Radio Free Europe’s unbiased news
This is a good one! The story is about Radio Free Europe, the State Department’s propaganda channel which broadcasts into Russia. It is being shut down by Trump, which it is why it is in the news. This is from the Guardian:
RFE/RL was set up with the aim of bringing unbiased local news to audiences behind the iron curtain, and has continued to cover subjects that are either ignored or downplayed by state media. [1]
Do they really believe that? Come on. The US set up a radio station in the Cold war to bring “unbiased” news to the Citizens of the USSR? It was originally a CIA project (as they themselves admit here) [2] I met a Radio Free Europe journalist in Tatarstan during the early days of the pandemic. I wrote it about it here. (Of course, Radio Free Europe is now banned in Russia). The whole aim of Radio Free Europe is to destabilise Russian society and bring about a revolution and a turn towards a Western liberal democratic way of doing things. They exploit all the obvious themes; in my case it was about people not trusting their government during the pandemic. A typical story is about someone who is struggling and they get them to say that they wish the government would spend less on weapons and more on social security. The whole aim is to sow dissatisfaction with the ‘regime’. It is a pure propagandist operation from top to bottom. Does the Guardian really manage to convince themselves that Radio Free Europe is simply a disinterested venture focussed on bringing “unbiased” news to Russia?
This statement is factually untrue: “Its reporters are regarded as “foreign agents”, making them the target for arrest should they return to Russia”. The foreign agents law requires people so named, due to their foreign connections, to publish this on their media. It is not an offence in itself to be labelled a foreign agent. It would be an offence to not declare it. Though since, as the article says, RFE is also an undesirable organisation there would indeed be a problem for anyone who has been working for it.
Interestingly, Michael Savage, the Guardian’s media editor, admits that “The use of the media as an instrument of soft power by the west is in retreat more broadly.”. I am not sure exactly how he reconciles “unbiased” news and “soft power”. Is the Guardian then an instrument of “Western soft power” since, I believe, it claims to be “unbiased”?
Meanwhile – the threat exaggeration continues apace
I think this was all covered in 1984. I came across in the Guardian today a throw-away phrase, “the growing threat from Russia”. There have been an abundance of reports in recent days of European leaders talking up this “threat”; Tusk of Poland, the President of Finland, the ludicrous Defence Minister of Germany, Boris Pistorius, and so on. Apparently Russia is planning to attack Europe within 5 years. The media, naturally, does its part. It seems that “the growing threat from Russia” is now an established reality. I think this is called reification; when you take a subjective view and make it part of actual, objective reality. It looks like they are now becoming so profoundly and deeply attached to this idea that it will not be possible to separate them from it. As always; the following will hold true: a) it will be supported, if ever, by a few flimsy analogies or shallow arguments – you will never see a coherent piece of analysis to support the idea, for the simple reason that there is no credible political and historical evidence to support the idea, b) the media will never question the idea, and c) people who do question it will be censored and relegated to the side lines of public discourse, called “Putin’s stooges” and so on.
The upsurge in militarism in Europe seems to be driven by Ukraine’s defeat. Do they really believe that without the “bulwark” of Ukraine the hordes from the East are going to pour over the Ukrainian and Hungarian steppe and swarm into comfy Western Europe? Have they not noticed that until they turned Ukraine into a heavily militarised state on Russia’s doorstep with CIA stations and all the rest, that Russia did not move one inch westwards? (Georgia is a typical example of the kind of flimsy argument I mention above. The 2008 Russia – Georgia was is often cited as evidence of ‘Russian aggression’. The fact that the war was started – as a matter of historical fact – by Georgia launching an attack on Russia peacekeepers in South Ossetia, is, naturally, ignored).
Should we be worried by this upsurge in militarism in Europe? It is ridiculous. In as much as the plan includes continuing to arm Ukraine, as it seems to, it is, above all, sad, as that envisages endless war. (Russia is, obviously, I would have thought, not going to end their special operation which was started to demilitarise Ukraine until that goal is achieved, so continuing to pour arms into Ukraine guarantees endless war). Beyond that I think we probably should be worried. Listening to some of the rhetoric from Baltic State leaders, it actually sounds like they want a war with Russia. The situation is becoming more unstable. I think we should be concerned.
Confusing describing the narrative with analysing objective reality
This is an article in the Guardian by a senior editor about the new political and security alignments in Europe. It purports to be an analysis of the political situation in Europe with Trump pulling US support back and France, Germany and the UK developing a new security alliance to confront the Russian threat. I read the whole thing. It contains the usual ideas; Russia is aggressive, “Everything Putin has ever said about Ukraine attests that he regards it as Russian land”, the “liberal” world is confronted with “aggressive tyranny”, not just in Russia, and must arm to confront this. I realised when I was reading this article that this is not an analysis of political-historical reality. For example, the idea that Putin considers all of Ukraine Russian land is not supported by any evidence. (Putin has repeatedly said that he would be happy for Ukraine to join the EU for example. He talked in his often misunderstood essay about being a partner with Ukraine). And, of course, simply repeating ad nauseum that Russia is aggressive does not establish that as fact. There is, as usual, no supporting evidence. And not even any mention of the Russian point of view, about NATO in Ukraine or the betrayed Minsk agreements. Also, I find it surprising that a liberal-democrat is not bothered by the shenanigans in the German parliament where an outgoing administration has managed to push through a massive change in German budgetary policy, (to allow for spending on arms), a few days before they have to give way to a newly elected parliament which would probably not pass this legislation. If a “right-wing” administration was doing that we can imagine the howls of liberal protest. What this article is is a description of the existing narrative. Do readers understand? What is happening is that in place of political-historical analysis it is now enough to simply describe the existing narrative, and this is passed off as analysis of reality. For doing this you become a leading politician or senior editor.
Notes