Connect with us

Exclusive: Russian Journalist Oleg Kashin On Putin’s Politics, Anti-Gay Laws And Sochi Olympics

Published

on

  In this exclusive interview, well-known Russian journalist Oleg Kashin, who was nearly beaten to death in 2010, talks with The New Civil Rights Movement about Vladimir Putin, Russian politics and Russian attitudes toward gays

 

Oleg Kashin, formerly a special correspondent and blogger for the Russian daily newspaper and media company, Kommersant, is well known for his bold reporting on Russian politics and business. Kashin was nearly beaten to death in 2010 over his political reporting. Kashin now travels to Russia frequently and occasionally writes on Russian affairs, but resides in Switzerland with his wife. Kashin was a Paul Klebnikov Civil Society Fellow at Columbia University’s Harriman Institute in 2012.

This is part one of a two-part interview conducted August 13-15, 2013.

Domi: Oleg, in your role as a journalist in Russia, you reported on the politics of the new opposition, when you were nearly beaten to death in 2010. Your experiences of opposing Putin’s politics were told through the documentary film “Putin’s Kiss,” about the Nashi youth movement, which was pro-Putin (see trailer below). How did your life change after the release of the film?

Kashin: The film was not screened in Russia and only those who already knew about me and my work watched it on the Internet, so I can tell you with certainty that it didn’t affect my fate in any way. The Nashi Movement portrayed in the film, no longer exists—it was dissolved. The film’s heroine, Masha Drokova, now works for a hi-tech company owned by a Russian businessman in Singapore. The other members of the movement and the people associated with it have moved on to work for private companies or political institutions—including the opposition—and  try to forget their participation in it. The attack on me has not been investigated and, most likely, will not be investigated. I no longer have any doubt about this.

Domi: Oleg, what are you doing now and why are you living in Switzerland?

Kashin: I’m in Russia at least once a month. When Alexey Navalny (a leading opposition leader to Putin) received his verdict on the Kirovles charges in Kirov, I was sitting in the courtroom. A few days ago, I returned from Kaliningrad, and next week I’ll return to Moscow. Whenever my presence in Russia is necessary for either business or personal matters, I am in Russia. My wife works in Switzerland and there’s no political intrigue involved.

Domi: Since Putin entered public life more than a decade ago, hundreds of journalists have been murdered. To date, very few, if any of those who have were murdered, have had the circumstances of their deaths investigated, solved and prosecuted. Do you think the dangerous environment for journalists in Russia is a contributing factor in the government’s ability to control the public discourse in Russia?

Kashin: It goes without saying that it is a very advantageous situation for the government, when, upon going to bed, no one knows whether they will live through the next day. The coercive atmosphere that has existed since 2000, (when Putin entered public life,) has been cultivated by the Russian government—this is easy to determine from the public appearances of Vladimir Putin and his colleagues, and from the general tone of public discourse. It wasn’t like this before in Russia, but now it’s considered the norm to physically threaten your opponent for anything deemed inappropriate by a representative of “the powers that be.” That’s what the new anti-LGBT laws are geared toward.

Out of principle, I don’t place journalists in a separate category in terms of risk susceptibility. Today, the risk of being killed, beaten or imprisoned is evenly distributed among all Russian citizens, including regime loyalists. No one is immune to death by violence, brutality, or imprisonment in Russia today.

Oleg KashinDomi: Since the New Russia opposition seemed to come out onto the streets in demanding increased accountability and less corruption by the political class last year, there seems to have been an orchestrated crackdown, including arrests, prosecution and imprisonment of members of the Pussy Riot rock and roll band, for example and Alexey Navalny, who was prosecuted and found guilty of embezzlement.  Why is the government, and the authorities cracking down now? With the Olympics in Sochi only six months away, are these the actions of a government that feels that it must exert control of the population? To what end?

Kashin: I believe that no one in Russia today can answer this question. It is widely accepted that the government is using these laws as an attempt to distract the public from what’s truly important—problems with the economy and the social sphere. I don’t believe this. More likely, the government is trying to construct a new nation, guided by totalitarian instincts and a blind deference to power. In their time, the communists tried to create a “new man,” now Putin is creating his. It is much easier to manipulate and control this type of changed society. I really hope that Westerners won’t equate these politics with the interests of Russian citizens. Russian citizens don’t differ in any way from the citizens of any Eastern European state, they have the same interests, needs and values. I hope that Putin won’t succeed in breaking the Russian citizens, and democracy will manage to prevail in Russia.

 

http://putinskissmovie.com/player.swf

 

Domi: So in this politically charged environment, Russian LGBT groups are indeed being targeted by Putin’s government. The first anti-homosexual propaganda laws were adopted in regional cities, and then by the St. Petersburg City Council 2011 and later in the Duma led by United Russia(Putin’s party) politicians who passed a federal propaganda law in 2012. How do Russians feel about the propaganda law and homosexuals in general? Is there a generational distinction–are young people more accepting of the LGBT community? Can you comment on the role and influence of the Russian Orthodox Church with respect to attitudes toward homosexuals?

Kashin: The influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia is fantastically exaggerated. Go to any Russian church from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok—it is always empty except on two days of the year, Easter and Christmas. From a population of 140 million, the number of active Orthodox is estimated to be tens of thousands, at best. Church influence is a myth proliferated and profited from by the Russian government and the Patriarch Kirill, who have successfully turned the church into a political arm of the Kremlin. As for the Russians’ attitude to the problems of LGBT people—as far as I can judge (I travel a lot around Russia and talk to many people), homophobia is certainly a presence in everyday life.

 

Part two of our exclusive interview with Oleg Kashin will be published on Sunday, August 18. 

Translation of the original Russian into English was contributed by Masha Udensiva-Brenner, Columbia University, Harriman Institute

Images of Mr. Kashin via Facebook

TD_PIX11Tanya L. Domi is the Deputy Editor of the New Civil Rights Movement.  She is also an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and teaches human rights in East Central Europe and former Yugoslavia. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi was a nationally recognized LGBT civil rights activist who worked for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force during the campaign to lift the military ban in the early 1990s. Domi has also worked internationally in a dozen countries on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights and gender issues. She is chair of the board of directors for GetEQUAL. Domi is currently writing a book about the emerging LGBT human rights movement in the Western Balkans.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Quiet Part Out Loud’: Hegseth Slammed for Lashing Out at CNN’s War Reporting

Published

on

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is facing strong criticism for his remarks during Friday’s press conference, where he lashed out at CNN’s war reporting before mentioning the four U.S. service members killed overnight.

Punchbowl News’ Briana Reilly reported, “Hegseth opens DOD briefing criticizing media coverage of the Iran war.”

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” Hegseth said of CNN and the CEO of Paramount Skydance, which is set to acquire the parent company of CNN.

Reilly also reported that the defense chief mentioned “the tragic crash” of the KC-135 aerial refueler that killed four service members at the end of his remarks.

On MS NOW, Willie Geist, speaking to co-host Jonathan Lemire, noted the contrast, saying that when General Caine took the mic he “immediately talked about the four American service members killed in Western Iraq.”

Geist also noted that it took Hegseth “several minutes” to mention them.

READ MORE: Melania Trump Hails Herself as a ‘Visionary’ at Women’s History Month Event

Hegseth, he added, “first complained about the media, whined, and started to rewrite cable news banners, suggesting what they should say versus what they have said based on reporting.”

“And then, later, got to the acknowledgement of the death of those four service members — sort of tells you the whole story about where his mind is, deeply worried about the way the war is being perceived, the way he’s being talked about, perhaps, that seemed to be throughout the briefing, front and center to him.”

Critics slammed Secretary Hegseth’s remarks.

“It seems Secretary Hegseth watches the ongoing tv coverage of Iran given the editorial criticism he opened the briefing with in regard to the on screen graphics/chyrons he’d prefer be used to describe the state of the battlefield,” noted CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Margaret Brennan.

“Just confirms they expect the new [CNN] owner to serve as state sanctioned media. Only pushing the admin’s narrative,” observed attorney Fernando Antonio.

Barbara Starr, a former CNN Pentagon and national security reporter for two decades, blasted Hegseth:

“Listen up Mr. Defense Secretary. CNN has had personnel in combat zones for decades. CNN has had killed and wounded and all with lives changed forever. You have a legal and moral obligation to defend the free press, even the ones you don’t personally like,” she wrote.

READ MORE: GOP Senator Demands TSA Funding—Then Blocks Bill Funding TSA

She suggested that it would be “extraordinary” if he countered what he didn’t like with facts. “Flood the zone with actual information rather than vanity statements. Always possible Mr. Ellison wont appreciate your public comments about him,” she continued.

Starr added: “Bottom line for those busy looking at photos of themselves…the press corps will endure regardless of affiliation or ownership. All should be accredited and admitted to the Pentagon briefings regardless of affiliation. All any reporter needs is pencil, paper and a phone.”

