I’m struggling to understand Russian motivation, or, more accurately, the alternate reality that is Russian propaganda.

I have no problem understanding Russian disinformation, misinformation, obscuration, suppression, or information control. But then Russians put it all together and accuse others of doing and are guilty of what Russia itself is doing.  Yesterday I queried a number of experts, asking for a word to describe what the Russians are doing.  I received “Pot calling the Kettle black”, but that is probably too American of a saying and not concise enough. “Glass Houses throwing Stones” seemed good, but again, not concise.  Hypocrisy was good, but that is more of a description of the situation and does not portray an action. Mirroring or Projection, to me both did not infer the insidious, evil nature of what Russia is doing.

Dr. Julie Ryan suggested BlameShifting and today Dr. Carlo Kopp suggested GuiltFlipping.

Yesterday I sent Carlo the link to the article which I will insert below.  I was more focused on the Russians now rewriting their history, making their atrocity laden past appear to be all peaches and cream.  I hadn’t considered this to be a perfect example of blameshifting or guiltflipping until Dr. Kopp pointed it out.

Russia, of course, forgets that 20 million Soviet citizens were killed by Joseph Stalin.  Russia ignores killing between 2.5 to 7 million Ukrainians during the Holomodor. Russia ignores the purges by Stalin.  I have not even touched on the atrocities committed by the Soviets in post-war Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and any of the other CIS countries.  I have not mentioned the atrocities committed, yet today, in Ukraine, Syria, and Georgia by Russians.

Per population their track record of civilians killed by the state well exceeds ours, in fact we are not even in their league.

Dr. Carlo Kopp, in personal correspondence.

The following was posted as a link on Facebook by a senior member of the Russian Foreign Ministry without comment.  The same person has submitted numerous links of Russia rewriting their own history, as Russia is so quick to accuse others of rewriting their history (especially Ukraine).  This is a perfect example of Russia blame-shifting or guilt-flipping while accusing others of the same.

The numbers are grossly distorted. Soviet and Russian atrocities are not included.

I chose to copy and paste the whole thing in case someone attempts to delete this damning example of Russian blame-shifting and guilt-flipping.

This is a perfect example of Russia blame-shifting or guilt-flipping while accusing others of the same, twice.

Please excuse the graphic nature of these scenes of torture.

</end of editorial>

(Translated by my Chrome browser)

Comparative History of the atrocities of the West and Russia

For almost the entire history of human life is worth in western Europe is negligible. Today, without dipping into special studies it is difficult to imagine a Western European tradition of cruelty in all its bleakness.

British “Virgin Queen” Elizabeth I cut off the head not only of Mary Stuart, she executed more 89,000 of his subjects . Unlike his contemporary Ivan the Terrible, who called her “vulgar girl,” Elizabeth (whose mother, Anne Boleyn , by the way, was also beheaded) not repented of their deeds either publicly or privately, were slain in the “synodic” is not recorded, the money to eternal commemoration of the monasteries did not send. European monarchs such habits in general had never had.

You will be in London – buy a ticket for a sightseeing tour through the city center in an open double-decker bus. There is a headset, you can listen to the explanations in different languages, including Russian. In Hyde Park, you hear that, where now the “Speakers Corner”, was the place of executions . Executions were a major public entertainment Londoners for centuries.

Home gallows was a clever swivel design: there, on uneven beams were 23 loops, so it is possible that something reminiscent of the British – whether the Christmas tree with decorations, or something else. She had a more neutral name – “Derrick Machine” , by the name of the honored from the local butchers, was common even saying “reliable as a machine Derrick.”

Where now Paddington Station, was another notable gallows arranged, unlike the previous one, without any ploys three pillars, three rungs, eight loops on the bar, so that it was possible to again hang 24 people – on one more than “in Derrick.” The historian of London, Peter Ackroyd lists more a dozen well-known places of executions, adding that often the gallows were just nameless crossroads. And they worked was not without downtime, underload. In a crowd of spectators at times happened crush,number trampled to death once (at the beginning of XIX century) to twenty-eight .

Cruelty as a natural disaster

Moscow publishing house Ad Marginem released in 1999. The translation of the work of Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish” (by the way, on the cover – the next peeling of the skin) that contains many quotations from the regulations on procedures for executions and public torture in different European countries until the middle of last century. The European Swindlers have used a lot of imagination to make the penalty is not only extremely long and painful, but also entertaining – one of the chapters in the book Foucault entitled “Shine penalty.”Reading is not for impressionable.

Savagery begets permanent devastating war Western powers after the Middle Ages (which were more ruthless). Thirty Years’ War in the XVII century, has claimed half the population of Germany and either 60, or 80 per cent – historians argue – the population of its southern part.

Pope even temporarily authorized polygamy, in order to restore the people’s livestock. Pacification Cromwell in Ireland when she 5/6 of the population. From this blow Ireland has not recovered ever.

As for Russia, it is in its territory for nearly seven centuries, between Batu and Lenin, like bloodletting did not know and with such unbridled ferocity of manners was not familiar.

I’m sorry, but have to say a nasty thing: the history of Western civilization does not set up on a huge optimism – so bloody and brutal it was practice.And not only in the distant past – the recent twentieth century, too. In the span bloodletting and atrocities of the twentieth century exceeded any past.By and large, there is no guarantee that this civilization will not return to the usual practice for themselves. . This is much, much more serious matter than are used to thinking of our countrymen zapadolyubivye Knowing what we know about western civilization (which was part of Hitler), it is difficult not to note: it looks quite strange narcissism.

It sounds unexpectedly? Then I will quote one of the most prominent historians of modern times, the Oxford professor Norman Davies:

“Everyone agrees that crimes of the West in the twentieth century have undermined the moral basis of his claims, including the last of his claims.”

* * * * * * *

According to the calculations of the historian RG Skrynnikova, expert in the era of Ivan the Terrible, and the king was executed and killed the innocent from 3 to 4 thousand people. Skrynnikov insists that we are not dealing with anything other than mass terror, especially in relation to Novgorod, and it is hard to disagree, but Ivan the Terrible – gentle child next to Louis XI, nicknamed Spider, Richard III (which Shakespeare described as “the most vile monster of tyranny”), Henry VIII of, Philip II, James I Stuart, Duke of Alba, Cesare Borgia, Catherine de Medici, Charles Evil (no number), Charles V (son of Juana the Mad), Charles IX (arrange St. Bartholomew) Bloody Mary, the Lord protector Cromwell and a host of other European characters cute …

But the examples continue. Crusaders during the Albigensian warscut more than half the population of the South of France.Suppressor of Prussia, Grand Master of the Order of the CrusadersWallenrod Conrad was angry at Courland bishop ordered to cut off the right hands of all the peasants of his bishopric. And it was done!February 16, 1568 (during the height of the oprichnina Ivan the Terrible) of St Inquisition condemned to death of all (!) Residents of the Netherlands as heretics, and the Spanish King Philip II ordered that this sentence. It is not quite possible, but the royal army has done what she could. Only 20 thousand people were killed in Haarlem, but only in the Netherlands – 100 thousand.

The fact that today’s political correctness perceived with horror, just a century ago with a small one not particularly repelled. Another British classic “stories for readers” John Richard Green in 1874 quoted calmly Cromwell report on the work done in Ireland:

“I ordered his soldiers to kill all of them … about a thousand people were killed in the church. I believe that all of the monks, but two were broken head … “.

Revolutionary entertainers

1 August 1793. French Revolutionary Convention issued a decree with instructions to “destroy the Vendee.” At the beginning of 1794. the army got down to business.

“Vendée should become a national cemetery”, – declared Türr brave general, who led the “infernal columns” punitive.

The massacre lasted for 18 months. Shootings and guillotines (from Paris brought even children’s guillotine) was not sufficient for the execution of the decree. Destruction of people occurred, according to the revolutionaries, not fast enough. Resolved: to drown. City Nantes, according to Norman Davis, has been “the Atlantic slave trade port, in connection with what is at hand there was a fleet of huge floating prisons”. But even this fleet would quickly dried up.Therefore invented output laden barge people to reliable rope tied in the mouth of the Loire, to heat it, then again to pull the ropes to the shore and slightly dry before the new use. It turned out, writes Davis, “a wonderful reusable device for execution.”

Just kill people revolutionary entertainer was not enough. They took pleasure in the fact that prior to loading onto barges tearing off their clothes and bind in pairs. Pregnant women naked tied face to face with the old men, old women with boys, the priests with the girls, it was called “the republican weddings”.

To hide in the woods did not survive and died from starvation, was cut cattle, burned crops and houses Jacobin General Westermann wrote enthusiastically to Paris.:

“Citizens Republicans Vendee no longer exists! Thanks to our free saber she died along with his other women and their offspring. Using data from my right, I trampled children horses, carved women. I have not regretted a single prisoner. I deleted all. “

Depopulated entire departments, were killed, according to various estimates,from 400 thousand to a million people. Sadly, the national conscience of the French Vendée, apparently, does not torment.

In Russia, until nothing like the Bolsheviks in Petit hecatomb it did not happen. And then it happened: the Don, in the Tambov province, in other places.

Like any empire during its construction, Russia went through the hard fate of a number of small nations – the Siberian and North Caucasus, – there was no time for human rights and freedoms in their modern understanding. One can say with certainty that genocide in the full sense of the word on the conscience of Russia no. You have to compare the American historian David Stannard in his book “The American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World.” Has shown that the development of America was followed by the worst ethnic cleansing in history: 400 years of the aliens from the Old World is physically destroyed about a hundred million indigenous (!) residents.

On the fifth continent British destroyed most of the Australian Aborigines and all (!) The Tasmanians.

America and Australia were far away, but when the Russian authorities became aware that atrocities are happening near the borders of the empire, they sometimes went to direct intervention. “Massacre of Uman” in June 1768, during the so-called “Koliyivshchyna”, claimed the lives of 20,000 Jews. Many thousands of Jews were killed, in addition to Uman, in Lysyanka, Kanev, Cherkassy, Zhlobin, Korsun, Fastov, the White Church and especially in the Baltic States. While all this was happening in the “sovereign Polish territory,” the news of the scope of atrocities prompted the Russian authorities to send against Haidamaks Corps General Krechetnikov, who defeated them in a few days and could have saved the Jews the right bank of the Dnieper from complete destruction.

Murder legally

More in 1819 in England was 225 crimes and offenses punishable by the gallows. When the doctor of the British Embassy in Petersburg, wrote in his diary in 1826, as he was struck by the fact that in the wake of the uprising of the Decembrists in Russia executed only five criminals, it clearly reflected the notion of his countrymen on the proportionality of crime and punishment. In our country, he added, in the case of a military revolt on such a scale would be executed, probably about three thousand people.

So we are looking at things everywhere in Europe. In Denmark, in 1800 a law was passed providing for the death penalty for anyone who “even advised” to cancel the unlimited form of government. And eternal servitude to those who dare to condemn the government’s actions.

Now take the “Russian Truth”, it does not provide for the death penalty! From the “Tale of Bygone Years”, we know that Vladimir Svyatoslavich tried in 996 to introduce the death penalty for thieves. He did this on the advice of the Byzantine bishops, but was soon forced to withdraw from non-core Rus cruel punishment.

The concept of the death penalty in Russia appears on the verge of the XV century in the charter Dvina literacy (for the third theft) and Pskov Judicial Charter (for treason, theft of church arson, horse stealing and theft in three times the tenements).

The Code of 1649 provides for the death penalty in the 63 cases – a lot, but still infinitely less than in Europe. The long trip to Western Europe in 1697-98gg. produced on an attentive and inquisitive Peter the great impression.Among other things, he decided that the material progress of the countries visited by him as something to do with cruelty there the laws and customs, and to draw conclusions. It is not by chance that the most brutal and massive action of his reign, the execution of 201 rebellious Archer September 30, 1698 in Moscow It occurred immediately after the young king returned from his 17-month European trip.

However, to deal with an established system of values – it is extremely difficult for a number of executions even Russia under Peter the Great and not remotely close to the countries, to serve him an ideal, and after his death, this punishment abruptly went on the decline.. The middle of the XVIII century marked the actual abolition of the death penalty. In 1764, it turned out that there is no one to execute the sentence against Vasily Mirovich. For twenty years without executions executioner profession simply disappeared.

In 1907 he published a collective work “Against the Death Penalty” in Moscow. Among its authors were Leo Tolstoy, Berdyaev, Rozanov, Nabokov Sr., Tomas Masaryk and other well-known writers, jurists and historians.Branding cruelty of royal power, they lead a full, detailed list of names of those executed and in Russia for 81, between the uprising of the Decembrists and 1906. year. During this time, 2445 people were executed, that is, was performed 30 executions per year.

