Russia Was Finished a Decade and a Half Ago, Why is The Damned Place Still Around?: But maybe I’m being too harsh on the author

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE

http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/22/2116

As a trip down memory lane, I often recommend to people this piece from 2001, still embarrassingly available on the Internet for all to see. An uncompromising title, isn’t it? “Russia is Finished: The unstoppable descent of a once great power into social catastrophe and strategic irrelevance”. By one Jeffrey Taylor.

Who, unabashed, is still at it.

2008.

The lessons that emerge from the Russia-Georgia war are clear: Russia is back, the West fears Russia as much as it needs it, and those who act on other assumptions are in for a rude, perhaps violent, awakening.

2008.

News reports have been circulating recently that Russia, fresh from slapping down Georgia in the Caucasus, is now taking steps toward reclaiming other former territories.

2008.

Why did Russia’s two highest political figures refuse to join the global festivities over Obama’s election win?

2011

Watching protest leaders heighten their rhetoric as the regime digs in, and remembering past episodes of political violence such as the October 1993 crisis in which 187 people were killed, one hopes that the government takes the protesters’ demands seriously and act on them — before it is too late.

2011 (Remember those protests? That was SO long ago.)

But whoever rules Russia will have to take into account the newly incensed political consciousness of its younger, and now most active, generation of citizens and voters.

But, at this point, Dear Readers, I have a confession to make. For years I have delighted in sending his piece on how Russia is finished to people as a classic example of being really, really wrong; an example of the wish being father to the thought, so to speak. And I expected, when I started this little piece, to be able to turn my Sneerometer up to eleven.

But, I must confess, having read more of his stuff, that Taylor’s not that bad. He understands, for example, that Saakashvili was egged on by Washington. He kind, sort of, understands that the protesters aren’t really all that representative of Russians generally. Many of his pieces say that Washington not only doesn’t understand Moscow’s point of view, but isn’t even trying to. So, maybe he’s doing his best under the heavy hand of editorial policy. After all, people with unearned incomes can afford to defy convention but others have to pay the bills.

Anyway, I seem to detect a change this year. Note these below. (I assume the “Russia’s orbit” stuff is editorial. In respect to understanding Moscow, Moscow doesn’t want Ukraine in its “orbit”; what it wants is a Ukraine that pays for what it buys, that isn’t a NATO launch pad and that doesn’t have a political crisis every five years that keeps everybody in Moscow up nights. That’s not exactly rocket science: if Russia really wanted to expand the “empire”, Georgia and eastern Ukraine would already be in the bag. If we must use “orbit”, “Ukraine” and “Moscow” in a sentence it would be “Moscow does not want Ukraine to be in NATO’s orbit.”)

2014.

Before traveling further down the road of confrontation with the Kremlin, the Obama administration needs to answer these questions—or face the prospect of a humiliating climbdown when it becomes clear, as it will, that the United States and the European Union cannot save Ukraine from becoming part of Russia’s orbit.

2014.

But will it [the West] change course? The NATO summit in Wales has set in motion moves to create a rapid-reaction ‘spearhead’ force that, though of little real import, will further convince Russia of the threat posed by the bloc. The logic of escalation moves in only one direction: up.

Will the West change course indeed? Jeffrey Taylor seems to have.

Ignoring the Beam in Its Eye, the NYT Obsesses Over Putin’s Mote (And does a careless job of research)

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn ACCUSATIONS

http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/21/2099

The New York Times amuses itself by going after something Putin said in his big press conference. He said “We have heard it even from high-level officials that it is unfair that the whole of Siberia with its immense resources belongs to Russia in its entirety.” Suggesting that the source was Madeleine Albright, the intrepid researchers at the NYT say there is no evidence that she ever said any such thing. (There is, however, a better candidate that the NYT never bothered to consider; see below).

Well, perhaps they’re right – although personally I long ago assumed that the NYT was only reliable when you assumed the opposite of what it was saying (bearded Spetsnaz in Crimea, “brutal interrogation”, no starvation in the USSR, toilets in Sochi, ). But maybe I’m wrong and the NYT has got it right this time. At any event, its take has become widely quoted.

Let us consider another Putin quotation: the breakup of the USSR was the “greatest geopolitical disaster of the Twentieth Century”. This one is all over the place and seems to be a driver of US policy:

The reality, however, is that Putin is not concerned with international law or historical justice. His sole focus is on correcting what he considers to be the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century’ by reassembling the Soviet Union. (Sen Ted Cruz)

He sees the fall of the Soviet Union as the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.’ He does not accept that Russia’s neighbors, least of all Ukraine, are independent countries. (Sen John McCain)

His grip on the Russian presidency is central to his designs to restore Russian dominance. After all, Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe’ of the last century’. (Sen Roger Wicker)

And it’s in the White House too:

‘He’s been willing to show a deeply held grievance about what he considers to be the loss of the Soviet Union,’ Obama said of Putin in that interview.

And, the NYT likes it too. One, two, three, four. It’s a pillar of the anti-Putin point of view.

He didn’t say it, it’s a misquotation of what he said, I’m not going to argue the point again: I did here and part two here and won a very public argument on JRL in the summer.

Isn’t there something about motes and beams in the Bible? The NYT would perform a greater service (but would it be news that fitted?) if it devoted the same research to the much more influential misquotation than a throw-away line that didn’t much affect the meaning of what he said.

Oh, by the way, intrepid researchers of the NYT, maybe Putin was thinking of Zbigniew Brzezinski and not Albright. You might want to check that possibility out before you decide Putin is hallucinating. But, again, probably news that wouldn’t fit.

In these circumstances, Russia’s first priority should be to modernize itself rather than to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power. Given the country’s size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.

Putin Crushes BBC Smartass

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn ACCUSATIONS, QUOTATIONS

http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/19/2048

From Putin’s marathon press conference yesterday. Reference here at Presidential Site.

Two questions, Dear Readers:

Is there any Western leader capable of standing up, without Teleprompter, and answering a mass of questions, some softball, some hostile, for several hours?

Given the recent expulsion of Giulietto Chiesa from Estonia for daring to question the Party Line, do “Western values”© even permit Western leaders to be asked question like Simpson’s?

JOHN SIMPSON, BBC: Western countries almost universally now believe that there’s a new Cold War and that you, frankly, have decided to create that. We see, almost daily, Russian aircraft taking sometimes quite dangerous manoeuvres towards western airspace. That must be done on your orders; you’re the Commander-in-Chief. It must have been your orders that sent Russian troops into the territory of a sovereign country – Crimea first, and then whatever it is that’s going on in Eastern Ukraine. Now you’ve got a big problem with the currency of Russia, and you’re going to need help and support and understanding from outside countries, particularly from the West. So can I say to you, can I ask you now, would you care to take this opportunity to say to people from the West that you have no desire to carry on with the new Cold War, and that you will do whatever you can to sort out the problems in Ukraine? Thank you!

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much for your question. About our exercises, manoeuvres and the development of our armed forces. You said that Russia, to a certain extent, contributed to the tension that we are now seeing in the world. Russia did contribute but only insofar as it is more and more firmly protecting its national interests. We are not attacking in the political sense of the word. We are not attacking anyone. We are only protecting our interests. Our Western partners – and especially our US partners – are displeased with us for doing exactly that, not because we are allowing security-related activity that provokes tension.

Let me explain. You are talking about our aircraft, including strategic aviation operations. Do you know that in the early 1990s, Russia completely stopped strategic aviation flights in remote surveillance areas as the Soviet Union previously did? We completely stopped, while flights of US strategic aircraft carrying nuclear weapons continued. Why? Against whom? Who was threatened?

So we didn’t make flights for many years and only a couple of years ago we resumed them. So are we really the ones doing the provoking?

So, in fact, we only have two bases outside Russia, and both are in areas where terrorist activity is high. One is in Kyrgyzstan, and was deployed there upon request of the Kyrgyz authorities, President Akayev, after it was raided by Afghan militants. The other is in Tajikistan, which also borders on Afghanistan. I would guess you are interested in peace and stability there too. Our presence is justified and clearly understandable.

Now, US bases are scattered around the globe – and you’re telling me Russia is behaving aggressively? Do you have any common sense at all? What are US armed forces doing in Europe, also with tactical nuclear weapons? What are they doing there?

Listen, Russia has increased its military spending for 2015, if I am not mistaken, it is around 50 billion in dollar equivalent. The Pentagon’s budget is ten times that amount, $575 billion, I think, recently approved by the Congress. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy? Is there any common sense in this?

