Russia-Ukraine links – III

Anti-Russian demonstration, Simferopol, March 2 2014
(Photo: Sergei L. Loiko/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

I was away from my computer for three days so wasn’t able to keep up with all the good analyses on Russia/Ukraine of late. Here are two notable ones I’ve read in the past 12 or so hours:

Timothy Snyder, “Crimea: Putin vs. Reality,” in the NYR Blog (March 7th).

“Leçons ukrainiennes“: editorial in Le Monde (issue dated March 7th) by editor-in-chief Natalie Nougayrède, who reported from Russia for many years.

To these one may add:

A NYT op-ed (March 7th) by Ben Judah, “London’s laundry business,” on how “Britain is ready to betray Ukraine to protect its cut of Russia’s dirty money.”

Another NYT op-ed: Chrystia Freeland, “Russia has already lost the war” (March 9th). Freeland—a well-known Canadian journalist, politician, and Russia hand—explains that “[t]he biggest danger for Vladimir V. Putin is that Ukraine’s revolution will eventually spread toward Russia.”

In a “Letter from Moscow” in Politico Magazine (March 4th), “Ukraine, Putin TV and the Big Lie,” journalist Leonid Ragozin says “[y]ou won’t believe what the Russian media is saying about America right now.”

Homs, chronique d’une révolte

ARTE aired another remarkable documentary last night (for the other one, see previous post), this on the uprising in Homs, Syria, and which was shot over a two-year period by Syrian filmmaker Talal Derki. It won the World Cinema Grand Jury Prize for best documentary at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival (English title: Return to Homs). It may be viewed for the next week on ARTE’s website here (90 minutes, version française).

Khrushchev in America

ARTE aired a fascinating one-hour documentary last night on Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to the United States—the first ever by a Soviet leader—in September 1959, “Khrouchtchev à la conquête de l’Amérique.” He spent thirteen days in the US—Washington, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, rural Iowa, and Pittsburgh. I of course knew about the visit but hadn’t seen the film footage. The documentary may be watched on ARTE’s website here. It’s absolutely worth it.

What is particularly striking is the hundreds of thousands of people—regular Americans—who turned out to see Khrushchev, lining the streets everywhere he went (and in the towns his train passed through between L.A. and San Francisco). One can hardly imagine that nowadays, of huge crowds spontaneously gathering to greet a visiting foreign leader—in the US, France, or just about anywhere. But that’s the way it was back then. For the anecdote, when Chou En-lai came to Somalia on a state visit in 1964 (I was living there at time), a significant portion of Mogadishu’s population—probably most—turned out to greet him (my memory of this is hazy, as I was a mere lad, but it’s there). Likewise with Nicolae Ceaușescu’s visit to Somalia in 1967. The following year, when Charles De Gaulle came to Ankara, Turkey (where I was now living), tens of thousands of people lined Atatürk boulevard to see him (standing up in the limousine). Ditto when the Apollo 11 astronauts (Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin) came a year later (we got off school for that one). I wonder how many Turks turned out to greet François Hollande on his state visit there in January? Or Americans when he went to the US last month? Poser la question c’est y répondre…

Russia-Ukraine links – II

Viktor Yanukovich and Vladimir Putin, December 17 2013
(Photo: Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin)

Voilà more links to worthy articles read over the past 48 hours.

“‘We Are Speaking Very Loudly. We Are Carrying a Small Stick’: Dmitri K. Simes on why Russia isn’t taking the U.S. seriously,” in The New Republic (March 3rd). Dmitri Simes (interviewed by John Judis) gives the most sophisticated explanation of Russian perceptions—and a critique of US policy—I’ve seen so far.

Also in TNR (March 3rd): James Mann, “Enough With the Clichés Already: The Obama administration’s rhetoric on Russia is accomplishing nothing.” A biting critique of the Obama administration’s rhetoric on the current crisis by a foreign policy analyst who knows his subject.

In TNR (March 2nd): Julia Ioffe, “Kremlin TV Loves Anti-War Protests—Unless Russia Is the One Waging War: Studies in ‘whataboutism’.” “Whataboutism”: great neologism.

And in TNR (March 2nd): Isaac Chotiner, “Meet Vladimir Putin’s American Apologist.” One doesn’t even need to read the article to guess that the apologist in question is Stephen F. Cohen.

Stephen Kinzer (formerly of the NYT) in a Boston Globe op-ed (March 3rd): “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle.” Kinzer, who appears to share the same general view as Stephen F. Cohen, says that “Any solution short of partition will have to take Russia’s interests into account. Thus far the United States has shown no interest in doing that.” My question to Kinzer: But what precisely are Russia’s interests here and how has the US not respected them?

