The end of macho man Putin?

The Washington Post brings a distressing story for those of us in the business of generating blog posts/clickbaiting slideshows about Russia's photogenic autocrat:

What's a 60-year-old president to do? The answer comes in a purportedly secret Kremlin policy paper: Forget the jet-piloting, bare-chested hunter look. Cue the wise elder statesman.

Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, dismisses such talk as utterly ridiculous. But it surfaced earlier this week in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper, which reported that it had obtained a Kremlin document arguing for the Putin rebranding, while embracing the milder liberals around him instead of the hard-talking tough guys. Political analysts took the story as a trial balloon and offered their own ideas of a touch-up.

"No wrinkles, absolutely not," Alexei Makarkin said. "No gray hair."

Yes, said Makarkin, deputy director of the Center for Political Technologies, Putin should stop diving into the sea and returning with ancient Greek amphoras, one photo op that was later acknowledged as staged. He should stop dressing as a crane and flying a glider to guide birds into the wild. But in ancient Russia, he should not look old.

We'll always have Sochi. If an image makeover is actually coming, it also seems possible it may be related to the mysterious injury Putin appears to have suffered in recent months. 

Today on FP, Simon Shuster writes about how Putin's seemingly cosmetic "corruption crackdown" may be spiraling out of control. 

Antoine Antoniol/Getty Images


'The Global Farms Race' and the quest for food security

As climate talks continue to grind along in Doha, food security would seem to be a major concern (especially as the U.N. issues warnings about the increasingly desperate food situation in Syria).  However, the question of how farmers will feed the world's booming population while adjusting to changing weather patterns appears to have been sidelined even as this year's crippling drought in the U.S. sent grain prices to record highs.

That doesn't mean, however, that the race for food security hasn't already begun. As the authors of the recently released book The Global Farms Race argue, cash-rich but resource-poor governments have been quietly making controversial bids for the arable fields of foreign lands to shore up their own food security. Since the 2008 global food crisis, these "land grabs" -- considered an economic lifeline by supporters and neocolonialism by critics -- have been booming. The editors of the book note a 2011 Oxfam study that claimed nearly 230 million hectares of land have been sold or leased since 2001, mostly after 2008 (that's about the size of Western Europe). In one of the most publicized deals, the South Korean company Daewoo Logistics leased 3.2 million acres in Madagascar in 2008 to grow corn and palm oil so that the company could "ensure our food security." The deal, which was eventually canceled, was so unpopular domestically that it contributed to an uprising that helped to oust Madagascar's President Marc Ravalomanana.

While that deal fell apart, countless others have gone through, sparking debates over the economic, environmental, and political implications of exporting crops from food-insecure countries. As Michael Kugelman, co-editor of the book with Susan L. Levenstein, said at a book launch event at the Wilson Center on Tuesday, this development marks "a new phase of the global food crisis" -- one that may help countries importing food, but has grave implications for the countries hosting the crops. One of the disaster scenarios of these large-scale investments is that they will recreate scenes straight out of the Irish Potato Famine, during which crops were shipped out of the starving nation to feed wealthy foreigners. But equally urgent are the day-to-day economic, environmental, and political ramifications of the deals, from the effects of clearing forest to make way for new farmland to the implications of replacing food crops with biofuels. 

Defenders of this type of direct foreign investment often tout the willingness of investors to share technology -- such as seeds for drought-resistant plants and satellite monitoring for crops -- with the host nation. However, corrupt governments willing to offer deals that don't benefit their own populations compromise these promises of development. (Unlike the land-grabs of yore, host governments solicit many of these deals. According to Kugelman, Pakistan offered a 100,000-strong security detail to protect the property of foreign investors and other countries have offered "fire sales" on land in the form of tax write-offs).

As the book acknowledges, these deals are most likely here to stay, so the focus is on minimizing the potential conflict over the contentious real estate. Many of the policy recommendations provided by the book lean toward community supported agriculture programs: Wealthy nations contracting directly with small-scale farmers to meet food needs while also providing them with the technology and capital to improve their yields. While that's all well and good, the willingness and ability of foreign investors to abide by these recommendations seems doubtful, especially given the difficulty of enforcing even well-established international economic rules.

The inability of the current multilateral climate talks to make meaningful headway on even a single key issue highlights the inherent problem with these arrangements. "You can have all the rules and regulations for land rights," contributor Derek Byerlee, the World Bank's former Rural Strategy advisor, said on Tuesday, "But you have to be able to implement them."