Are we moving our forces to the borders of the United States or other countries? Who is moving NATO bases and other military infrastructure towards us? We aren’t. Is anyone listening to us? Is anyone engaging in some dialogue with us about it? No. No dialogue at all. All we hear is “that’s none of your business. Every country has the right to choose its way to ensure its own security.” All right, but we have the right to do so too. Why can’t we?

Finally, the ABM system – something I mentioned in my Address to the Federal Assembly. Who was it that withdrew unilaterally from the ABM Treaty, one of the cornerstones of the global security system? Was it Russia? No, it wasn’t. The United States did this, unilaterally. They are creating threats for us, they are deploying their strategic missile defence components not just in Alaska, but in Europe as well – in Romania and Poland, very close to us. And you’re telling me we are pursuing an aggressive policy?

If the question is whether we want law-based relations, the answer is yes, but only if our national economic and security interests are absolutely respected.

We negotiated WTO accession for 19 years or so, and consented to compromise on many issues, assuming that we are concluding cast-iron agreements. And then… I will not discuss who’s right and who’s wrong (I already said on many occasions that I believe Russia behaved the right way in the Ukrainian crisis, and the West was wrong, but let us put this aside for now). Still, we joined the WTO. That organisation has rules. And yet, sanctions were imposed on Russia in violation of the WTO rules, the international law and the UN Charter – again unilaterally and illegitimately. Are we in the wrong again?

We want to develop normal relations in the security sphere, in fighting terrorism. We will work together on nuclear non-proliferation. We will work together on other threats, including drugs, organised crime and grave infections, such as Ebola. We will do all this jointly, and we will cooperate in the economic sphere, if our partners want this.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 18 December 2014

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

RUBLE. After the excitements of the past few days, it seems to have settled down at about 60 to the USD: in short, half the value it was at the beginning of the year. I have seen a number of reasons put forth for its decline; mix and match to your taste. Certainly, the principal cause is the decline in oil prices: compare for example, the Canadian dollar which is now at a a 5-year low. (By the way, contrary to popular opinion, energy is only about 20% of Russia’s GDP). Other explanations. Russian companies, affected by sanctions on their ability to raise loans, are buying foreign currency to pay off their loans. The Central Bank fumbled it. Speculators and hostile action from the USA are other candidates. Take your choice on the implication: Russia has lost the economic war; on the contrary, it is following the strategy that defeated Napoleon and Hitler. And more “out there” theories – my favourite being the “Samson defence”, an attack to weaken Russia before the Eurasian Union kicks into gear next month and the ever-popular Putin soon to be brought down by coup. (But wasn’t Russia Finished years ago?) At any event, it is very dangerous to fool around with a top-ten economy – plenty of downstream effects. It’s not over by a long shot and Beijing has yet to weigh in. By the way, the ruble cost of a barrel of oil is pretty much unchanged and it should be remembered that Russian oil companies spend rubles and earn dollars.

PUTIN SPEECH. As usual, most of the content (68.9% by word count) was domestic: for my money the two most important were a “holiday from inspections” for ordinary companies (Russian officials and legalisms can be pretty predatory) and an amnesty for returning capital (Putin pointed out that the “Cyprus haircut” showed their money isn’t safe outside). He complained about corruption in the military procurement system (not that the former Defence Minister is in jail. On the contrary). Externally, long-stated themes: for Russia, “either we remain a sovereign nation, or we dissolve without a trace and lose our identity”; for the world: “It is imperative to respect the legitimate interests of all the participants in international dialogue.” He’s had enough: “the more ground we give and the more excuses we make, the more our opponents become brazen and the more cynical and aggressive their demeanour becomes” but never closes the door, “Our goal is to have as many equal partners as possible, both in the West and in the East.” English, Russian.

PUTIN BIG ANNUAL PRESS CONFERENCE. Today – here’s Sputnik News’ summary. “Our partners never stopped. They decided they were the winners, they were an empire, while all the others were their vassals, and they needed to put the squeeze on them.” No “equal partners” there.

PLEASE HELP US PUTIN! Port-au-Prince a few weeks ago. Interesting, eh? “Putinism” is growing. A lot of people are sick of “the greatest threat to peace” and Putin is becoming a symbol of resistance.

RUSSIA-INDIA. Successful visit and intensification of a close relationship: oil delivery agreement; nuclear construction plan; investments. some weapons cooperation. And trade with Crimea.

FRACKING. The drop in oil prices is not going to help the fracking business. One Australian company has gone down already and Chevron has pulled out of Ukraine. More to come, no doubt. And not just fracking – North Sea “close to collapse” shrieks the BBC. How much of Washington’s policy is based on the assumption of energy independence? But the price may go up again.

WAR. US House and Senate. Not my interpretation, Ron Paul’s, Dana Rohrbacher’s and Pat Buchanan’s. And, says another former ally, the USA is a “dangerous ally”. (Note that we never see this criticism from serving politicians, only from formers. Why would that be, Dear Readers?)

MH17. Trucks carrying wreckage enter the Netherlands. But quite a bit left behind. The relatives who wanted the UN to take charge of the investigation were turned down.

REGIME CHANGE. Are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia next in line? Note the references to Viktor Orban – “Putin Mini-Me”, “neo-fascist dictator”, second-last para; he’s on the hit list for sure.

UKRAINE. Time to pay the bills. Or not. And guess who’s first in line?

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Ottawa, Canada (http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/ http://us-russia.org/)

Report Claims Rebels Get Few Weapons from Russia

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn UKRAINE

http://russia-insider.com/en/military_ukraine/2014/12/08/03-14-39pm/report_claims_rebels_get_few_weapons_russia

A colleague sent me the following report from Armament Research Services; Research Report #3: Raising Red Flags. It examines, in exhaustive detail, with many photographs, and much specialised information, the weaponry used by both sides in the Ukraine civil war. (It is even-handed and informed but, personally, I could do with less of the “pro-Russian separatist fighter” stuff. You don’t have to be “pro-Russian” to decide you don’t support people who are shelling you, call you “Moskal” and worship Bandera).

As we know, for months NATO, Washington and Western media outlets have been telling us that Russia is providing significant quantities of weapons the the rebels in East Ukraine. This report does not support that assertion. Neither, by the way, does it have evidence of significant outside supplies to the Kiev side.

The principal conclusion of the researchers is that while some weaponry from Russia probably has got to the rebels, most of their weaponry comes from captures or from existing bases and weapons caches (see “Where the Rebels Find their Weapons”).

This is their conclusion

ARES has assessed that it is very likely that pro-Russian separatist forces have received some level of support from one or more external parties, however the level of state complicity in such activity remains unclear. Despite the presence of arms, munitions, and armoured vehicles designed, produced, and allegedly even sourced from Russia, there remains no direct evidence of Russian government complicity in the trafficking of arms into the area (Reuters, 2014c). The majority of arms and munitions documented in service with separatist forces have evidently been appropriated from the Ukrainian security forces and their installations within Ukraine. The 1970s and 1980s vintage ex-Ukrainian military inventory is likely to continue to predominate. The various older and expedient types of arms and munitions outlined in this report should not be taken to mean that separatist forces are ill-equipped. Some of the more capable arms and munitions available to them have been outlined. However, ageing light weapons systems and larger ordnance, along with MANPADS and other SAM systems, will all retain a niche amongst pro-Russian forces in Ukraine for as long as government forces maintain their overwhelming advantage in air power and armour. The Ukrainian regime has access to more powerful weapon systems, in greater numbers, and with a more robust logistical chain than separatist forces could hope to muster without overt support from a foreign power. As it stands, the limited but noteworthy external support pro-Russian separatist forces have received has not proven significant enough to turn the tide in their favour.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 4 December 2014

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

SPEECH. Putin is making his annual speech to parliament today. Again I encourage you all to read what he actually says rather than selections twisted to fit propaganda requirements in the MSM. English. “The agreement between Ukraine and the European Union has been signed and ratified, but the implementation of the provisions regarding trade and economy has been postponed until the end of next year. Doesn’t this mean that we were the ones who were actually right?” Well, doesn’t it?

SOUTH STREAM. South Stream was a proposed gas line from Russia, under the Black Sea, to come ashore in Bulgaria and serve southern Europe. The southern equivalent of Nord Stream, it would avoid the uncertainty of Ukrainian transit routes. The EU took against it and Bulgaria was pressured to delay or cancel. Brussels thought that Moscow could be bullied. It was wrong: Putin announced the cancellation in Ankara. “If Europe does not want to implement it, then it will not be implemented. We will focus our energy resource flows on other regions of the world”. Western governments and media are trying to spin this as a defeat for Russia. “These reports are evidence of pressure mounting on Russia… and reduce Russia’s ability to use gas as a tool of coercion”. This is nonsense of course. Southern Europe will remain dependent on uncertain shipments of Russian gas passing through Ukraine or on as-yet-unbuilt tankers and port facilities bringing in more expensive and possibly non-existent LNG from the USA. It won’t see employment in building the line or transit fees. Some reactions from Bulgarians. The Eurocrats and NATOcrats in Brussels get their Russian gas via Nord Stream. So they will be warm this winter.