In this figure, however, affected by two Polish uprising of 1830 and 1863gg.1905-1907 and the beginning of the revolution. If we take peacetime get 19 executions per year. On the whole a great Russia! What does this figure given the fact that during this period, the death penalty for murder was applied strictly? She says that the murder itself happened very rarely.(By the way, in a very violent nations, then the number of Finns, they are more Caucasians brought into play his famous “Finca”.)

Two more illustrations to the issue of respect for human life. The charter of the Russian army, the authorship of which belongs to Peter I, prescribed care to the wounded during the battle. The Prussian statute aid to the wounded was provided only after the battle.French and English charters of that time did not provide for aid to the wounded at all.

An earlier example. Mandatory part of the state policy of Russia, Russia was the ransom of their prisoners. That’s what the head says “On the redemption of captives” Hundred Chapters Council in 1551:

“The hordes and of Constantinople and the Crimea … okupati all the captivity of the tsar’s treasury.”

Ambassadors disposal target money to pay ransom, which they then of offsetting treasury. But that is not all. Rich Levantine merchants and diplomats have sometimes arrived in Russia with whole suites, which include those prisoners could be Christians. Take them back to the Russian authorities did not allow under any circumstances:

“And that Orthodox hrestyan captivity result, recouping Greeks and turkchane, Armenia or other guests, but when he was at Moscow, his own will with him their story again, they do not figure out ino, and then stand firmly; yes they okupati of the tsar’s treasury. “

Export population

Here is an example of a completely different attitude to his. This is an example of Poland, but Poland has always passionately wanted to be and pass for Europe, Europe, Europe. In the autumn of 1653 the Polish King Jan Kazimierz was eager to deal with Bogdan Khmelnitsky, although the latter is temporarily had a strong ally in the Crimean Khan. When the Poles, and Cossacks Crimeans converged on the bank of the Dniester River in the town Zhvanets, it turned out that the Crimean Khan is not an ally of Khmelnitsky: the Poles ahead of time managed to persuade Khan to a separate peace. But under what conditions! Khan broke with Khmelnitsky – and the reward can on the way back to loot whatever he pleases, take away with them as many prisoners. In the lands of the Polish Crown! By the end of the year Crimeans forbidding looting gentry house ( “for most of Lublin”), and carried them away a lot of the nobility of both sexes – it was much more profitable to them than to rob the poor of Little Russia “Khlopov”.

Many German princes sold their subjects, supplying cannon fodder abroad.Saxon king Frederick August I (1670-1733), better known as Augustus the Strong, I was very fond of porcelain and was happy to exchange the French king 150 porcelain items (so-called “cabinet”) just something for his two regiments of infantry. This example is like to cite as proof of how highly regarded at the beginning of the XVIII century porcelain, but somehow never lead to show how low valued in Europe at the time of human life.

According to the Brockhaus and Efron (Vol. 16, p. 580), Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel Friedrich “fell into debt to cover that sold 17 thousand people of England of its troops to the war with the American colonies for 21 million. Thalers.” Rather, he simply sold all his army, the more he did not scrape: landgrafstva population decreased from the sale of 8%. A similar trade were the Duke of Brunswick, Landgraf Waldeck, Ghana, Anspach, other small German monarchs. German soldiers of the West German principalities possessions were bought by the French government also systematically. In a large number of German soldiers bought the English East India Company, using them in the conquest of India.

Almost a century and a half before that, on the contrary, the British offered their cannon fodder. In June 1646, Lord Strafford and MP Fleming said the Russian envoy in London Gerasim Dokhturov:

“If you will need the king’s majesty service people, then the parliament for the royal majesty as many thousands of soldiers will be ready at once.”

A source

Ukrainian hackers from informal communities called Flame Falcons and Trinity penetrated the website notorious for DPR-LPR terrorist propaganda, “Anna-News.”

The main page of the resource now shows a video clip with a speech of a masked man.

“If you are watching this video, we have cleared the information space from another website of Russian terrorists,” says a video message.

READ ALSO Hackers expose Russian Federal Service for Execution operative in Donbas: media

In addition, addressing the terrorists, the man in mask says that all sensitive information has been seized from this resource, and the data on the site administrators and users have been handed over to volunteers and Ukrainian special services.

The hackers also appeal to the Ukrainian society to consolidate efforts against Russian aggression.

(Translated from Russian by my Chrome browser)

Handling hacker alliance Falcons Flame and Trinity

Source: http://www.unian.info/society/1334208-ukrainian-hackers-take-over-popular-pro-terrorist-propaganda-website.html

Well this should be fun. Hackers are auctioning off Kremlin propagandist Dmitry Kiselyev’s emails. Opening bid – 33 BTC

Brian Whitmore

Dmitry Kiselyev, this couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.  It’s not an insult, I didn’t call him a sanctimonious putz, did I?

Dmitry Kiselyev should know better, why wasn’t his email more secure?

I copy and paste the whole thing here in case this Anonymous post somehow disappears.

Update:  Better explanations (in Russian) here.  

</end editorial>

(Translated from Russian by my Chrome browser)

Friday, April 29, 2016

“Narcissistic and borderline psychopathology …” – from the array D. Kiselev

April 29, 2016

Russia is beginning to up the ante with drones, and not in the way you may think. Shortly after Syrian forces retook Palmyra aided by Russian air power, Russian television stations aired crystal clear, drone captured footage of the ruins of the Greco-Roman city. Russia has utilized these drones as an exceptional propaganda tool for its war in Syria, highlighting an often-overlooked role for drones on the information battlefields of today and tomorrow. Western media outlets and the United States would do well to consider incorporating this innovative technology into its own broader coverage of conflicts and as another tool for information operations.

https://embed.theguardian.com/embed/video/world/video/2016/mar/27/drone-footage-palmyra-retaken-syrian-forces-isis-video

Since October 2015, Russia Works, a group affiliated with the state-owned Russian television company VGTRK, has been uploading aerial footage of the conflict in Syria. Portrayed almost as a video game, the images provide a stylized look at the Russian assisted Syrian offensive. Commercially available drones with HD video cameras allow civilians to peer through the fog of war. DJI Phantoms, such as those used by Russia Works, offer unprecedented perspective on unfolding battles previously reserved for costly low-flying aircraft. The drone footage is also notable for its visceral quality. This is something more conventional footage lacks, allowing civilians to witness tanks firing in field, soldiers storming buildings, and the destruction of cities that is rapidly available online.

Moreover, these drones are relatively cheap and are rapidly proliferating among nonstate and even individual actors. Their rise draws parallels to how the spread of smartphones has transformed media. The broader use of drone videos may eventually serve a similar function to smartphone videos that have documentedalleged abuses by police and have increased transparency in war. While the public has had a progressively more candid view of war since graphic photographs emerged from Vietnam, aerial-drone footage adds a degree of clarity, motion and depth to the portrayal of conflict that may dramatically alter the way wars are covered by the media.

The Russians have quickly incorporated these drones into their propaganda machine and information warfare campaigns. This footage has been used extensively by Russian broadcasters, such as Russia Today (RT) and has made regular appearances in Russian coverage of its intervention in Syria. The footage has been accompanied by coverage that characterizes Russian involvement as using clinical strikes that assist Syrian forces while minimizing civilian causalities. This coverage is part of a broader media campaign to sell the war to the Russian public. By all appearances, it looks to be successful. By early October72 percent of Russians supported intervention, compared with 69 percent that opposed direct military assistance before Russia’s involvement and subsequent media campaign. While these figures may speak more to the peculiar nature of the Russian public, it is difficult to deny the influence of media when 90 percent of Russians receive their news through state-owned television channels.

Although drone footage, combined with traditional news coverage, provides a substantial degree of realism, it may not represent the truth. A number of private fact-checking groups, such as Bellingcat, have assessed Russian footage and found factual inaccuracies in many videos released by the Ministry of Defense.

This manipulation of information to present a particular anti-Western spin is consistent with previous Russian tactics for information warfare. These tactics have been well documented and attempt to develop provocative stories that strive to increase readership instead of presenting objective reality. Falsified information, conspiracy theories, and aggressively slanted narratives are the main fare of these information operations, conducted by such organizations such as RT and Sputnik. These stories capture the viewers’ attention and actively refute Western narratives. A prime example of this is the coverage of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 that Russian media developed with competing narratives attributing the attacks to Ukrainian or NATO jets. The goal was, asPeter Pomerantsev wrote, “not so much to convince viewers of any one version of events, but rather to leave them confused, paranoid, and passive—living in a Kremlin-controlled virtual reality.”

Ultimately, Russian media crews possess no monopoly on these drones. Othernews organizations are beginning to employ this tool and more will likely continue this trend in the future. With FAA regulations slowly evolving to accommodate drones, the U.S. media may also use drones when covering current events. The proliferation of such technology among nongovernmental groups may also provide a clearer picture of what is happening on the ground and assist states with attribution. Ukrainian volunteers and NGOs have already made significant use of drones to document Russian troops in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. When combined with open source information, they have provided compelling visual proof of Russian presence and are helping remove some of the ambiguity surrounding Russia’s hybrid tactics. To counter Russia’s novel distortion of reality, U.S. and especially European journalists should consider incorporating this technology to create competing, fact-based narratives, while not compromising their standards and engaging in pro-European propaganda.

The United States and NATO have also begun to address Russia’s extensive use of information warfare by reconsidering old U.S. international-broadcasting programs and establishing the NATO Strategic Communications Center for Excellence in Latvia to study and advise on information campaigns. The use of drones should be considered as a component of future information operations by providing an innovative means for observing conflict. They could also potentially be part of an assurance initiative to demonstrate a strong U.S. presence in Europe. Drone footage cannot reassure Europeans worried about Russia’s ambiguous activities, but it can help ease the challenge faced by U.S. Army, Europe to make “30,000 troops look and feel like 300,000” through enhanced coverage of U.S. and NATO military exercises.

The United States must keep a careful eye on Russia as it continues to push the envelope of possibilities for unmanned aerial platforms. As shown in Ukraine and Syria, the proliferation of drones means the civilian view of bloody battlefields is about to get a whole lot clearer, if not actually closer to representing reality.

Adam Saxton is a research intern in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Image: A quadrocopter drone. Pixabay/succo. Public domain.

Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/drones-russias-hot-new-propaganda-tool-15987

Posted: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:22 am | Updated: 11:00 am, Thu Apr 28, 2016.

Associated Press |

Where did Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselyov get $4.5 million for an apartment?  Dmitry, did you forget to get involved with Panama or did you play somewhere else?

Dmitry Konstantinovich, are you a capitalist being paid so much or just another corrupt Russian?

Does anyone think this 62-year-old took out a 30-year loan?

What he does:

• Heads up the de facto biggest propaganda organization in the world
• Head of the officialRussian government-owned international news agency Rossiya Segodnya, which consists of
  • Former RIA Novosti news agency
    • Includes RT (formerly Russia Today)
    • Sputnik News
  • Former Radio station Voice of Russia
• Deputy director of Russian state TV holding company VGTRK (All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (Russian: Всероссийская государственная телевизионная и радиовещательная компания, Vserossiyskaya gosudarstvennaya televizionnaya i radioveshchatelnaya kompaniya), in short VGTRK (Russian: ВГТРК))
• It’s the other stuff not on this list which I find most interesting.

Also, recall, dear Readers, if you might, Russia is moving to shut off all official records of property sales to prevent disclosures of information like this.  Names Of Russia’s Elite Vanish From Public Property Records.

I mean, if the Russian government is inexorably corrupt, we don’t want anybody finding out and exposing them like this, do we?  Oops, too late for Dimitry Kiselev.

Dmitry, you bad boy, who is paying you so much for doing such a terrible job?

</end editorial>

2016/04/30

Article by: Oleksiy Rohovyk, head of Free Voice Information Analysis Center; Olga Lozova, analyst of Free Voice Information Analysis Center

For almost 2 years Ukraine is still one of the central issues of international politics. The unprecedented Revolution in 2013 launched no less unprecedented aggressive actions of Russian Federation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. These events marked the new reality of international politics and law.

1) The comprehension of the consequences of aggression is still in progress. It would be too early to assume that the outcome of Russian aggression has been determined so far. These aftermaths will be determined by the ability or disability of the leading actors to make right conclusions and to learn “Ukrainian lessons”.

2) Russian aggression has its historical background. The crisis in Ukraine is impossible to present as an unexpected failure of world politics as something illogical. During 1999-2013, the world faced an array of events that undermined principles of international law and the role of U.N. Security Council concerning the regulation of conflicts (Yugoslavia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Kosovo 2008, Russian-Georgian war 2008, Libya 2011 and the fomenting of a conflict in Syria). It also should be stressed that after Russia had invaded Georgia in 2008, after all, it did not provoke an overreaction; moreover, it obtained the possibility for the “restart of relations with the United States”. The aggressor was forgiven.

