One of the reasons for the success Vladimir Putin has had in his propaganda efforts is that he has exploited a dangerous trend in Western media – the proclivity of many journalists and their audiences to equate “balance” with “objectivity” – by putting out as an “alternative” viewpoint something that is nothing more than a lie.
In a comment for the EU Observer yesterday, Linas Linkevicius, Lithuania’s foreign minister, has sharply criticized this unfortunate pattern and its consequences and has pointed out that “a lie isn’t an alternative point of view;” it is simply a lie and needs to be identified as such.“Kremlin mouthpieces know how to register in our cities,” he continues. “They put on a "made in the EU" label, then they begin to quietly incite hatred, hoping no one will question what they're doing because of the holy cow of free speech.”
Some in Europe are waking up to this danger and beginning to speak out. British officials have declared that “’freedom of speech is not absolute.’” The European Commission has declared that “limiting freedom of expression can be a proportionate course of action...to protect the integrity of public information.” And the European Court of Human Rights has found that “freedom of speech is not a defense for defamation.”
Thus, Linkevicius says, “we should ensure there is a level playing field, and the same set of rules, for all of Europe’s media outlets. No one should be allowed to play rugby on a soccer pitch.”
Earlier this year, he writes, he and his counterparts from Denmark, Estonia and the United Kingdom called on the EU to “respond to Kremlin propaganda with a ‘4 As’ approach: ensure information alternatives, raise public awareness, be assertive on proactive communication of facts, and request accountability from media outlets.
That has “nothing to do with censorship or with producing our own propaganda/lies,” he argues. Rather, it involves both providing alternative sources for Russian-language audiences and changing “our own thinking. We need to understand that [Russian] propaganda is directed against all of Europe, not just the east, and we need to start calling things by their proper names.”
“A [Russian] T-90 tank in Ukraine isn’t just a ‘vehicle,’” he concludes. “A lie is not an alternative point of view. [And] propaganda is not a legitimate form of public diplomacy.” Only “our naivete is preventing us from taking appropriate action, even as the other side advances its undeclared info-war.”
-- Paul Goble
Elena Chudinova, whose 2005 dystopian novel The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris described a Muslim takeover of Europe by 2048, says that if the current flood of immigrants from the Middle East into the EU continues, “Russia will remain the only thing left of the West” and that Russia itself will ultimately be threatened as well.
In an interview given to Komsomolskaya Pravda, the Russian novelist says that the migrants constitute “an enemy army” entering the cities of Europe “without a battle” but rather with the assistance of Europeans whose tolerance has cost them the ability to defend their culture and civilization.
The migrants, most of whom she says are young men, “want to seize these lands [for their vision of Islam] and convert the churches into mosques” -- although she suggests “these demands “undoubtedly” will surface only later when it is too late. that “will be a hell, a hell for all, and chaos” as well.
Russia has escaped this
plague so far, Chudinova continues, because it doesn’t support migrants as
generously as some European countries do and because Russia’s “system of social security is weaker
and medical care worse,” something she says that with regard to this threat,
Russians have reason to be glad.
"But sooner or later,” she
argues, these Muslim immigrants “will come to Russia as well if we do not defend
Europe. Our Land will become infinitely small and, strictly speaking, there
will not be anywhere to run,” a vision that reflects and will reinforce
xenophobic and anti-Muslim attitudes in Russia today.
Chudinova begins her interview by pointing out that those suffering the most in the Middle East today – the Christians – aren’t the ones fleeing. Instead, it is the Muslims and especially those fired by Islamist ideas. Thus, she continues, it is no surprise that there are many ISIS militants “in the ranks of ‘the refugees.’”
Moreover, she says, those
coming to Europe now are “above all young men … not badly dressed and carrying
all the necessary electronic gear. Yes, there are a certain number of women and
children, but we know what this is about: in the case of difficulties … the
women and children can serve as a shield.”
According to the Russian
writer, the young Muslim men coming to Europe now are not coming to work. No
one should have “any illusions about that.” If they wanted to work, “they would
be settling in Eastern Europe” where they would be safe and be able to find
jobs. Instead, they are going to countries that provide the highest welfare
payments.
She says that she finds it
difficult to “imagine how European tax payers will support this social burden,”
but she suggests that “we have already for a long time known what tolerance is
in the medical sense: tolerance is a weakening of immunity.” What is happening
in Europe now is “a colossal weakening of societal immunity” that will destroy
Europe unless someone is ready to take tough action.
Europeans are not yet
afraid, Chudinova says. “Tolerance has gone extraordinarily far.” The only
exceptions are the Catholics because in her words “Protestants have long ago
converted Christianity into a club of interests.” Europe is thus losing its “instinct for
self-preservation, its ethnic orientations, and its self-identification.”
Asked whether some Europeans may decide to flee Europe, the Russian writer says that among her friends, “there are no such thoughts.” Instead, they will “stand to the end. But strictly speaking, there is nowhere for them to go.” When asked if they might come to Russia, she says: “many are considering” that but “only theoretically” because Russia has “its own problems.”
-- Paul Goble
One of the reasons Moscow has always had difficulty in setting up a nationalities ministry is that if it has enough power to do its job, it will threaten other agencies; but if it doesn’t, it will remain only a largely decorative body that holds meetings and makes declarations.
Barinov for his part said that he hoped to have the system up and running in Sverdlovsk by the end of the year. Then it will be extended to the Khanty-Mansiisk Autonomous Region and Russian-occupied Crimea.
-- Paul Goble
Ivan Kurilla, a historian at St. Petersburg’s European University, offers 12 theses about Russia and America and their relations to each other that are in many cases not immediately obvious but that are more relevant than many of the assertions made in each country about these things.
12. "In the 1990s, Russia ceased to play the role of ‘the constituent Other’ for the US, but American remains such for Russia.”
-- Paul Goble
Many Ukrainians in the regions fear that decentralization will allow oligarchic clans to take control in some places and that the passivity of Ukrainians will slow reforms, according to the overwhelming majority of analysts surveyed by Kyiv’s International Center for Prospective Research.
The analysts also fear the consequences for the country of decentralization given the un-professionalism and corruption of local bureaucrats and of the launch of this program without much real discussion at the local level, Denis Rafalsky on the Apostrophe portal September 11.
In the opinion of the 56 analysts from throughout Ukraine, Rafalsky says, “the process of decentralization of Ukraine can be completed successfully but it will not occur without problems.” Two-thirds of the experts suggested that decentralization will occur at a moderate pace, while 10 percent said it would go quite quickly and 14 percent said it would only be “imitative.”
“The main factors which could slow reform,” the experts said, “are the passivity of the citizens and the impact of paternalistic attitudes in society.” Other obstacles include the approaching elections, the lack of professionalism and corruption of local officials, and “the unwillingness of the central authorities to give significant financial resources to the regions.”
Rafalsky suggests that “it is interesting that only 18 percent of the sample viewed military operations in the Donbass as a possible obstacle for decentralization, while 75 percent of the experts held the view that “fulfillment of the EU Association Agreement would have a favorable influence on the speed of decentralization.”
Although 91 percent of the experts believe that decentralization will eventually be carried out successfully, significant shares of them see risks ahead: 58 percent say that the reform may allow oligarchs to take control of some regions, and 25 percent say that the reform will give the regions the opportunity to “blackmail” Kyiv.
According to Anatoly Oktisyuk, a senior analyst at the International Center, the reforms have not been widely discussed in Ukraine’s regions. As a result, he says, while there is significant interest there in financial decentralization – meaning the regions get more money from Kyiv – there has been less concern about political decentralization.
But the two things are necessarily closely related, he says, noting that the experts surveyed fear that any money that goes to the regions without political reforms being in place will end up in the hands of local clans given that neither Kyiv nor the regions have effective control over such flows.
-- Paul Goble