ECONOMY. Some numbers. From RosStat year-on-year: industrial growth up 2.9%, average monthly salaries up 8.6%, unemployment down 6.6%, economic growth in Q3 slowed to 0.7%, retail trade turnover up 2.2%; new housing construction up 18.3%. Economic Development Ministry forecasts: GDP growth in 2014 increased from 0.5% to 0.6%, recession expected first half of 2015, inflation in 2014 9%, up from 7.5%; Ruble/USD average in 2014 37.4 (weakened 6.8%), in 2015 will average 49. So, yes sanctions and oil prices are having an effect but a good deal of substitution is going on.

MH17. The report that The Netherlands, Ukraine, Australia and Belgium signed a non-disclosure agreement on the results of the investigation appears to be true. There are only two logical possibilities: either the rebels shot it down or Kiev-associated forces did; should Kiev have a veto on the investigation? A basic questions has been given new life by the mother of a victim who is suing Kiev because the airspace wasn’t closed. Others may join the suit. Indeed, why wasn’t it closed? Finally it is reported that Malaysia has been invited to join the investigation: why wasn’t it in the first place? All of this is highly suspicious.

CHINA-RUSSIA. On the very day Putin announced the cancellation of South Stream, Xi declared that China must establish “big country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics”. Deng’s mantra had been “hide your brightness, bide your time”. I guess the time has come to show the brightness. Meanwhile Russia-China trade has increased 7-10% this year already. And, in an enigmatic but nevertheless clear way Beijing recognises Crimea’s secession (a more accurate choice of word than “annexation”, by the way) and supports Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

UKRAINE-EU. A piece from Der Spiegel on the EU-Ukraine negotiations giving a lot of blame to Merkel for the disaster. And the agreement was postponed after all. Nothing is said about Nuland’s meddling or the EU’s curious indifference to the collapse of the February agreement it negotiated.

BRILLIANT DIPLOMACY. Beijing and Moscow ever closer. Southern Europe will now be nervous every winter and resentful of Brussels’ diktat. Moscow and Ankara are closer. And now the Japanese PM says he is determined to settle the territorial dispute with Russia. Russia finds a new friend in Nigeria. And Hungary is run by a “neo-fascist dictator”. If there were anything amusing about this, it would be funny.

NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Nuclear accident at the Zaporozhskaya reactor, but nothing to worry about says Yatsenyuk. This story from May of a Right Sector attack is, of course, just Russian propaganda.

OOPS. Biden visited Kiev, taking the head of the table(!) Cyberberkut says it hacked his staff’s files. The alleged files, showing the deep extent to which Washington backs Kiev’s military, are on its website.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Ottawa, Canada (http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/ http://us-russia.org/)

The Porcelain Cup Award for the Worst Piece on Russia

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PORCELAIN CUP AWARD FOR REPORTING ABOUT RUSSIA, PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, WAR ON RUSSIA

http://russia-insider.com/en/media_watch/2014/11/22/09-29-42am/porcelain_cup_award_worst_piece_russia

Toilet

I have long thought there should be an award that recognises the hard work and achievement of the people who write – that is to say, emit – outstanding pieces – that is to say, unusually idiotic propaganda – about Russia in Western media outlets. An unusually rich crop of nonsense in the last week has inspired me to put this idea forward.

May I have the envelope, please:

Ladies and Gentlemen, our first nominee is Amanda Foreman of the Sunday Times for “A view from afar: Chest-beating Putin aims his vilest weapon at the West — misogyny” containing this opener: “Putin’s Russia is one of the most loathsomely misogynistic countries in the world”. Fact: Russia has more women in senior management than any one else.

Our second nominee is Liisa Tuhkanen of Reuters for “Putin’s high approval ratings not real: protest group”. Ignoring repeated data from actual polling organisations like Levada or Gallup that find his popularity sky-high, she prefers to quote the only two members of Pussy Riot/Voyna we ever hear about (what happened to the others?). Apparently the opinions of these two professional stokers of the anti-Putin fires are worth the death of a few trees.

Our third nominee, and a personal favourite, is this cartoon by Tom Toles in the International New York Times. So stunningly upside down, that I don’t think any comment would be possible. Thanks to Eric Kraus who found it: I hope he gets the paper free.

Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon - tt_c_c141116.tif
Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon

So, over to you out there in Internet land: announce your nominees (just from the last month or two – no one has enough time to look at all the potential winners from the last twenty years) and vote for your favourites.

Let’s make the The Porcelain Cup Award a coveted honour among the anti-Russia cohort and a byword and a hissing among the rational cohort.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 20 November 2014

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

RUSSIA ISOLATED? Not at APEC – here’s the thousand word photo. And not at G20 either – BRICS had a happy meeting. The West and its tame media is seriously deluding itself with this Russia is isolated stuff.

NEW NWO. Russia bought 55 tonnes of gold in the last quarter. What’s that mean? here’s a theory. (Ukraine’s gold, on the other hand, is almost all gone.) Meanwhile, an arms sale to China. Sberbank offers Yuans. Another huge gas deal. Increasing military cooperation. India-China. New financial instruments. Petrodollar. Russia-Pakistan. It marches. Who thought Ukraine would be so important?

NUKES. Russia has them; they work: Bulava, Topol and Sineva. Meanwhile, in the USA not so much.

NONSENSE. It’s never easy to pick the most idiotic anti-Russian rant but here’s the latest: “Putin’s Russia is one of the most loathsomely misogynistic countries in the world”. Fact: Russia has more women in senior management than any one else. But, it’s Russia, what do facts have to do with it?

RUBLE. Has fallen quite a lot against the USD (but so have most other currencies). Here’s an analysis of the pros and cons. But the ruble price of oil is about the same.

SANCTIONS. They’re hurting Russia, but Europe more. Industrial production continues to rise in Russia but inflation is too. In Europe industrial production is down. Remember, it’s not that Russia was such a big market for the EU but that it was about the only one that was growing: Russia can substitute; the EU cannot. So why is Europe ruining itself in such a questionable cause?

RUSSIA A GOOD INVESTMENT? The famous Jim Rogers thinks so. Give it a read, he’s made a lot of money going against the common view.

POROSHENKO GIVES THE GAME AWAY. Watch this short video: “Their children will hole up in basements”. Why would they be in basements? Because his government is shelling them, that’s why. Even Human Rights Watch has stopped pretending they don’t know who’s firing the artillery into civilian areas in east Ukraine. That’s what the West is supporting. But Putin has drawn the line. “Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don’t. And we won’t let it happen.”

GORBACHEV. The West is not pleased: in Berlin for the celebrations, he bluntly said the world was on the edge of a new Cold War, and they should listen to what Putin said at Valdai. And he supports Putin and the annexation of Crimea.

MH17. A Russian TV channel published, with great excitement, a photo showing a fighter plane firing. One Russian says the photo is fake; another says it isn’t. (In Russian, but you’ll get the idea). For what it’s worth, the US State Department’s files were just hacked. I don’t know; you decide. Unfortunately (and maybe not by accident) this has obscured more radar evidence of military aircraft near it. (For those who think it’s open and shut, go to 6:11 on this CBC interview with one of the first OSCE people on the scene: you may be surprised at what you hear). But the fix may already be in with a secrecy agreement.

RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE! Someone added them up: 26 breathless headlines since February. And not a smidgeon of evidence. “If Russia had invaded, you wouldn’t have to ask; if you have to ask, it hasn’t.” Help, supplies, advice, very possible; formed combat units, no. If, however, the US arms Kiev as McCain wants, then weapons will flow from Russia. But no “invasion” because the Donbass militias don’t need them: where they get weapons, their best weapons, how they win. The result (VERY gruesome).

RUSSIAN INCURSIONS. Much about Russian ship and aircraft activity. This is never mentioned: “In recent months, the number of NATO jets in the skies over our Eastern Allies has increased five times. We have deployed more ships in the Baltic and the Black Sea. And this year, we are conducting over 200 NATO and national exercises in Europe.” What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And then, some “Russian” aircraft in Sweden turn out to be French or American. War propaganda.

© Patrick Armstrong Analysis, Ottawa, Canada (http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/ http://us-russia.org/)

“Real Journalism” Explained at Last

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, UKRAINE, WAR ON RUSSIA

http://russia-insider.com/en/media_watch/2014/11/15/05-45-57pm/real_journalism_explained_last

I have often heard the phrase “Real Journalism” (generally used in the sentence “RT, RIA/Novosti/Sputnik/insert-any-other-Russian-source, does not practise ‘Real Journalism’”. Always wondered what it meant. Now, thanks to an exchange between Mark Adomanis and a “Real Journalist” I do.

Adomanis wrote a piece for Forbes in which he pointed out that, according to the not especially Putin-friendly Levada polling centre, Putin’s popularity ratings were at an all time high. He concluded:

The point isn’t to defend Putin’s policies in Ukraine or the general trajectory of the Russian government. I’ve been extremely critical of both because both deserve to be criticized. The point is simply to note that the West’s policy so far has had precisely the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than weakening Putin and exposing him to expanded criticism, Western sanctions seem to have encouraged Russians to “rally ’round the flag.

One Oliver Bullough tweeted him, saying “My advice? Stop reporting Russia using numbers. More than anywhere Russia is about people.” The discussion continued and may be read here. Another revelation from Bullough: “So Mark, take your thinking a bit further…does Putin’s increasing poll rating justify his actions since Feb?”

Now Bullough writes for a number of Main Stream Media outlets, New Statesman, Guardian, Wall Street Journal, New Republic and so forth and may therefore be considered to practise “Real Journalism”.

I, in my naiveté, had always wondered what this “Real Journalism” actually was as applied to Russia. So now, thanks to Mr Bullough, we know:

Stay away from data and condemn Putin’s actions.

Advocacy is what that sounds like to me but because Bullough is a “Real Journalist” I must be mistaken.

“Propaganda is the deliberate dissemination of information that you know to be false or misleading in order to influence an audience” as someone put it. Condemning RT as it happened, not “Real Journalism”.

The Western Spinners are Losing and They Know It

On By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, UKRAINE

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/western-spinners-are-losing-and-they-know-it/ri901

When I wrote “Those Horrible Russians are Winning the Information War” I was just amusing myself and having a laugh at the expense of Anne Applebaum. But I hadn’t realised that a whole campaign was beginning!

She was at a forum organised by Legatum; she being the Director of its Transitions Forum which deals with “countries that are striving to make the transition from authoritarianism to democracy”. Said forum, “organised by the Legatum Institute, in cooperation with the Atlantic Council and the US Department of State” worried that “Through the manipulation of facts and the integration of outright lies into mainstream narratives, the Russian government seeks to influence public opinion and shape Western politics.” One of the attendees was the US Ambassador to Ukraine (and participant in the infamous phone call setting up the coup d’état, or, as the conference participants would put it, the transition from authoritarianism to democracy in Ukraine.) Anyway, here he is is saying that, although he is fully confident he knows what’s going on in Ukraine, he hasn’t actually been to the east and that “The biggest lie Russia tells is that Ukraine is a society somehow divided”. And that he has no idea who’s paying for the conference.

So it wasn’t just Applebaum, it was a group and one of their purposes was to figure out “what can be done about it”. (Can we take a guess at their answer? Shut them down. Free speech requires that JRL, RT and other deviants be silenced. Truth has only room for One Truth). A campaign will coming to your Local News Outlet soon; watch for it. Here are the first appearances: Legatum again and something longer on “Russian Hybrid Warfare” quoting Applebaum approvingly.

The whole idea is preposterous. Has your Local News Outlet mentioned the evidence that the Malaysian airliner was shot down by a Ukrainian aircraft? How about evidence that the “Heavenly Hundred” were actually killed by “elements of the Maidan opposition, including its extremist far right wing”? Any questioning of NATO’s commercially-obtained satellite photos? Mention of atrocities by “volunteer battalions” in the east? No, of course it hasn’t. You can only read about MH17 on sites like globalresearch.ca, the Maidan killers in academic journals, NATO’s evidence is only criticised on websites, only Russian news sites report atrocities. These are easily dismissed as, in order: crazy conspiracy sites, probably not peer-reviewed, pro-Russian websites and Kremlin funded so-called news organisations. None of it is “real journalism” and therefore none of it is worthy of inclusion in your LNO.

Instead, your LNO has covered Russian submarines in Sweden, Russian air force aggressive flights (but not told you that NATO has quintupled its flights), and the monthly Russian invasion scare. And lots of Hitler-Putin comparisons. This is “real journalism”.

So what’s really going on here? Certainly not that your LMO is passively re-printing Kremlin news releases or that the Kremlin’s tactics are working and could undermine European democracy. Quite the reverse. So what are these people worried about?

The answer is pretty obvious when you think about it: they realise their story is failing.

And it may well be that the impetus for this preposterous plaint are the problems the Party Line (and why not use that word redolent of Communist mind-control?) is having in Germany; in that Germany which is certainly the most important part of the European anti-Russia front. First we have satirical pieces like this one in which it’s evident that the audience knows they’re being manipulated. That’s bad enough. But the real bombshell was the revelation by Udo Ulfkotte, a veteran German reporter and editor, that “I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the Bundesnachrichtendienst.” The effect has been dramatic; his book Gekaufte Journalisten (Purchased Journalists) is high on the German best seller lists and the falloff in site visits to German media outlets is immediate and spectacular.

Comments by readers on stories also reveal the failure of the Party Line. I’ll take the first five surviving comments on a Telegraph piece from September “Its time to back away from the Russian wolf” to illustrate my point. 1. Russia is entering economic collapse 2. The author is paid by the Kremlin 3. if Russia had wanted to topple Kiev, it would already have done so 4. Ukraine is unstable and only NATO can stabilise it and “it is not only Putin who is empire building” 5. thanks for countering the standard line. The first two fit the Party Line; the third notices one of its fundamental contradictions; the fourth, while somewhat confusing, starts out well enough but is too even-handed and the fifth is outright scornful. Two out of five; that’s worrisome.

In short, the Party Line is not selling very well. But it’s not because yappy little dogs in the Blogosphere are bringing it down; it’s not because RT is creating millions of Putinbots. These are insignificant against the Western MSM chanting in unison.

Which brings me neatly to the real reason why the Line isn’t selling very well: from FAIR’s dissection of the Washington Post’s coverage of Putin’s Sochi speech. “The thing is, if you’re going to say someone is a poisonous liar who traffics in conspiracy theories, then you should show that. That the Post doesn’t seem to feel the need to do so either means the evidence isn’t there, or that the burden of proof is very low when it comes to official enemies.”

The evidence either isn’t there, or the burden of proof is low. Indeed.

What’s killing the Washington-Brussels-NATO Party Line on Ukraine is not Sinister Putin mind-control but its inherent falsity. Consider some of the things they expect their audience to believe, at one and the same time.

  • That the best way to prevent oligarchs from looting your country is to make one of them president and appoint others as provincial governors.
  • That the only way to transcend Ukraine’s political failures is to appoint a bunch of people who have been in and out of governments for years.
  • That an election that excludes the parties that got 40%+ the last time around is perfectly democratic.
  • That the shoot-down of MH17 is an enormously important story until it suddenly isn’t.
  • That the rebels would shoot down an aircraft flying at 10000 metres heading towards Russia in a straight line.
  • That the Putin who is so determined to re-establish the Empire forgot to grab Georgia in 2008.
  • That people haven’t noticed that it’s NATO that’s getting closer to Russia and not the other way around.
  • That NATO gets its intelligence from tweets, twitters and blurry commercial satellite images.
  • That postponing implementation of the Ukraine-EU agreement is unacceptable right up to the moment that it is postponed.
  • That the fact that Ukraine owes Russia billions for gas it has consumed is evidence of Russian pressure on Ukraine.
  • That Russia is always invading but never actually invades.
  • That all those swastikas and neo-nazi references are just a figment of Putin’s imagination.
  • That artillery shells keep falling on civilians in eastern Ukraine but nobody knows where they come from.
  • That self-determination is perfectly acceptable in Kosovo but absolutely unacceptable in Ukraine.
  • That Nuland and Pyatt didn’t actually plan out the new government.
  • That conferences like the Legatum one are ever going to tell you anything that you can’t already guess.

The Party Line involves just too much doublethink and memory suppression to keep going without turning the volume up ever louder and silencing dissenters. And it’s not just that they have a bad hand of cards, but they’re playing them badly: surely they can do better than blurry photographs of combine harvesters.

That’s all. At some level the Legatum people know it and they are getting desperate.

And, by the way, in these days of the Internet it’s much harder to get away with it. Since I began writing this piece, I have learned that Anne Applebaum’s income has greatly increased and something about who is behind Legatum (just the people you’d guess, too).