3) Russian aggression against Ukraine had three “waves“. The first “wave” of Russian aggression should be considered as the military occupation of Crimea by means of aggressive acts. The second “wave” is an act of aggression in the east of Ukraine, namely, the process of creation of the “LNR” and the “DNR” that is connected with the sending of irregular groups and mercenaries. The third “wave” should be considered as direct invasion of Russian regular armed forces in eastern part of Ukraine since the August 2014.

4) The Russian Federation tried to justify its aggression as a response to the Revolution of Dignity (Euromaidan). Russia insisted on the following assertions: 1) Viktor Yanukovych continues to be legitimate President, 2) lack of any efficient or reliable leadership in post-revolution Ukraine, 3) presence of permanent threat for the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.  Apparently, arguments of the Russian side stood no chance against criticism of Ukrainian constitutionalists. From the very beginning, Yanukovych had been an “illegitimate inviting agent” (in accordance with paragraph 23 of article 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine). This means that he had no right to invite foreign mercenaries to Ukraine. As regards the threat for Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine there were no reports published by authoritative international organisations confirming human rights abuse in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or in Ukraine. Taking into account the abovementioned, one can conclude that reference to protection of citizens / humanitarian intervention was groundless.

5) The Russian Federation has chosen a rather inconsequent strategy regarding the new reality in Ukraine. In its declarations, the former indicated that it is not bound by any international obligation in respect of the latter, as for instance in the Budapest memorandum on Security Assurances to Ukraine. The Russian argument has been fairly weak. In accordance with the 1997 decision of the International Court of Justice in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, a clear distinction has been denoted that a revolution or a change of political regime provides no ground for revision of the undertaken international obligations. Furthermore, Russia has not severed its diplomatic relations with and recalled diplomatic recognition of Ukraine.

6) The so-called “Crimean referendum” is illegitimate from the perspective of national law. The “referendum” took place with multiple violations of the Constitution of Ukraine, the law on the all-Ukrainian referendum, and the law on local governance in Ukraine. In 2014 in its court ruling the Constitutional Court of Ukraine also recognised the referendum as such that conflicts with the Constitution.

7) The “Crimean referendum” is illegitimate in terms of international law. The so called “referendum” was held under the conditions of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine according to regulations ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘d’ and ‘g’ of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, that is sending armed groups, irregular troops or mercenaries who carried out acts of armed force by or on behalf of the State (forceful seizure of Crimea’s authorities). The absence of resistance does not cancel the fact of an act of aggression (follows from Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949). The fact of Russian military involvement in the special Crimea’s return operation was recognized by Vladimir Putin. On March 27, 2014 by a vote of 100 in favour, the Assembly adopted a resolution titled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”, calling on States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any change in the status of Crimea or the Black Sea port city of Sevastopol, and to refrain from actions or dealings that might be interpreted as such.

“Referendum” was held in violation of international standards for international observers, the duration of preparation (less than 20 days), transparency and freedom of agitation. The questions of the “referendum” in Ukrainian and Russian, as well as Crimean Tatar language were different. In the first case, they used the term “reunification”, in the second case it was “accession”. The “referendum” could not be a form of the principle of self-determination of nations for the reason that the subject of such self-determination is Crimean Tatars, who already had autonomy. Position of Ukraine concerning Autonomous Republic of Crimea was supported in various ways by G7, EU, Council of Europe, NATO, the UN Security Council, the OSCE, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and by a number of states.

8) The Russian Federation has carried out a military occupation of Crimea. The fact of military occupation is confirmed by international humanitarian law and the summary of the International Court of Justice’s case of the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: “Territory which came under the control of the occupying power is considered occupied”. Here the control takes place.

9) Since the beginning of the military occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Russia are in a state of international armed conflict. The international armed conflict is taking place as a result of the commission of an act of aggression against Crimea.

10) The Russian Federation is fully responsible for the crimes committed by it under the conditions of military occupation. The terrible situation concerning human rights in the Crimea under the conditions of military occupation is confirmed in the reports of the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House. The fact that the responsibility for human rights in the occupied territory lies on the Russian Federation is confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly by Ilascu and others against Moldova and Russia, where Russia has been recognized as “responsible for human rights in Transnistria.”

