When I visit my dentist’s surgery in Moscow, I am used to being the one nervously asking questions. Yet on the day after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down, everyone here — including my dentist, the receptionist and the guy fixing the receptionist’s computer — wanted me to tell them what would happen next.
“You’re a journalist. You probably know something we don’t know,” the receptionist said. “And I don’t trust the television.”
In the aftermath of the horrific crash that took the lives of nearly 300 people, from here it looks as if it has turned a local conflict into a tragedy of global proportions.
Illustration: Mountain People
As the popular political observer Konstantin von Eggert said in the Kommersant daily newspaper: “It won’t be [the rebels] paying the price, it will be the Kremlin. Because it is Moscow, in spite of many denials issued by representatives, that is believed by the entire world to be [the rebels’] chief sponsor and protector.”
Meanwhile, ordinary Muscovites are expressing horror at the tragedy, even as they entertain some of the wildest conspiracies imaginable. My dentist, Dmitry, has served in the military and professes scorn for the rebels, whom he refers to as “undisciplined morons.” At the same time, he says there is “another side” to the disaster.
“Who benefits from portraying Russia as the monster? The Americans do,” he said. “They want to go to war with the whole world.”
At my local home improvement store, the young manager, Vitaly, launches into a tirade about how “there is an information war on” and that the US has every capability to frame “either Russia or the rebels.”
However, he, too, has tremendous disdain for the separatists.
“I don’t even know what their goals are. It all seems pointless,” he said. “They’re trying to drag Russia into world war three. Fuck them.”
A curious mixture of conspiracy theory and criticism for the separatists comes up almost every time I strike up a conversation on the fate of Flight MH17.
“Even if they didn’t bring down the plane, I have no sympathy for these whackjobs,” Konstantin, a man in late middle age who describes himself as “retired military,” told me as we line up at the grocery store.
“Separatists mean too much liability — every good tactician will tell you that,” Konstantin said confidently.
Like many Russians, he believes that the new Ukrainian government is virulently anti-Russian, pro-Western and corrupt. Nonetheless, he does not think that Russia should have taken the “political risk” of supporting the militants.
For Maria, a woman in her 30s who says she works on radio, the MH17 disaster has invoked “feelings of a coming apocalypse.”
“It’s bad enough that all of these people are dead,” Maria said. “But what if the war gets worse and more people die? How far will all of this go?”
In stark contrast to Western tabloid headlines which speak of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s missile and “Putin’s victims,” most of the people I talk to in Moscow stop short of directly blaming the president for the disaster.
This has a lot to do with how Russia’s involvement in east Ukraine is perceived to be chaotic and halfhearted to begin with. Unlike the annexation of Crimea, which saw well-trained Russian troops take control of the situation immediately, east Ukraine is a murky misadventure at best.
“The idea that the rebels are reporting directly to Putin is just funny,” Konstantin said. “I don’t even know if there is any kind of established chain of command over there.”
Vitaly is more strident, calling east Ukraine a “failure” from the start and blaming Putin’s advisers for “not advising properly.”
Vitaly does not understand how the president, whom he credits with lifting Russia “from its knees” after the turbulent 1990s, could have wanted to get involved in east Ukraine — unless “the facts were distorted for him.”
Even among strong critics of Putin, there is the sense that the Russian president himself could not have seen it coming.
“I never voted [for Putin], he’s not my guy, and I don’t agree with where he’s steering the country,” Yekaterina, a pensioner neighbor, told me. “But this absolute horror, this shocking tragedy — I can’t imagine he wanted that.”
“Few people want to directly blame Putin,” Maria said. “It makes sense. Russia has improved, but it’s still a chaotic country. It’s important for people to believe in least one person. And you can’t discount the fact that the Ukrainian leadership isn’t 100 percent trustworthy.”
One would think that in a country where disasters frequently occur due to lack of accountability and poor judgment, more people would be willing to accept that what happened to MH17 was likely a mistake, almost banal in its horror. However, for many Muscovites, the notion that some sort of conspiracy is nevertheless at work seems almost comforting, like a drug.
Both television and online trolls are eager to provide more quantities of the drug at this time by highlighting both outlandish theories that crash victims “may have been dead for weeks” and more mundane speculations of the Ukrainian armed forces trying to cover up the real cause of the disaster.
“It’s very hard for me to accept that this is all just someone’s mistake,” Vitaly said. “I don’t know if I can do that.”
None of this prevents people from identifying with the victims of MH17.
“There were many children, I heard,” Konstantin said. “Kids that probably never even heard of Ukraine, or the war, or anything like that. The innocents always suffer.”
Natalia Antonova is a Moscow playwright and journalist.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations