Death by a thousand little lies

Recently, I’ve noticed a new trend in Western media narratives. It may be connected to the apparent dawning on the media and political ‘elites’ in Europe that they are going to have to surrender pretty soon. As well as the usual narrative overlay – the news is filtered through a prism, not of theoretical analysis, but of wild phantasies about Putin re-imaging the Russian Empire, gearing up to “invade a European country” by 2029, and so on. Amongst all this I notice the dirty little lie is creeping in. Consider:

Those goals amount to sweeping demands that would severely erode Ukraine’s sovereignty, including deep cuts to its armed forces, a ban on western military assistance, far-reaching limits on political independence, and the handover of Ukrainian-controlled territory in the east of the country. [1]

No. The 28 point plan did not involve “far-reaching limits on political independence” over and above the limits on Ukraine’s military, (which were probably more than they would be able sustain anyway). Anyone can check the plan. In this document the question of language rights for Russian speakers was handled sensitively; Ukraine was not obliged to make Russian an official language; just not discriminate against it, and this was put in the context of EU policies to support minorities. The document envisaged Ukraine joining the EU. In reality; the document offered a realistic pathway for a country living next to a Great Power to have as much independence as is feasible. In no rational world would a country bordering a Great Power be permitted by that Great Power to play host to the forces and intelligence services of that Great Power’s strategic rival. “far-reaching limits on political independence” is just not the case. The document, was a serious attempt to reach peace, with every effort made to preserve Ukraine’s dignity, while accepting the inevitable demands of the neighbouring Great Power.

Or, consider this, in Reuters:

Russia has denied any plans to attack NATO, as it denied any plan to attack Ukraine before its full-scale invasion.

This is one of the familiar heuristic analogies. Yes; the Kremlin did deny that were about to attack Ukraine before they did. As the US claimed its force build-up in the Gulf prior to the 2003 Gulf War was a training exercise. It is called military surprise. This – a little bit of tactical lying to try to create a military advantage – is simply of a different order than either geo-political intentions, or statements about geo-political intentions. It is basically babyish. But this is the level at which what passes for journalism these days takes place on.

More examples

This is from the Guardian:

Under Orbán’s leadership, Hungary has remained dependent on Russian oil and gas, flouting decisions of the European Union whose other countries have diversified their imports away from Russia since the February 2022 invasion. [3]

No. Hungary has not “flouted” EU decisions. Hungary negotiated an exemption to EU sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Nor is it true, for that matter that “other countries have diversified their imports away from Russia”, at least not true in the full sense of the word. While other EU countries have stopped importing oil, they have continued to import refined petroleum products based on Russian oil – something which is finally due to stop in 2026, and they have significantly increased imports of Russian LNG while, in fact, still continuing to import some Russian pipeline gas. [4] The above reporting, credited to Warren Murray and others is unscrupulous. It is also dishonest journalism.

Or consider, also from the same stream;

The Kairos and another Gambian-flagged tankers, the Virat, were attacked on 28 November in the Black Sea off the Turkish coast. Both are under western sanctions for belonging to the “shadow fleet” that illicitly and unsafely continues to export Russian oil.

“illicitly” is also not true. It is also an example of unscrupulous reporting. The EU has brought in a rule that Russian tankers using EU marine insurance companies can only sell their oil below a certain price. Individual tankers are also subject to some form of sanctions. As a result, naturally, Russia has sought to develop a fleet of tankers which they control and which are not insured by EU marine insurance forms. These tankers are not “illicit”. (Some may be unsafe due to, for example, lax insurance checks or as a result of having been brought back into service – that may be true, though one could argue that that was the EU’s fault). At any event; they are not “illicit’. There is no law in the world which obliges firms to use EU marine insurance!

All these little, unscrupulous lies serve to distort the narrative – and weigh it in favour of the EU, disguising the irrationality of their decisions. They are quite deliberate. At the same time, they also reveal the attitude of the media, and hence political, class in the EU. Orban has not “flouted” any actual rules or decisions of the EU – but he has flouted the will of the core anti-Russia block. Russian tankers are only “illicit’ if you accept that the EU has the right to make rules for the whole world. Unintentionally, these journalists, reveal the attitude which lies behind all the claims about “defending the international rules based order”. It turns out that there really is an extra-judicial system over and above the actual rules. This is what Professor Richard Sakwa calls ‘The Great Substitution’. While claiming to be all about the “international rules based order” in reality the Western political and media classes are trying to enforce a self-interested, independent, regime of their own rules.

Notes

Death by a thousand little lies

Related Posts

Propaganda and disasterPropaganda and disaster

Guardian propaganda on Russia tracked 100Guardian propaganda on Russia tracked 100

Double-standards of sympathyDouble-standards of sympathy