Distorted idea of Russia

We took note of professor Gerrit Olivier’s recent article and strongly disagree with the author’s perception of Russia (“Strongman Putin Faces New Internal Threat: Savvy, Middle-class New Russians”, September 18). In our opinion this op-ed is in form and essence a work of fiction.

Just as in most basic Hollywood movies, where Russia is shown strictly through a gloomy crooked lens, Olivier paints a bleak and, completely distorted picture of current-day Russia, resorting to the rhetoric of the Cold War and apartheid eras.

His critique of Russian leadership is marred by clichés and mistakes. The simplest things, such as the number of presidential terms, get mixed up. For example, there is no need for president Vladimir Putin to run for a fourth term; it began in 2018.

The author states in a peremptory tone what the Russian president thinks, desires and strives for. This alone disqualifies the piece from being taken seriously. Olivier may think he gets signals from the Kremlin, but it is far more likely to be a malfunctioning satellite dish. He denies Russians the ability to choose their own future. Apparently they are not savvy enough for Olivier; he scornfully calls them homo sovieticus. This reeks of the arrogant Rudyard Kipling’s “white man’s burden” colonial-type philosophy.

The 76.69% of Russians who voted for Putin in the latest election would disagree with his assessment. Consider this: 20,000 protesters (official data), who intentionally broke the law by bypassing proper rally procedures, represent 0.1% of Moscow’s population. In Russian culture “New Russians” is a derogatory term from the 1990s for nouveau riche thugs. A slovenly attempt, Olivier.

Alexander Kulyaev Russian embassy in SA