« | Home | »

Let the Games Begin

Tags: |

Among the alleged thirty billion dollars’ worth of inflated contracts, self-dealing, kick-backs, crooked tenders and orgiastic waste that have made the Sochi Olympics cost more than all previous winter games put together, what stands out is the sheer brazenness of the whole thing. ‘The Sochi Olympics reveal the dark heart of Putin’s Russia,’ Panorama concluded on 27 January. But nobody is really bothering to hide it. The Kremlin knows it doesn’t matter how much is stolen or siphoned away: Gazprom will still control energy in Europe, Berlin will still appease Putin, Brussels will still roll over, London will still yearn for oligarchs’ money.

When Putin released Khodorkovsky and Pussy Riot before the games, many in the West patted themselves on the back: ‘It shows that we can put pressure on Putin.’ Sort of. The Russian essayist Alexander Morozov caught the mood best: Putin is getting married and he wants a good atmosphere for the party. That’s not quite the same thing as caring about your reputation. As for David Cameron not turning up for the opening ceremony, that might sting for a few seconds (or not), but it’s nothing compared to the merger between BP and Rosneft (nicknamed ‘Britneft’). Around the time the deal was made, the British government blocked a coroner’s request for a public inquiry into Alexander Litvinenko’s death. There is classified evidence which demonstrates, according to the coroner, a ‘prime facie case as to the culpability of the Russian state’. The British government denies any connection, and God knows what deals have happened behind the scenes, but the perception is that the Kremlin can assassinate a British citizen on UK soil and London will roll over and hush it up for the sake of its messed up oil company. A Times editorial argued that ‘the inquest must not sour relations with Moscow… Britain is the biggest overseas investor in Russia.’

Western journalists may snigger at how unready Sochi is for the Olympics, at its brown water and lack of wi-fi, but Moscow knows full well that British journalists are helpless when it comes to the real issue of investigating the Kremlin-connected oligarchs who are the richest men in Europe. ‘Libel laws mean publications are simply scared of going against the oligarchs in the UK,’ says Mike Harris of Index on Censorship, ‘even if a newspaper or magazine gets a case thrown out of court, just doing that can cost millions.’

This year has been announced as the ‘UK-Russia Year of Culture’. The Kremlin will be bringing over an exhibition of early 20th-century Russian avant garde art to show off at the Tate; galleries sponsored by Russian state banks will exhibit the best in cutting-edge, contemporary Russian art in Shoreditch. Meanwhile in Moscow, the new culture minister has condemned ‘foreign forms of art like installations and performances’ and avant garde artists are jailed (and then amnestied).

‘But doesn’t that show that when in Britain the Kremlin feels it needs to fit in with our way of doing things?’ a friend of mine suggested. I’d argue the opposite. The effect of the imitation is not respect but parody: ‘Look how meaningless your cultural language is,’ the Kremlin seems to be saying, ‘we can mouth it when we need to.’ The Kremlin’s co-option of Western (and its own avant garde’s) cultural language is putting on a carnival mask in order to mock it. It’s not even paying lip service; it’s taking the piss. A good example is the op-ed on Syria that Putin wrote for the New York Times last autumn, taunting the White House with allusions to the Declaration of Independence: ‘There are big countries and small countries… Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.’

If the Kremlin tried hard to disguise the corruption at the games, if it made a real effort to ensure journalists’ hotels were presentable, if it didn’t break its last independent media outlets right before the opening ceremony: then it would show it was somehow craven to the West. Instead the brazenness is the point. It shows who the real winners are.

Comments on “Let the Games Begin”

  1. Giuliano says:

    Regarding this phrase “galleries sponsored by Russian state banks will exhibit the best in cutting-edge, contemporary Russian art in Shoreditch” re: Calvert and the cultural sphere, here was my blog that develops this point:
    http://afoniya.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/hipsters-and-investment-banksters-reflections-on-the-limits-of-the-calvert-experience/

  2. Alex K. says:

    Andrei Lugovoy, the man wanted in connection to the Litvinenko poisoning, sponsored a recently enacted bill allowing Russian prosecutors to block web sites for “extremism” without waiting for a court order.

  3. George Hoffman says:

    I agree with all of your post expect when you make a reference to President Valdimir Putin’s editorial in the NYT. After having served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, I was relieved Putin played his cards quite well with Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama. He helped to avert an intervention in the Syrian civil war. Americans, finally after two wars and the drone wars which have slaughtered so many, had an epiphany of Biblical proportions on the road to Damascus. They have had it with war. Period. I had with wars of empire when I served in Vietnam. So who really cares if Putin scored a PR victory on the question of intervention in Syria? It avoided another disastrous war. That’s all that counts with me after what I saw in Vietnam.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...
    • Geoff Roberts on What happened in Cologne?: The most surprising thing about the events in Cologne (and the most disturbing) is that some 600 incidents of theft, harrasment and rape were reported...
    • EmilyEmily on What happened in Cologne?: The author's argument is straightforward: Sexual violence is one beast; fears about migrants is another - let's not confuse the two. Alfalfa's poin...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement