In The Media
Lilia Shevtsova
{
"authors": [
"Lilia Shevtsova"
],
"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": [
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
March Putin vs. April Putin: Can You Spot the Difference?
Putin’s rhetorical shift toward calm and congeniality shows that now Putin is presenting himself as a victor who has formulated and applied the new rules of the game.
Published on Apr 23, 2014
Source: American Interest
In March, Vladimir Putin showcased himself as the character I like to call the Terminator. He performed this role for the benefit of a global audience, as well as for his opposition inside Russia. In his March 18 address to the Russian Federal Assembly and the public, the one intended to legitimize the Crimea annexation, Putin attacked the United States for “[being] guided not by international law, but by the rule of the gun.” Borrowing a term from Hitler’s lexicon, Putin also berated the “national traitors” inside Russia who refuse to toe the Kremlin line. It was bellicose rhetoric intended to portray the Russian leader as a wartime president addressing his nation in a time of crisis. Putin’s March pronouncements were in line with his 2013 speeches, in which he stated that Russia’s aim was to contain the “demoralized” Euro-Atlantic states.Now let us take a look at what Putin was saying during this April 17 question-and-answer session. He slipped into an entirely new skin, one projecting calm and a congenial nature. He chided his belligerent supporters in the audience. He even surprised many by saying, “Russia’s values do not differ dramatically from European values. We belong to the same civilization.” In a later interview he indicated that there is “nothing that could prevent normalization and normal cooperation” between Russia and the United States. Programs on Russian television stations have begun to preach the virtues of “tolerance” and “discussion.” ...
Read the full text of this article in the American Interest.
About the Author
Lilia Shevtsova
Former Senior Associate, Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program, Moscow Center
Shevtsova chaired the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, dividing her time between Carnegie’s offices in Washington, DC, and Moscow. She had been with Carnegie since 1995.
- Putin Has Fought His Way Into a Corner
- How Long Russians Will Believe in Fairy Tale?Commentary
Lilia Shevtsova
Recent Work
Carnegie 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 Endowment for International Peace
- Brussels and Baku Are Talking Again: What Next?Commentary
Azerbaijan’s relations with the EU appear to be going from strength to strength after several years in the deep freeze following the military escalation in Karabakh in 2023 and Azerbaijan’s bitter fallout with France and several other EU member states.
Shujaat Ahmadzada
- Trump Turns NATO into a Tool of CoercionCommentary
The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.
Rym Momtaz
- The French Far Right’s Foreign Policy: Big Ambitions, Uncertain DirectionPaper
The National Rally’s electoral strength, coupled with its internal fragility at a crucial political juncture, contributes to foreign policy vagueness.
Catherine Fieschi
- 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
- Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio PoliticsArticle
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
