I covered this point in a recent post. But here is another small example. It is part of the overall thesis of this website, (which is primarily about the interaction of political narratives and political action), that these small narrative moments are of significant significance! They tell us a lot about underlying attitudes. These attitudes really do dictate policy decisions.
Kremlin says meeting between Putin, Zelenskyy and Trump is ‘unlikely’ to happen anytime soon
Zelenskyy last month challenged Putin to meet him personally in Istanbul after the Russian president rejected a demand from Ukraine and European allies to sign up to a 30-day ceasefire.
Putin didn’t turn up. Russia’s delegation was instead headed by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who led today’s talks for Moscow. [1]
From the Guardian. Notice the “Putin didn’t turn up”. I am a teacher of English as a foreign language. I know what “turn up” means, and how to use it. I would hazard a guess that the journalist credited with these comments also knows, despite the first name suggesting a possible non-English background; Yohannes Lowe. “Not turn up” is used in cases when we have a reasonable expectation that someone, (or something), will arrive. For example; I can say “Dima didn’t turn up for his Spanish lesson yesterday”. It carries a slightly negative connotation. We expected Dima to turn up. He didn’t. If there had been no scheduled lesson or if there had, but Dima had phoned in advance to cancel, we could not say “Dima didn’t turn up”. In such a case we would simply say, “Dima didn’t come”.
In this case, what is happening is that Zelensky, as part of his tactical political theatre, (which, incidentally, he is very good at), has come up with this proposal for a direct meeting Putin. He must know very well that Putin is extremely unlikely to accept that. There are specific problems for Putin, in meeting Zelensky; chiefly that he does not want to appear to be on the same level as Zelensky, but also, it is the case that at this stage there is no possible peace agreement on the table and Putin, like other world leaders, only wants to show up, at the end, when his subordinates have already negotiated 99% of the deal. As we have already noted, in the previous post, the European media-political classes have leapt on this theme of Zelensky’s. They think they can use it to show, (their publics, maybe convince themselves), that “Putin is not serious about peace”, which, in turn, provides them with an excuse to continue the war, while blaming Putin. In reality; the Kremlin has never indicated that “Putin would show up”. Indeed, until recently, their position was that there would be no talks at all, at any level, before Kiev had met certain initial demands, in particular moving their forces out of the 4 provinces which Russia wishes to annex. Even in the last months when their position has shifted slightly, to allow for some preliminary talks, Putin made it very clear that he, personally, would not meet Zelensky, but would delegate that to someone else. In short; there was no reasonable expectation that Putin would come to talks. A demand from one side does not create an objective realistic expectation. Dima was expected to turn up to the class because he, (or his parents), had agreed to the classes. Only thus can we say, “didn’t turn up”.
So; when Yohannes Lowe writes that “Putin didn’t turn up” he is not doing reportage. He is writing political propaganda. He is creating, (all propaganda is creative), the unobjective idea that there was some expectation that Putin would come to the talks, and thus he has shied away from. Lowe is giving wings to the tactical narrative of Zelensky that if Putin does not come to the talks, this is evidence that “Russia does not want peace”, with its immediate corollary,’ that “We need more weapons, and more sanctions should be put on Russia”. In other words; Lowe is producing propagandistic narratives in support of the Kiev regime’s war efforts.
Why is Yohannes Lowe doing this? I would imagine that he has made a personal calculation that his career is more likely to go further, faster, if he produces the kind of on-message propaganda that his editors in London and Manchester, (who have links with the intelligence services), desire.
Readers may think I am making a mountain out of a molehill. But; the devil is in the detail. It is death by a thousand cuts.
The other attitude evident here is the idea that what the West orders should happen. In a very dictatorial and hierarchical environment one could, in fact, use “not turn up”, even when there was no agreement. This is because a reasonable expectation of attendance is created simply by the order being given. An example will illustrate this. When I was at Queen’s College, Oxford University, in the 1980s, there was an incident when I had transgressed the rules. I had been seen having a meal in the college canteen, even though I hadn’t paid the termly bill for the canteen. The Dean of the College, whose name escapes me, had arranged for a note to be put in my pigeon hole (post-box) summoning me to his rooms at a certain specific time; there was no option to suggest a time when I was free, not even a range of options to chose from. Of course, I wasn’t going to go. I was an adult of 21 and fully understood that this was not how adults normally communicate with each other. When I did go to see him, at a time more convenient to me, he was so apoplectic with rage it was quite funny; I genuinely couldn’t quite understand why it enraged him so much that I simply expected to be treated as an equal. I felt quite sorry for him. But – in such a case, he could have said to his colleagues in the staff room; “This young man didn’t turn up”. He could say that because in his totally hierarchical and domineering world the simple fact that he had ordered me to appear at certain time was sufficient to create a reasonable expectation. In this sense, we can say that Putin didn’t “turn up” in Istanbul, if we accept that simply being told to do so by Starmer and Macron is sufficient to create a reasonable expectation. But, like me, Putin insists on being treated like an equal.
This domineering attitude, evident in the idea that simply telling Putin to “turn up” is sufficient to create an objective expectation that he will, is the same one that led to the war. We will put Ukraine into NATO and will do this completely regardless of what Russia thinks about this; they have no say. The same domineering attitudes which led to war are on full display in the way they go about “negotiating for peace”. Which does suggest that those moves are not going to be very successful. (Which may, of course, be want they want).
Notes