World Cup: Putin's PR success

[fridi]

"I'm lovin' Russia! Putin, give me Russian citizenship please!" Brazilian football fan Tomer Savoia has featured all around the Russian media lately. He first became famous on Youtube with his "Russia is awesome" video. And then he addressed the Russian president, asking for a Russian passport. Now all the hordes of Putin-friendly outlets are totally obsessed with him (RT, Sputnik News, TASS to name but a few).

The first thought that comes to mind is, was that Brazilian paid some cash in exchange for his enamored messages? But don't hurry to accuse me of cynicism. Just remember the fake "Spanish air controller" who used Kremlin money for three years to convince the whole world that the Ukrainians had downed the Malaysian passenger plane. So, Tomer may or may not really be a worshiper of everything Russia. Not really being so would be the much sadder option of course. The World Cup is being held in a great awesome country after all, but we shouldn't forget that this country has been complicit in the flaming up of two conflicts, those in Syria and Ukraine. It's been treating people who disagree with its rulers as if they've committed treason. You know the details anyway.

It's a country that still holds hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners behind bars, including ones who are on hunger strike as we speak. It's a country where political assassinations are never investigated. It's a country that's being accused of using chemical weapons on foreign territory. The "elite" of that country treats its own people as serfs, and is considered persona non grata abroad. And of course, it's a country where the majority loves Dear Leader and believes whatever propaganda he comes up with, even if it's outright lies.

Once more, just like in Soviet times, that country's national football team is not the team of Russia but Kremlin's team. Russian MPs, Putin-friendly "political scientists", and all the pro-government journalists always get into wild ecstasy whenever Team Russia scores a goal. The state televisions constantly display gleeful hysteria, not so much about the wins on the sports field, as much as "the Crimean spirit", which, you see, has led the country to victory. What's celebrated is the fact that "the West couldn't spoil our holiday". It's all about Us vs Them, and How We Are Winning.

The foreign football fans will go home after this World Cup, and they'll be telling their folks back in Sao Paulo, Manchester, Bilbao and Rabat how all Russians adore Putin, how the evil Western media are lying, how there've been no problems with Russian democracy, and how Russia is a friendly country with an awesome leader who should be our friend. Oh, and don't forget that Ukraine has always been part of Russia, so it should be taken back, the whole of it. That's literally what I heard from a British pal of mine last week. What do we care? Are our own politicians any better than Putin, by any chance? They all just want one thing, to remain in power. That's what he said.

Western politicians have also "evolved" according to the new situation. As soon as Team Sweden went to the knock-out stage, their government, which was intent on boycotting the World Cup, announced that they were prepared to fly to Russia to support their guys - all ministers, if possible. They clarified that the boycott only applied to the official opening ceremony of the World Cup. Other governments have followed suit. I can imagine the triumphant laughter that echoes around the Kremlin halls right now.

The notion that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of football fans would somehow suddenly open the Russians' eyes for the world that surrounds them, sounds rather unconvincing, to put it mildly. Self-isolation, and the victim complex that Russians carry everywhere with themselves, cannot be overcome in a single month, no matter how intensive the cultural exchange. Besides, the presenters on all state TVs are already actively explaining to their millions of viewers how in just a few days the hypocritical Westerners would again start humiliating Mother Russia.

Changing Russians' worldview is not in Kremlin's plans. In fact, Putin can be happy now, because the World Cup has been a unprecedented propaganda success for him, not just abroad but especially at home. Now the unpopular pension reform has remained far away in the background, and it'll soon be forgotten as the holidays season progresses. It's all so perfectly timed - as always.

You might say, but what about the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Qatar World Cup in 2022? Yeah, sport has been and will be used as an excuse for those undemocratic regimes too. But firstly, neither China nor Qatar is waging wars, at least for now. And secondly, for various historical reasons, neither China nor Qatar could become a democracy any time soon. Russia did have this chance, but it didn't use it. Sure, the Russian people aren't to blame for this (or aren't they?) Least of all the footballers.

All in all, no one is ever to blame for anything in Russia. No one is responsible. As we all know well already, all problems come from external foes, not from Russians' own neglect and incompetence. Never.

Or maybe we should really be content. The football holiday ends in a couple of days, and then everything will slide back into place. The Russian cops who are now so friendly and helpful while shown on international TV, will resume the beating of peaceful protesters. The gay-friendly atmosphere that we're now seeing around Moscow will disappear without a trace. And this won't surprise or anger anybody. No matter how Team Russia performs at the World Cup, Putin has already won.

Comments

[johnny9fingers]

I’m glad someone other than me wrote on this subject.

It’s been a good football festival so far, and France look good.

And Putin has won another significant victory.

And the rest of us can do nothing as Uncle Vlad’s various placemen lead their various polities in every direction but that of uniting against him.

