Puerile propaganda

The Western media / political class people who generate  – and then believe in – fake narratives about Russia have come to a point when, to everyone apart from themselves, their silliness is blindingly obvious.

This is an example from the Daily Telegraph.

The piece is headlined:

Russia to move nuclear-capable missiles closer to Europe as Vladimir Putin claims Nato expansion is threat

Well; Russia has been very explicit about this move – a move which they have long advised they might feel obliged to take. Russia explains that the US missile defence bases in Romania and Poland pose  a threat to Russia. Firstly because they alter the balance of nuclear forces. Secondly because, they claim, they missile launcher tubes could easily be used to also fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at Russia. [1] (The Tomahawk cruise missile can also carry a nuclear warhead). And (without being an expert on US military hardware) this sounds like an entirely plausible concern. You can bet the US would be up in arms if Russia placed some S-500’s in Mexico.

Russia’s move is presented here as being based on fictitious claims about NATO’s aggression. But it would seem naive in a military sense to believe that the US missile defences in Poland and Romania really have nothing to do with Russia. – And their alleged potential to be used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles makes them (if this is correct) a very real threat to Russia – quite apart from their possible use to shoot down Russian ICBMs.  But for the Western dreamers all their actions are ‘maintaining peace and security’. And everything Russia does is ‘aggressive’.

The Telegraph writer also manages create two additional distortions in the first few paragraphs of this article. Firstly; while it is apparently true that the Iskander system can carry a nuclear warhead its primary purpose as a weapon is to use conventional warheads to target command and control posts and enemy missile installations. Endlessly referring to the Iskander system as ‘nuclear capable’ is a propagandist distortion which aims to make a defensive move appear aggressive. It is ‘near Europe’ because the US has placed its missile shield weapon – the intended target of the Iskander – near Russia! But for the Telegraph propagandist this is presented in terms of the usual stereotype about an ‘aggressive’ Russia – moving nukes close to Europe. Pure fiction really.

Then the Telegraph writer informs his readers:

It comes after the Russian leader rattled Western allies in October by placing nuclear-capable cruise missiles in the same province, which lies on the Baltic coast

These are the same missiles. The missiles Russia placed in Kalingrad in October were also Iskanders. There is one set of ‘nuclear-capable cruise missiles’ not two.

The rest of the article is devoted to the NATO line about Russian ‘aggression’ in Ukraine. The coup, the long and divided history of Ukraine (which anyone who cares to read quite mainstream UK published history books can check for themselves [2]), the fact that the people in the East were the main supporters of the deposed President and that they are far less keen on EU and NATO membership  than those in the West – all of this and much more has to be eliminated from reality and history in order to prop up the story that Russia has acted ‘aggressively’ in Ukraine.

Claims about Russian ‘aggression’ in Ukraine have the same status as those a very nasty psychopath might make as he accuses the victim he is trying to dominate of ‘aggression’ against him for putting a hand up in front of his face to defend himself against blows…

One can only speculate at the contortions that people like ‘James Rothwell’, the credited author of this piece, have to go through in order to convince themselves they are telling the truth. They certainly have to avoid doing any research.


RT. Dec 2013

RT. December 2013. Russia warns it may place Iskanders in Kalingrad

RT. May 2016. Russia explains concerns about US missile defence shield

2. For example; One Step Backwards One Step Forwards. Roger Pethybridge. Oxford University Press. 1990. Chp. 2 which is based on original documents from the 1920s give interesting insight into how even at this time Ukraine was divided between Western nationalists and those in the East who looked more towards Moscow.

Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer