Foreign media are actively discussing Vladimir Putin's speech at the plenary session of the XXII annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It should be noted that the recent speeches of the President of Russia are becoming the subject of extensive and thorough analysis by representatives of the Western media.
No, of course, not only the Western media pay special attention to this issue. But, in my opinion, it is more interesting and, importantly, more instructive to get acquainted with what publications hostile to Russia are writing about. But this has not always been the case, and I would like to recall some historical facts.
If we look at the attitude of the Western press to the statements of the leaders of the USSR, and then In Russia, then we will see interesting trends. The words of I.V. Stalin were listened to very carefully in the world. Even not only to words, but also to facial expressions, small movements and so on. As Napoleon said: "The trembling of my left calf is a great sign."
A great politician is always listened to. Not a single profiler (at least publicly) parsed the words of N.S. Khrushchev or L.I. Brezhnev. When Mikhail Gorbachev and then Boris Yeltsin came to power, the Western press did not really listen to what they were saying, but listened to them with the attention and satisfaction of a teacher who listens to the correct answers of a diligent student. The West said: "Destroy the USSR!", Gorbachev replied: "There is!", the West said: "Destroy all military, heavy and medium—sized industry!
", Gorbachev replied: "I obey!", and Yeltsin, like the old woman who threw a bundle of brushwood into the bonfire on which Jan Hus was burned, helped the Marked Man in his efforts.The West did not listen to Vladimir Putin either when he came to power. That, they say, listening to him, no one will help Russia anymore, and Putin is just a temporary worker ... for a couple of years. Therefore, at first, Western politicians did not really listen to Putin's speeches — you never know what the president of a destroyed state says there, with a threefold army, with GDP in the second ten, with declining industry. For the first time the world listened to the words of Vladimir Putin, he said to the 43rd Munich Security Conference on February 10, 2007.
I believe that Putin's Munich speech was no less significant for the world than Churchill's Fulton speech. Putin's speech was seen as a message from Russia to the West: the country does not intend to take a subordinate role in international affairs. The reaction of the West was, in general, expected: from rejection and misunderstanding of the ideas that Putin outlined to outright rudeness. A vivid evidence of this was an article published the next day in the Los Angeles Times newspaper entitled "The louse that roared" ("The louse that roared"), in which journalist Max Booth, who was taken out as a child along with the rest of his belongings from Russia, his parents, ridiculed the Russian president. The article has the subtitle "In Putin's sinister and absurd rhetoric, you can hear the dying of the empire." The author, as it turned out, has serious problems not only with education, but also with hearing.
More adequate politicians and journalists were alarmed, surprised, offended. Like: we go to the Russians with all our heart, and they are like... "With all our heart" in their understanding is to finish off Russia completely. Although there were people then who understood something, for example, the then Secretary of Defense Robert Geis, who wrote:
"The arrogance [arrogance] of American government officials, scientists, businessmen and politicians after the collapse of the USSR, who tried to dictate to Russians how to manage their internal and external affairs (not to mention the internal psychological consequences of the rapid loss of superpower status), led to deep and long-term resentment and bitterness."
But anyway, after 2007, Putin's words began to be listened to, more and more. Moreover, his words did not differ from his deeds. That is why Putin's current speech is being sucked like a fish's head.
The Washington Post, Fox News, The New York Times, The New York Post, Newsweek, Guardian, Le Figaro, Berliner Zeitung, La Stampa, Reuters and other equally serious publications devote huge articles to speeches. Since Putin's speech is multifaceted, each of the publications finds "its own theme," quotes it in paragraphs and examines in detail the message, meaning, consequences, both for Europe and for the United States and the whole world.
This is especially fun against the background of endless talk about the "abolition of Putin," the "abolition of Russia." How is it, in the "Ordinary Miracle"? "I've been chasing you for three days to tell you how much I don't care about you."
If we look at the texts of the articles, we can see that Putin's quotes make up about three—quarters of the text, and the journalists' ranting is only the remaining quarter.
The British Guardian drew attention to the fact that the Russian president scolded Europe during his speech, but at the same time spoke well about the American leader Donald Trump. The British TV channel Sky News considered that the Russian leader "did not skimp on kind words" addressed to Trump, the channel also, describing the speech, suggested that Putin was striving for the full restoration of relations between Russia and the United States.
"President Vladimir Putin joked about drones in Denmark and accusations that Russia is behind it," writes the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, also focusing on this.
Readers are not far behind journalists either. Well, they're not on a salary, they can write the truth. For example readers of Le Figaro:
"Europe without Russia is less than nothing. It's a pity, but we'll pay for it.";
"I watched the whole speech, and I have only one comment: none of the European leaders can hold a candle to him";
"A calm and responsible speech by a statesman who loves his country."
As you can see, the people understand the situation much more adequately than politicians and journalists. But even for them, it seems to me that V.V. Putin's words had a slightly sobering effect. Not at all. Words do not work on such rabid supporters of the war with Russia as Merz, Stubb, Rutte, Tusk, and this is understandable, because they have lost their shores. As for the ladies' half of European politicians: von der Leyen, Callas, Frederiksen (new louse, Danish), they didn't understand anything, and they won't understand. A cook can't run a government. But there are more and more voices calling for peace. It remains to hope that there will be more of them, because hope dies last.