I think of him these days as a post cold-war Karla of George Smiley fame.

[asthfghl]

Of course we'd write and talk about this, the world is football these days, after all. :-)

[asthfghl]

Using football for politics is disgusting, and unfortunately this World Cup has been no exception. From Shaqiri and Xhaka's Kosovar shenanigans, to Vida's pro-Ukraine slogans, to the boycott campaign against the tournament as a whole in a number of countries. For shame.

[johnny9fingers]

Do we include in that Uncle Vlad's use of the World Cup for international political leverage?

If we could have separated politics from sport, we would have done it years ago, and South Africa wouldn't have had a boycott during the apartheid regime.

Which is why I have a problem with the "For shame" bit, because not doing something even symbolic about apartheid strikes me as being the "For shame" position.

[asthfghl]

Why did Shaqiri display the Kosovo flag on his boots? Why did Xhaka display the Kosovo eagle on his chest against Serbia? What were they campaigning for? What was Vida campaigning for when he said he dedicated Croatia's win over Russia to Ukraine? Did they have to do all that? And if yes - why exactly?

Where's the line?

[johnny9fingers]

Where the line is drawn is a big debate; but there is a line.

[asthfghl]

Unfortunately, this doesn't clarify anything.

[johnny9fingers]

Really.

OK. Your statement is "Using football for politics is disgusting". I say this is not correct because... and give an example of the sporting boycott of apartheid to show the principle of my argument. But I could have used the "Take the knee" movement in the US.

You then give examples of what may well be egregious protests at the football match, an analysis of which I may well agree.

We now have two separate ends of the spectrum, both of which appear to be reasonable. Somewhere in the big gap between those two positions, we draw a line between the "good" protests and the "bad"; deciding that line is the debate. But I would suggest to you that my first point and examples indicate that there is a line.

[asthfghl]

Somewhere - where? We could have an endless debate about where the line is, and still not come to any conclusion. Everyone puts the line wherever they want, or rather, wherever it suits their particular interests.

Yes, it's all about interests. If the Western governments can use sport to slight a geopolitical rival like Russia, and get away with it because most FIFA members don't care about Russia as much as they care about being FIFA members (and FIFA is dominated by Western countries) - then sure, they'll use sport for politics. If a country like Iran, which is the persona non grata of international politics along with some other countries like Syria, North Korea, etc, decides to use sport for politics (like, sending a message to any Middle Eastern country that if they dare to play with Israeli teams, or any team including Israelis, they're facing consequences), those rogue countries would be largely on their own because they're a minority and don't have the upper hand.

So, everyone does whatever they want and whatever they can afford to do. It has always been like that. That's Realpolitik in action.

So there's no clear line, has never been and will never be. It's impossible to have a single standard and a single set of principles in these matters, because politics is a dirty business where the strong dictate the rules, and there's one set of rules for those who are calling the shots, and another one for the little ones, or the ones in the minority. So don't tell me about principles, values or anything like that - only the law of the jungle applies in sport, as it does in politics, in business, or in any other sphere of society.

The rest is just hypocritical hogwash for the gullible.

That sound sensible enough for ya?

[johnny9fingers]

Very sensible.

Excepting, you, like me, would prefer things to be better. And actually most of us who think about such things do too. Even some of the Brexiteers probably think they are doing the right thing. But Brexit is a perfect example of the dangers of letting principles get in the way of good government because of an insufficiently educated population mistaking an abstract for a way of living.

We here are part of the educated elite, we need to hone our points, and hope that they filter through the ether.

Now politics is a dirty business, and the strong do dictate the rules. And if so we can adopt part of Uncle Vlad's playbook "How do I grow strong at any cost?" or we can modify it and try to discern the right position from a point of general morality and utility. It doesn't mean anyone else agrees with us or our conclusions, but it does give us a basis for legitimate action within the limits of law and morality.

"So don't tell me about principles, values or anything like that - only the law of the jungle applies in sport, as it does in politics, in business, or in any other sphere of society."

The only counter examples to this I can think of are nation-states with rigid hierarchical systems of government which operate on strict principles and conventions, and there are few of those left. Maybe the Vatican is the best example here, but in some respects Thailand still has a fairly strict hierarchical code.

When the struggle for dominance is domesticated to the struggle for place in a pecking order, the jungle becomes a farmyard and slightly more prosaic.

If the rest is hypocritical hogwash for the gullible, then I'm both gullible as well as hypocritical. I try to limit my hypocrisy, and amend my ignorance of things, but I think that some things are still important. And balance may the the most important quality in a divided polity, but moral leadership is still hugely important; even if it is some great hypocritical Platonic Lie.

