The Western press is once again brimming with a fresh wave of anti-Sochi slander. The new round is dedicated to the supposedly "skyrocketing" costs of the games, or the "bacchanalia of waste and corruption" as Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times
so poetically expresses it.Fresh ammunition was provided by a new propaganda report concocted by the "opposition investigative blogger" (more Opposition than investigative), Alexey Navalny. Navalny is one of 10 to 20 Russian figures which the Western press refers to as "the leaders of the Russian opposition." Navalny's report is actually nothing less than a rehash of a report that Boris Nemtsov, another one of these "opposition leaders", already published half a year ago. Navalny is adept at finding plagiarism in other people's work, so let's see if Nemtsov will accuse Navalny of using his words and ideas without giving credit.
TRICKS WITH FIGURESMyers from the
NYT accepts the Navalny/Nemtsov claim that the cost of organizing the event amounts to 48 billion USD (Nemtsov's figure was 51 billion). However, Myers fails to make a distinction between the costs of organizing the event and the concomitant heavy investment in Sochi's infrastructure. Nevertheless, Myers correctly relates that "President Vladimir V. Putin stoked the debate when
he recently told a group of television anchors that Russia had spent only 214 billion rubles, or roughly $7 billion, to erect the sporting venues for the games . And less than half of that, he maintained, was government spending." Myers was right in quoting Putin that this was the price for 'erecting sporting venues' (add to that also other running costs for hosting the guests etc.), but he then goes on to confuse investments in the urban infrastructure of Sochi with costs for "erecting sporting venues."
The cost of organizing the games indeed equals roughly 7 billion dollars, which is about the same amount that Vancouver spent on the previous winter Olympics. But at the same time, the Russian government, state companies and private investors have made gigantic investments in the permanent infrastructure, adding up to about 40-45 billion dollars to the bill. It is, of course, a deliberate tactic on the part of the "opposition leaders" and an unrestrained press, who disseminate propaganda that misleads the public into thinking these infrastructure investments form part of the "organizing costs". These concoctions create the impression that "Sochi has turned into an unaffordable personal vanity project, intended to cement Mr. Putin's legacy," as Mr. Myers puts it.
The New York Times journalist persists with this lie, although his preceding discussion demonstrates that he has in fact understood the difference.
Comment: Ukraine should be aware that an agreement with the EU will not give them much freedom to choose afterwards. The unelected overlords in Bruxelles like to promote the ideas of democracy so as encourage regime change when it is wished for, but to accept the voice of the people when it is against their dictates is another thing.