by Alexander Smotrov
aleksmot@yandex.ru



After the cold war had come to the end and the iron curtain between the West and the Soviet Union had fallen, the people from the both camps recognized that they knew very little about each other and the knowledge they have was full of myths and stereotypes. The image of enemy was stuck in the heads of the people by propaganda and media.

Now the situation in Russia is much more different than ten years ago, but the stereotypes about the Russians and their country are still in general the same as they were during the Soviet era. The recent years have brought the new stereotypes about new Russia to the West. Now Russia is described not only as a country of bears, vodka, ballet and icons, but also as a country of mafia, corruption, dirty money, criminality and again vodka. If we watch such American films as Eraser, Air Force One, The Peacemaker and others Ц we will see that all of them depict Russians as stereotypical monster characters of Mafiosi, who canТt be trusted.

It doesnТt matter if the devil is so awful as it is painted, but Russia faces these opinions every time when our politicians or businessmen deal with their western colleagues.

According to the public opinion polls, done by Gallup institute and NBC network in February 2001, 52 per cent of Americans have a positive attitude toward Russia, and 55 per cent think that the US should continue financial aid to Russia. But a group of Russian political and economic analysts from the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (CFDP) pointed out in their report УThe international image of Russia and Russian business communityФ that only about 17 per cent of all publications and opinions in the western media can be regarded as positive and realistic in reporting RussiaТs transition to the market economy and successes of individual industries or businesses.

They say that Russia is still perceived as a challenge or even a threat to stability in Europe and the rest of the world. And if there are some optimistic forecasts about its bright future from smaller groups of politicians and experts, they often meet a vexed reaction.

The major lines of criticism of Russia from the West are as follows:

LetТs see on these three stereotypes in more details.

During several years Russia received financial aid from the West (1). On the one hand, it helped the country to survive, but on the other hand, it was a sort of catch because the more the country borrowed the more it would to return in the future. In 1996-99 the most popular words were УloanФ and УtrancheФ, and Michelle Camdessious, the chairman of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), appeared on our TV-screens more often than president Yeltsin.

Nobody knew if the Western credits were used for promoting the reforms in Russia, or they were a good means to cover the budget deficit, or they were simply wasted. But Russia was described as Уcountry, addicted to debtФ.

The leaders of Russia and the IMF said that they tried to avoid widely spread stereotypes and realize that the essential support of reform in Russia from the developed countries may be counterproductive if not linked to the national peculiarities of the transitional economy. But in practice everything was different. Outside observers were normally unable to take due note of the specific details of the development process in a foreign country (i.e. Russian Federation). If their advice had been following blindly it might have not helped to eradicate existing imbalances but might have brought about new ones. It took Russian leaders, especially present prime minister and at that time minister of finance Mikhail Kasyanov, a great effort to explain to IMF experts the essence and course of the real trends in the Russian economy.

At last in 2000 new Russian government made up a difficult, but necessary choice. They proclaimed that Russia wouldnТt borrow money from abroad any more. They also said that much more attention should be paid to attract foreign partners to invest money in Russia, to make these money work. But we should admit that despite all the positive changes in the life of the country during last two years, Russia still has a label of unpredictable country and there are still some reasons to think so. Normally, economics determines the policy of the country, but in Russia the opposite trend is also takes place. So, the foreign investors are afraid of some administrative measures which can threaten their businesses in Russia.

As for criticism of industry, it is generally related to the efficiency or inefficiency of management and natural monopolies, which are the backbone of the Russian economy. The most criticized branches are the oil and gas sector, energy and telecommunications companies especially the larger ones: Russian Joint Stock Company УUnited Energy SystemsФ (RAO EES) and Joint Stock Company УSvyazinvestФ. There was also big criticism about Russian space exploration programme, when the country tried to sit on two chairs at one moment, maintaining the orbital station УMirФ that prevented it to carry out in time its obligations about participating in construction of the new International Space Station.

It is obvious that the Russian army (2) is far from the Soviet Army. First of all the number of soldiers and officers has largely decreased during past ten years. There is a very small amount of new equipment and armaments delivered to the military units. The families of militants often have to live in very bad flats because the Defense Ministry has no money not only for new tanks, planes and kalashnikov sub-machine guns, but also for ordinary salaries for its officers. As a result, Russia has a lot of difficulties with Chechnya. Sometimes the Chechen rebels are equipped and trained better than the Russian regular army!

It is clear as a sunny day, that there are no objective possibilities for Russia at the moment either to wage a large-scale war or to re-conquer its neighbours. And there is no ground for concern from , for example, three Baltic countries about probable new invasion from the East. The only military block which still exists is NATO, but there is no opposite alliance which could balance it. So, NATO has actually lost the larger part of reasons to exist. The so called Уnew threatsФ coming from such countries as Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan Ц thatТs the real evil to be eradicated, not mythical new threat from Russia.

The alarm over the СRussian mafiaТ (3) heated in the western media is one of the most threats to RussiaТs reputation. It is ignored, however, that criminal firms are actively branching out from developed countries to Russia and that Western governments do actually nothing to oppose this trend. And the most interesting thing is that only a small part of gangs categorized as СRussian mafiaТ actually originates from Russia. Most of them are of the Ukrainian, Caucasian, Baltic, Chechen extraction. Nonetheless, the Western media normally use the phrase СRussian mafiaТ to describe any criminal groups originating from the former Soviet Union irrespective of their ethnic and national identity. The essential groundwork for progress in this area was laid during the 62nd Interpol assembly in September 1996 in Turkey, which unanimously ruled that the term СRussian mafiaТ canТt be used for all the criminals from the former Soviet republics.


The most of these stereotypes related to the Уnew RussiaФ have been formed during the Yeltsin 9-year presidency. He was not always adequate in his statements and deeds what gave a good ground for different allegations, rumours and even fears about Russia.

After Vladimir Putin came to power, there have been a lot of good beginnings in Russia. For example, as mentioned before, Russia stopped borrowing money from abroad, the income tax was fixed at the lowest level in Europe Ц 13 per cent. The new president seems to really know what he wants. The leader of the country is the key figure for its image abroad. Maybe his image is somewhat contradictory, but on the whole it is nevertheless positive. Yet, Western public opinion is hesitating. It can be manipulating and it is being fed with stereotypes and because of that there can be something negative towards Putin.

It is necessary to work very hard to alter this tendency. Western politicians take an understanding towards Putin, though they are compelled to speak worse than they think of him, because they have to address their own societies which are full of stereotypes. On the other hand, Putin has very positive image among Western business circles which consider that he is transforming Russia in a way that it is beginning to develop economically, and thatТs why it is necessary to invest their money in Russia as soon as possible.


So, these are numerous examples of the purposeful discrediting of Russia in the media for the sake of weakening its political position and economic competitiveness. At the same time it is essential to realize that the media attack on Russia has not been a planned tactic of any forces but rather a sign of general competitive pressure equally covering all elements of the world economy. The analysts from CFDP underlined, in their turn, that this situation was largely caused by the real problems of the Russian society and, importantly, Уby the absence of any organized media effort from the institutional, financial and industrial structures to redress or counterpoise the flow of adverse coverage of RussiaФ.

At last the government also began to think more about the image of Russia abroad. The Ministry of Mass-Media (often described as the Ministry of Propaganda) in February 2001 proclaimed that it would begin the PR-campaign aimed at changing stereotypes connected with Russia among ordinary citizens in the West. It was rather strange to tell about it in advance, because such actions used to be done only by doing them not by telling about them. But in any case, the minister of mass-media Mikhail Lesin announced the PR-campaign which should begin in the USA and then, in 2002, China is expected to be a new place for this experiment. He explained that the main propaganda strike will be directed at the US because it was the States that started the current bout of anti-Russian hysteria.

According to Mr.Lesin, the government of Russian will grant a lot of money for the campaign in the American media. When asked about the amount of the money to be spent, he said: УWe wonТt spare any expense!Ф. According to some sources, the government intends to spend $50-100 million on this PR-campaign. And there are already a number of Russian and Western PR-agencies, among them the American УBurson MarstellerФ, the Russian УMikhailov and PartnersФ and УVideo InternationalФ, which are ready to carry out this task.

Lesin expressed his concern about the misinterpreting the processes taking place in Russia in the American media. He said that it is necessary to explain to the international community what is really happening in Russia. He also pointed out that the USA and Russia has almost equal numbers of printed media Ц about 25 000, but in the States they are owned by 50 American corporations while in Russia there are 1 000 different owners of these media. So, according to Mr. Lesin, there is more freedom of press in Russia. This year the Ministry of Mass-Media published the report УAbout the freedom of speech and freedom of action in the United StatesФ which was also handed over to the Department of State and to the US President.

There is some sense in his words because we can see that the Western media cover the events following the same schemes. There is a whole system of values, definitions and angles which canТt be broken in the Western media. They have liberal and democratic stereotypes, but they are still stereotypes which are often far from real life. But the Russian media represents the whole political, social and cultural spectrum. There are a lot of angles and approaches which can create rather objective picture of the world.

Maybe it is not a very good idea to launch such a campaign for promotion of positive Russian image abroad. It would rather be a necessary addition to real deeds. It is very difficult to alter historically formed American mentality towards Russia. The West regards the УRussian bearФ as if not an evident enemy but with a definite caution. It took place in the times of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, Napoleon and marquise de Coustin, Churchill and Hitler, Kennedy and Reagan, and there are no evident indications that something has greatly changed. So, the best PR for Russia could become the reconstruction of the powerful state which could be able to defend and promote its interests in the world by all possible means.

Thus the creation of a comprehensive system of media counter measures should be a key element of the governmentТs image improvement policy. To improve its overall image, Russia needs to identify and redress those factors which prevent it from the understanding by the Western partners.

Thank God that the Russian authorities have at last started thinking about RussiaТs image abroad. But it is bad that society and the business circles which are really interested in giving the country a positive image are doing actually nothing in this situation.

We should do a lot to overcome lack of understanding between the Russian and Western societies, because it is an essential condition of the rational integration of Russia into the world community. Since this misunderstanding is not fundamental, but rather historical and psychological, it can be step by step reduced through forming an adequate image of Russia in the outer world.