Commentary
Maria Lipman
{
"authors": [
"Maria Lipman"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Words for a Russian Ghetto
President Obama spoke brilliantly and powerfully at Russia's New Economic School during his Moscow trip. Unfortunately, few Russians heard his speech or got more than a glimpse of the American president on the television news.
By Maria Lipman
Published on Jul 9, 2009
Source: the Washington Post
If they had heard Obama's address, they probably would have appreciated that Obama spoke with high respect for Russian culture and history. He paid tribute to Russia's colossal contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany -- a victory in which Russians commonly believe their role is not properly recognized abroad. Obama was delicate and subtle, as well as firm and concrete. He described the end of the Cold War not as a victory of one political order over another but as a result of "the actions of many nations over many years." He admitted that America is not perfect. And he referred to democracy not as a moral virtue but as an effective means toward peaceful, secure and prosperous life.
But the president's speech -- at a Westernized institution founded by prominent Russian economists and modeled after the best American universities they attended -- was not broadcast live by any of the mass-audience television channels. These channels, which the Kremlin has long used as effective tools for shaping public opinion, offered benevolent but restrained coverage of the summit. Obama's performance in Russia, his eloquence, his ideas and his charms were thus mostly confined to those limited audiences, venues and outlets where free expression and public debate are still maintained. The Kremlin has mastered the art of keeping these liberal "ghettos" politically irrelevant.
The Kremlin keeps a firm grip on societal forces: Its concept of civil society implies loyalty to the state and rules out genuine autonomy. Those who dare defy the Kremlin vision may be tolerated, but they are consistently marginalized. Assistance to such groups from abroad is treated with great suspicion. Moreover, the West, and the United States in particular, are viewed as a threatening force seeking to do harm to Russia.
This dramatically hampers Russian development and leaves Russia still further behind the developed nations. A summit with Obama, and his attempt to reach out to the Russian people, no matter how brilliant or subtle, can hardly change this state of affairs. It is up to the Russian people to change this, but they will have to overcome their apathy and fragmentation. "Every country charts its own course," Obama told the students of the New Economic School. Russia is no exception.
The article can also be found here.
About the Author
Maria Lipman
Former Scholar in Residence, Society and Regions Program, Editor in Chief, Pro et Contra, Moscow Center
Lipman was the editor in chief of the Pro et Contra journal, published by the Carnegie Moscow Center. She was also the expert of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Society and Regions Program.
- The Russian State Power and the Ukrainian Human Factor
- Putin’s Crimean Conquest Pushes Russia to an Anti-Modernization CourseCommentary
Maria Lipman
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance GapCommentary
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
