Ioannovna in the 18th century, has grabbed the world’s attention. Following the 1917 revolution, Anatoly Lunacharsky luckily convinced Vladimir Lenin not to destroy the Bolshoi because peasants and workers flocked to the theater despite the chaos of the civil war years. 

      Art and Politics

      Although theaters like the Bolshoi may appear as a microcosmos of liberal art, in Russia’s history, ballet has always had close ties with political power. Stalin was an opera aficionado and used to arrive at the Bolshoi by a secret entrance and watch alone. After the signing of the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, he took Hitler’s foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to see Galina Ulanova dance at the Bolshoi. 

      During the Soviet era, ballet served as a visiting card for Russian diplomats. In “American-Soviet Cultural Diplomacy,” Cadra Peterson McDaniel demonstrates how the Kremlin used the Bolshoi ballets as a means of cultural exchange, weaving communist ideas such as collective ownership of the means of production and the elimination of income inequality discretely into the storylines along with pre-revolutionary dance aesthetics during 1959 US tour.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Other artists were also crucial for projecting Soviet cultural soft power at the time, like the world-famous cellist and conductor Mstislav Rostropovich and his wife, the opera singer Galina Vishnevskaya. But they faced tough competition from Tchaikovsky’s ballet hits like “The Nutcracker.” 

      Ballet served a purpose during the putsch of 1991, which signaled the beginning of the Soviet Union’s collapse, when instead of announcing the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, “Swan Lake” was broadcast on national television on a loop. The export of Russian ballet increased during the Yeltsin years as the Bolshoi had to tour to compensate for an unstable economy while enjoying the opening up of the country after decades behind the Iron Curtain. 

      President Putin’s two decades in power may have allowed for economic recovery, but Russian ballet suffered from scandals like the acid attack on Bolshoi’s artistic director Sergei Filin in 2013. The scandal garnered the attention of the international media following stories about the toxic culture at the Bolshoi and its close affiliation with the Kremlin, tarnishing Russian ballet’s appeal.

      The connection between Bolshoi and the power structure in Russia is so vivid that artists were directly affected as the result of the invasion of Ukraine. Tugan Sokhiev, the chief conductor at the Bolshoi, resigned after coming under pressure to condemn Russian actions. Fearing that musicians are becoming “victims of so-called ‘cancel culture,’” he worried he “will be soon asked to choose between Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy.” Two Bolshoi dancers, Brazilian David Motta Soares and Italian Jacopo Tissi, also resigned, citing solidarity with Ukraine. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      As someone who appears to favor the outdoors, sports and guns, it’s unlikely that President Putin will see ballet as a priority to be shielded from Western sanctions and boycotts. There is, in fact, little he could do, especially given the current restrictions on travel in and out of the country. There is, of course, the question of whether boycotts of the arts are justified, considering that other countries have a history of political intervention, like China in Hong Kong or the US in Iraq, but their cultural products were not banned from movie theaters and art exhibitions. 

      It may find itself caught in another historic moment, but Russian ballet’s cultural soft power survived the tsars, revolutions, famine, dictatorship and the fall of empires. In the end, dance will likely outlast autocracy.  

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More