[asthfghl]

That you and I would prefer things to be better is irrelevant to the realities of how things are being done in business, politics or sports. The topic here is that it's how things happen. The motives can be good, bad, neutral, or ambiguous, but that's another subject.

[mahnmut]

And here I thought *I* was a cynical sunnabich.

[kiaa]

If your people were truly opposed to something, your entire team and all the fans would boycott the whole World Cup, like in the Moscow Olympics in 1980. Anything less is just blowing hot air out of various bodily orifices.

[johnny9fingers]

If any people were truly opposed to something they would do something about it.

Most societies have more than one opinion rather than a collective one; and what you describe could merely be indicative of the divisions in any society; about the last unanimous decision was apartheid, and even then folk like Queen played Sun City, and rebel tours of cricket teams took place. And both of those are causes of shame IMO.

Our athletes went to Moscow, IIRC. Coe and Ovett had a bit of a middle distance debate.

There used to be a Reggae tune called "54-46 was my number". I'd update the lyrics to "52-48" in the UK's case.

Again, context. When you review your statement in the light of context it looks like it has missed lots of pertinent stuff.

[kiaa]

Okay, let's talk context. The Albanian guys in the Swiss team displayed the Kosovo symbols before, during and after the match with Serbia, and they dedicated their win to Kosovo. Swiss players were talking of Kosovo, already a de facto independent state with its own representation in the FIFA ranks and tournaments. What was the purpose of that?

Why is sports being used for politics being tolerated, again? If Putin uses sports for political propaganda (even if he really didn't), that's bad. If Iran bans their own clubs from playing against Israeli clubs, that's bad too. But when the British, Swedish and other governments use sports for political propaganda (boycotting Russia), that's good? Don't you notice the hypocrisy here? And what will happen if every country starts boycotting every other country they have quarrels with? What will become of sport?

[abomvubuso]

Nothing more than what has already become of it. A playfield for commercial interests.

[johnny9fingers]

What happens if every country boycotts every country they have quarrels with? You get American Football.

Joking aside, nothing is separate, nothing is discreet. "No man is an island unto himself" and the same is true of the nation state. North Korea has only just started participating in sporting contests, having been isolated completely until the election of 45.

If the British had gone around poisoning folk just before a major sporting contest held in the UK I'm pretty sure there would have been calls to boycott it.

Sometimes it's about the act/acts that cause the protest rather than the protest being at fault. When the outrage against the protest (or folk complaining about the protest) is greater than the outrage produced by the actual event that sparked the protest there are some dodgy values on show. It's a sport, and thankfully no-one died. The protests, whether right or wrong in context, are often because people have died.

[kiaa]

"What happens if every country boycotts every country they have quarrels with? You get American Football."

Dailyqoute please!!! :)))

[asthfghl]

Yep, that was a good one.

[asthfghl]

Problem is, often what's bad for you is good for another. Poisoning people obviously ain't among those things, but throwing Molotovs at Israeli border police can both be seen as good (freedom fighting) and bad (burning police). And if the US decides to boycott an event in the Palestine because of it, they'd cite the burning of police as a just reason for that boycott, while if Sweden boycotts an event in Israel citing Israel's land grab in the West Bank, it'll be just as justified as the former. Obviously, no one grabbing any land from anybody, no one throwing Molotovs at anybody and no one boycotting anything would be the perfect scenario, but in the real world that doesn't happen too often.

[johnny9fingers]

Problem is, often what's bad for you is good for another.

Which is why we must judge between difficult and competing claims. And it's that process I would most like to influence - the process of judgement.

(Normally judgement can only be made extrinsically. Structuralism posited that systems could not be analysed from within that self-same system, and only from without. One reason Structuralism fell apart because it could not reconcile this with post-Heisenberg theory which states that even an external observer influences events.) [edit. Though I also recall that Structuralism was influenced massively itself by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.]

And in matters of judgement, the more you know, the more complicated it gets. So I like to get to the moral core of the issue, and then factor in the starting conditions and practicalities etc. and that is normally pretty clear-cut. Nevertheless the moral core is often at odds with the starting conditions and practicalities. IMO even if the routes can be argued about the ultimate destination of arriving at the moral good should be everyones' goal.

And I make those judgements about the Palestinians and Israelis (amongst others) and tend to fall on Sweden's side, rather than the US's, but not universally.

We all have to judge these things. I'd like those judgement skills to be honed rather better, especially mine.

[nairiporter]

You cannot seriously compare boycotting South Africa because of apartheid to ethnic Kosovars trying to annoy Serbs with stupid gestures. Campaigning for a just cause is one thing; being an asshole to some people just because you can, is quite another. And I'm saying it as a black South African who has actually lived under apartheid.

[johnny9fingers]

I'm not making a direct comparison however, I'm using it as an example of legitimate protest that links sport and politics. And there are others.