Calling the Secretary’s remarks “Ominous,” political science professor Brendan Nyhan warned: “Competitive authoritarianism watch.”

Speaking to Hegseth’s David Ellison remark, health care activist and nonprofit cofounder Melanie D’Arrigo wrote: “Really shouting the quiet part out loud that Trump’s billionaire allies are buying up news publishers and controlling social media and AI platforms to push Trump’s lies and propaganda.”

Democratic congressional candidate Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, and an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, called Hegseth’s remarks “fascism.”

READ MORE: Trump Has ‘No Idea’ If Iran War Will Win Him Nobel Peace Prize

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Melania Trump Hails Herself as a ‘Visionary’ at Women’s History Month Event

Published

on

First Lady Melania Trump, in remarks at a White House Women’s History Month celebration, hailed herself as a “visionary” as she gave advice to guests.

“As a visionary, I know success is not born overnight, but rather takes shape after long, and sometimes challenging process,” the First Lady said. She also described herself as “a mother, humanitarian, philanthropist, and entrepreneur.”

Mrs. Trump also mentioned her new film, “Melania,” saying that she “shaped its creative direction, served as a producer, managed post production and activated the marketing campaign.”

Noting that “curiosity is a core value” that keeps her “ahead of the curve,” she said that her “unrestricted mindset” has led her to “build across very different sectors,” including, “fashion, digital assets, publishing, accessories, skincare, commercial television, and of course, filmmaking.”

Sharing advice and personal experience, Mrs. Trump told the audience, “Often alone at the top, I follow my passion. Listen to my instincts, and always maintain a laser focus.”

She also declared that the “strength of America is closely tied to the role women play in shaping their children’s character, education, and morals. The values cultivated within our communities shape the voice and vision of our next generation.”

“A woman’s influence strengthens our democracy, capital markets, and time-tested business institutions,” she said. “Across the country today, women are finding unique ways to balance career, ambition, and family.”

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Seems to Be No Plan’ Expert Says on Trump Securing Iran’s Nuclear Material to End War

Published

on

President Donald Trump says he is bombing Iran so it “does not obtain a nuclear weapon,” but a veteran nuclear policy expert is blasting his war strategy, warning there appears to be no plan to secure Iran’s nuclear stockpile — a failure that could leave the U.S. in the “worst of all worlds” while Iran is “holding all the nuclear cards.”

“This may be the worst planned war in history,” Joe Cirincione told Mother Jones. “I see no sign that they knew what they were doing. It seemed to be just literally bomb, bomb, bomb. There didn’t seem to be a plan for how you were going to get at that particular material. If there is one, it hasn’t emerged.”

He warns, “there seems to be no plan for how to end this war.”

“Almost all wars end by some sort of negotiation,” Cirincione says. “If you project forward several weeks, it’s going to have to end. Usually there’s some sort of arrangement that’s made to end a war.”

But, he says, President Trump “seems to be flying by the seat of his pants and making this up as it goes along,” so “we just don’t know.”

READ MORE: Trump Has ‘No Idea’ If Iran War Will Win Him Nobel Peace Prize

Cirincione warns that “it’s possible that Trump has put us into the worst of all possible worlds. He’s made it impossible for us to have a negotiated solution to this. And we can’t use any military means to solve the problem. So we’re left in this worst of all worlds, which is Iran is holding all the nuclear cards at the end of this war.”

Mother Jones reports that “with his war in Iran, Trump has created a big, possibly catastrophic problem: A half-ton of highly enriched uranium, which can be made bomb-ready, is somewhere…out there—available for use by Iran’s new regime or perhaps not fully secured and susceptible to theft or expropriation.”

So, what are the options?

“The United States either has to conduct some high-risk military maneuver where we would land people from the 82nd Airborne or an Israeli commando unit into the site at Isfahan and try to find the uranium, go down hundreds of meters underground, retrieve the uranium and pull it out or perhaps destroy it on site,” says Cirincione. He calls it “a high risk proposition.”

“What you’re left with is really the only other solution where we started: a negotiated deal.”

President Barack Obama signed one with Iran. Trump tore it up during his first term.

With a negotiated deal, “You have to get Iran’s agreement to secure that material, declare it, allow inspectors, and then either secure it under inspection or downblend it—the process in reverse, bring it down to a 3-percent or 4-percent level. That’s the only two solutions to this problem.”

READ MORE: ‘Trying to Look Cool’: Patel Roasted for Inviting UFC Stars to Train FBI Agents

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.