Lost in translation

President Trump described his long phone chat with Putin as “very good and productive”. ‘Good’ is a matter of taste, but ‘productive’ means something specific: delivering a tangible result.

True enough, the 2.5 hours the two men spent on the phone did produce a positive outcome. They agreed to hold an ice hockey match involving American and Russian players plying their trade in the NHL and KHL.

Now I’ve heard of jolly hockey sticks, but this is ridiculous. What the puck?

First, even mentioning such trivia is beyond crass when at stake is the future of a nation (the Ukraine) or even a continent (Europe). Second, neither league had been asked if the idea appealed to them.

The KHL is run by Russia, so its agreement can be taken for granted. But the NHL is an independent organisation, not a poodle at Trump’s beck and call. Should its bosses say no, I’d be curious to see how Trump can manage to twist their arm.

Sorry to take up your time with such nonsense. I doubt you have much interest in ice hockey, and I know for certain I don’t. I am, however, keenly interested in translation, especially the kind that involves my two main languages.

The press offices of both presidents have issued statements summing up the exchange. The Russian version is three times as long, and Putin is the subject of almost every sentence, as in “President Putin expressed…”, “President Putin agreed…” or “President Putin declared…”

By contrast, the White House press release prefers going plural: “Both leaders agreed…”, “The leaders spoke…”. “They further discussed…” and so on.

This conveys the impression of two minds in perfect accord, two hearts beating as one. So they must have been, on a subliminal level. Yet such imponderables are beyond me and I’d guess you as well. So let’s concentrate on the substance of what came out, shall we?

The next day The Times ran a headline to the effect that a ceasefire had been agreed. That’s the kind of waste that’s made by haste. Had the editors taken a minute to read the two statements, they would have known that no such agreement had taken place. What did then?

Here I invite you to compare two statements on the only concrete understanding reached. Both refer to exactly the same thing, with the first one coming from the White House and the second from the Kremlin, in my word-for-word translation.

Statement One: “The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire…”

Statement Two: “During the talk Donald Trump put forth a proposal on the mutual agreement between the two sides to cease… strikes on energy infrastructure targets… Vladimir Putin responded to that initiative positively and immediately issued an appropriate order.”

If you compare the two highlighted phrases, they differ in only one tiny word, the conjunction ‘and’. Yet that’s a world of difference.

The American version talks about a ceasefire covering all infrastructure targets, including the energy ones. The Russian version talks about energy targets only.

Granted, this is just useless pedantry because the Russians weren’t going to abide by any such agreement. And, if Putin indeed “issued an appropriate order”, it wasn’t obeyed.

The very next day, Russian missiles hit civilian targets, killing several people and destroying a hospital at Sumy. Come to think of it, they were following the letter of the agreement, as they interpreted it. A hospital may be part of infrastructure, but not of energy infrastructure. For want of a conjunction a hospital was lost.

The Ukrainians’ response showed they knew exactly what that statement was worth, with or without the conjunction. They immediately struck at a Russian oil refinery and set it alight.

The German defence minister Boris Pistorius sarcastically pointed out that attacks had “not eased at all in the first night after this supposedly ground-breaking, great phone call”. After that the Bundestag commendably voted for a massive rearmament programme, something I’ll believe when I see it.

The Kremlin press release also mentioned Putin’s conditions for a full ceasefire, something that the American version tactfully omitted.

First, opting for the passive voice the Russian version said: “Also pointed out [by whom?] were the serious risks springing from the untrustworthiness of the Kiev regime that had sabotaged and broken numerous prior agreements. Attention was also drawn [by whom?] to the barbaric crimes of a terrorist nature committed by Ukrainian militants against the civilian population of the Kursk region.”

It’s beyond my modest talents to comment on the cynicism of this remark, coming as it is from a country that has broken every treaty she has ever signed, and one whose troops have cut a murdering, looting, torturing and raping swath through the Ukraine. And if Ukrainian soldiers are ‘terrorists’ and ‘militants’, what are the Russian troops? Peacemakers?

So let’s just continue to read those passive-voiced remarks: “It has been stressed [by whom?] that the key condition for preventing the escalation of the conflict and working towards its politico-diplomatic resolution must be a total cessation in the flow of foreign military aid and intelligence data to Kiev… [and also of] Ukrainian rearmament and press-ganging…”.

This long sentence can be summed up with a single word: capitulation. That’s exactly what a 30-day ceasefire would amount to if only Russia were allowed to use it for rearming and remobilising, while the Ukraine patiently waited for a new assault on her sovereignty.

In general, the effusive Russian soul was more generous with information than the taciturn Yankee character. Thus, “The President of Russia also reacted positively to Donald Trump’s proposal on implementing the initiative concerning the safety of navigation in the Black Sea.”

That’s big of Putin. You see, his Black Sea Fleet is bottled up in the Novorossiysk harbour. Whenever a ship ventures out, she is immediately sunk by a Ukrainian drone boat. What the Kremlin thus means is that Trump’s “initiative” would provide safety specifically for Russian navigation. That’s another key word omitted, and I hope Putin thanked Trump for that idea.

You’ll notice that I often focus your attention on translation issues. This is valid because the two chaps don’t speak each other’s languages and hence have to rely on interpreters.

As the Russian journalist Babchenko pointed out the other day, Trump’s interpreters often fail to convey certain intonational nuances. Whether they do so deliberately or because their understanding of Russian isn’t good enough is immaterial. The important thing is that Putin’s habitual sarcasm towards Trump doesn’t come across.

For example, at the 2019 G-20 summit at Osaka, Putin bragged about his hypersonic missiles. Trump replied: “Oh I’d love to get those”. Putin commented with a sly smile: “Yes, they’ll be coming your way for sure.” That came across as a promise to share military technology.

Then the conversation veered towards the Middle East. True to character, Trump boasted, “No one has done more for Israel than I,” and then proceeded to list his accomplishments. Putin listened and then remarked with the sarcasm that would have been caught by any native speaker of Russian: “Well done, Donald. Perhaps the Israelis should rename their country after you?”

Yet the interpreter conveyed the text but not the mocking subtext. Hence Trump replied in all seriousness: “No, that would be too much”. One could sense though that the idea appealed to him.

One other thing is worth mentioning. Committing the NHL to hockey diplomacy without prior consultation is tactless but not scandalous. Deciding the fate of the Ukraine in particular and Europe in general without either party participating in the discussions is both – and quite a few other things besides.

I wish the West were represented in such negotiations more comprehensively and by someone with a less rebarbative personality than Trump’s. But my wishes are as likely to be considered as my interpreting services.