Anatol Lieven (of King’s College London), “Why Obama Shouldn’t Fall for Putin’s Ukrainian Folly,” in Zócalo Public Square (March 2nd). The lede: Russia and the West have conspired to tear the country apart. Both sides must stand down now or face the consequences.

Mark Galeotti (NYU historian), in his In Moscow’s Shadows blog: “Putin’s Pyrrhic Crimea Campaign” (March 2nd).

Ben Judah (ECFR policy analyst), “Why Russia No Longer Fears the West,” Politico Magazine (March 2nd).

Peter Ackerman, Maciej Bartkowski, and Jack Duvall (specialists of non-violent protest), “Ukraine explained: a nonviolent victory,” OpenDemocracy (March 3rd).

Alain Besançon (major French historian) in a Le Monde op-ed (March 2nd): “«L’aide fraternelle» de la Russie.”

Kathryn Stoner (Stanford U. political scientist), “Putin’s Search for Greatness: Will Ukraine Bring Russia the Superpower Status It Seeks?” Foreign Affairs (March 2nd).

Also in Foreign Affairs (March 3rd): Ivan Krastev (director of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia), “Russian Revisionism: Putin’s Plan For Overturning the European Order.”

(credit: Andréa Fradin, Slate.fr)

Russia-Ukraine links

Pro-Russian protesters, Donetsk, March 1 2014. (AFP Photo/Alexander Khudoteply)

I’ve been following events in the Ukraine and Russia like everyone—and, like many, don’t quite know how to think about them, except that what’s happening is scary. As for what the US and EU should do, that one’s easy: do all they can to stop violence, try to calm the Russians down, and broker some kind of agreement—if possible—that respects Russia’s vital interests, on the one hand, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine on the other. But I am not going to engage in an extended commentary on the issue, as I am not a specialist of the countries in question, would only be repeating the analyses of real specialists, and with anything I could say bordering on the café de commerce. So in lieu of my pontifications, here are links to worthwhile articles I’ve read on the subject over the past 48 hours or so.

Timothy Snyder, “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda,” on the NYR Blog (March 1st). This piece is particularly good.

Julia Ioffe, “Putin’s War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine. And nobody—not the U.S., not NATO—can stop him,” on The New Republic website (March 1st).

Marie Mendras (one of France’s top Russia specialists), “L’Ukraine est déterminée à occuper sa place,” op-ed in Libération (February 28th).

Charles King (Georgetown U. international affairs and government prof), “Crimea, the Tinderbox,” to appear in print in the March 3rd International New York Times.

Two articles by Alexander J. Motyl (Rutgers U. poli sci prof) dated March 1st: In Foreign Policy, “How Far Will Putin Go?” The lede: Russia’s leader is acting impulsively — and full-scale war may be next; in Foreign Affairs, “Putin’s Play: What Happens After Russia Intervenes in Ukraine.”

Kimberly Marten (Barnard College political scientist), “4 reasons why Crimea is not Abkhazia,” on the WaPo Monkey Cage blog (March 1st).

Writing in the February 28th Libération, Jean Quatremer and Lorraine Millot, “Ukraine: comment l’Union européenne s’est pris les pieds dans le tapis russe.”

David Remnick of The New Yorker, “Putin goes to war” (March 1st).

Mary Mycio, “Crimea and Punishment,” in Slate (March 1st). The lede: Vladimir Putin is miscalculating how easy it will be to control a Crimean mini-state.

Also in Slate (March 1st): Fred Kaplan, “Putin’s War.” The lede: Obama had no good options to stop the invasion. In fact, the only mistake the president made was ever suggesting there would be “consequences.”

If anyone has read or sees a good piece, do pass it along.

The Lunchbox

I note that this gem of a movie from India has just opened in the US. I saw it in December and loved it, as did every last person I know who saw it. It is such a touching, charming, poignant film. Two souls in the teeming Bombay megalopolis—a mid 50s widower (played by the well-known Bollywood actor Irrfan Khan) and 30ish housewife with yet no children (the rather attractive actress Nimrat Kaur)—cross paths, though without their paths actually crossing. For a synopsis, go to the film’s website here. In addition to the heartwarming story, watching the pic quite literally made me salivate for Indian food, and particularly Indian home cooking. And one sees the dabbawalas at work: the caste of (illiterate) men who deliver thousands of lunch boxes daily from homes (meals prepared by wives) to offices and workplaces (of husbands) and without ever mistaking an address (except once, in this movie), such that the dabbawala business model, as it were, has been studied by the Harvard Business School (e.g. here and here). The story also concludes exactly as it should, and with the final scene particularly good. So thumbs way up! Don’t miss it! Kenneth Turan’s L.A. Times review is here, French reviews (very good) are here, interview (en français) with director Ritesh Batra is here, trailer is here. BTW, ‘The Lunchbox’ was incomprehensibly not India’s submission to the Oscars for best foreign language film. Had it been, it would be a strong contender to win that award later today.

2014 Oscars

For the first time ever I’ve seen every movie nominated in the top categories and before the ceremony (i.e. there were none of utterly no interest, that I declined to see, and/or wasn’t able to see). The list of nominees is here. Some of them I have blog posts on: 12 Years a Slave (excellent), American Hustle (overrated; it’s entertaining and with fine acting but is not that great of a movie), Gravity (good for 3-D but only for 3-D), Nebraska (loved it), and The Wolf of Wall Street (way overrated), plus Blue Jasmine (overrated). As for those I haven’t posted on, voilà my brief take on each:

Captain Phillips: Entertaining, well-done pic and “authentic”—as the Somali pirates are real Somalis, amateurs recruited in the Somali communities in Minneapolis and London—, but the suspense value of which is diminished by the fact that you know how it’s going to turn out. An inherent problem in movies that reenact actual events… As far as Somali piracy films go, I will rate the Danish ‘A Hijacking‘ a notch higher, as it, being European, contains an element of tragedy (as how can piracy on the high seas have no tragedy?). I also wasn’t overly impressed with Tom Hanks’s performance. And it seems that real life crewmen of the Maersk Alabama are hotly contesting the way the film presents Captain Phillips, who, they insist, does not merit hero status.

Dallas Buyers Club: Again, a movie based on a true story, though here I wasn’t well informed on the details going into the theater except that it was about the beginning the AIDS epidemic—in the 1980s—, when a positive diagnosis of HIV meant near certain death and in short order. The pic is very good, thoroughly entertaining, and with a stellar performance by Matthew McConaughey. The other performances, e.g. Jared Leto, are also quite good. Among other things, the film will gratify those who have it out for the pharmaceutical industry (and its often unholy collaboration with doctors). Thumbs up.

Her: First I’ve seen by director Spike Jonze. I normally don’t go for futuristic-type films but this one was very good. Absorbing and mesmerizing. A deep reflection on love and the virtual world spawned by technology. And the acting is first-rate: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson (virtually), Amy Adams… Thumbs up!

Philomena: Okay, I thought this was a touching, moving, well done film and with some fine acting—particularly Judy Dench—, that jerked my tears (I’m sentimental, so no joke), and made me loathe even more those who claim to be close to God—here the personnel of the Catholic church—but who make simple, innocent people so unhappy. It’s a movie for the masses—not a chef d’œuvre—but may absolutely be seen.

And then there’s this:

August: Osage County: A two-hour psychodrama at a family gathering in bumfuck Oklahoma, of unattractive, uninteresting, antipathetic, indeed despicable people—with two or three exceptions—screaming at each other almost non-stop. And some of what happens or is revealed in this dysfunctional family’s grand déballage is scarcely believable to boot. Meryl Streep’s (best actress nominee) performance is overwhelmed by the wretchedness of her character. Julia Roberts (best supporting actress nominee) isn’t much better. What a disagreeable movie. Who needs this? Avoid it. At all costs.

Voilà my Oscar ballot:

BEST PICTURE: 12 Years a Slave.
Obviously.

DIRECTING: Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave).
Obviously.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club).
I was initially leaning toward Bruce Dern but McConaughey was really first-rate in this.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE: Judy Dench (Philomena).
Not a hard choice. I couldn’t stand Cate Blanchett in ‘Blue Jasmine’ and Amy Adams was good in ‘American Hustle’ but not meritorious of the top prize. As for Sandra Bullock in ‘Gravity’, forget it.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: Bradley Cooper (American Hustle).
This was a coin toss. I’d have normally gone with Barkhad Abdi but it’s so easy for a Somali to play a Somali. And playing a transsexual, as Jared Leto did in ‘Dallas Buyers Club’, doesn’t seem overly complicated either. For the record, I’m not a fan of Michael Fassbender.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: June Squibb (Nebraska).
I loved her character in this film. Jennifer Lawrence and Lupita Nyong’o are worthy runners-up. As for Sally Hawkins, nah.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Omar.
Best Palestinian film ever (and which will be the subject of an upcoming blog post). It beats out by a hair The Broken Circle Breakdown, which I loved. The Hunt is a fine film. As for The Great Beauty, see my post from two days ago. The Missing Picture I haven’t seen.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: The Act of Killing.
This is the only one of the five nominees I’ve seen but it doesn’t matter, as none of the others—two of which I know about, two I hadn’t heard of—could possibly rival this incredible documentary.