11) The Russian Federation has conducted an act of aggression in Eastern Ukraine, in particular, according to regulations ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘e’ of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. In the world, Russia’s actions are recognized as military aggression/acts of aggression and interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine (The Council of the EU, NATO, PACE, UN, etc.).

12) The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America case is a legal basis for international legal assessment of the Russia’s actions in Ukraine. In the context of the “Nicaragua” case, it can be deduced that:

1. “The interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine” should be considered as “training, arming, supplying, financing and other means of support”
2. Illegal flights are a violation of state sovereignty
3. Losses are to be compensated

On the basis of this case, it can also be affirmed, that the very fact of sending armored groups and providing financial support is an armed attack on Ukraine, which confirms the act of an aggression.

13) The newly-created “LNR” and “DNR” have become the main tool of the Russian aggression. Those are separatist formations and terrorist organizations. The “LNR” and “DNR” are illegal in the framework of Ukrainian legislation on local self-government and are covered by Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: “encroachment on the sovereignty of the territorial integrity”. The “LNR” and “DNR” are terrorist organizations (according to Article 258 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) as a result of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. One of the Russian Federation’s acts of aggression is particularly the creating of the “LNR” and “DNR,” conducting illegitimate “referendums”, on which soldiers of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have voted. For these purposes, intelligence and diversionary groups were sent to Ukraine, headed by staff officers of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia.

14) The “LNR” and “DNR” are the authorities of Russia and act as official representatives of the government of the Russian Federation. There is a real connection between the “LNR” and “DNR” on the one side and Russia on the other, in a form of control, heading and planning. There is plenty of evidence of Russia providing the “LNR” and “DNR” with military, logistical, economic and financial support, particularly by sending the illegal “humanitarian convoys”. On the basis of 2007 Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia case an effective control of Russia over the “LNR” and “DNR” can be proved (“an effective control over the activity, particularly by giving them instructions for conducting operations”.) On the basis of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia case on Duško Tadić a general control of the Russian Federation over the “LNR” and “DNR” can be proved (“ an overall control over the activity, for instance, financing, armoring and training”). An effective or general control shows that the “LNR” and “DNR” are official authorities of the Russian Federation’s government. Actions of the “LNR” and “DNR” may be directly considered as actions of Russian regular army.

15) Since the beginning of the aggression in eastern Ukraine, our country and the Russian Federation are in the state of international armed conflict. Based on the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the case of Duško Tadić and the case of Boskoski (“characteristics of an armed conflict are defined by organization of forces, duration of armed clashes, the area of clashes and their intensity”), it can be asserted that an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine does exist. The fact that “LNR” and “DNR” are the authorities of the Russian Federation only confirms this conclusion.

16) Minsk agreement is for the time being the only legal basis for the settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. These agreements initially had the status of modus vivendi (informal agreement between the parties involved in the confrontation), which means they were a political declaration. The state considered the international armed conflict to be a counterterrorist operation and continued to negotiate with the aggressor state. Ukraine declared Russia to be the aggressor state, but did not impose martial law. “Hybrid war” resulted in “hybrid” Minsk agreement and “hybrid” Minsk diplomatic process. Minsk-2 was a framework and questionable document from the point of view of international law. Along with this all has changed after the approval of the text of Minsk-2 by the UN Security Council Resolution 2202. Since the adoption of this Resolution the text shall come into obligatory legal force.

17) Acts of Russia against Ukraine are the grounds for bringing the Russian state and senior officials of the Russian Federation to the international legal responsibility. The use of mechanisms within the UN Security Council (recognizing Russia as the aggressor, applying coercive or military measures against it) seems to be futile given the Russia’s “bloody” veto. The use of the mechanism of the UN Security Council Resolution “Uniting for Peace” (removal of the aggressor from the session by the ¾ majority vote, i.e. 129 votes of the General Assembly) is more realistic. It should be noted that the UN General Assembly can take a political decision on the recognition of Russia as the aggressor.

18) Ukraine has a wide range of opportunities to sue Russia in the international courts.Ukraine may apply to the International Court of Justice on the basis of: a) International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 2001, b) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, a) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (on the Crimean Tatars), d) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997, e) the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944 in the context of shooting down the Malaysian Boeing flight MH17. The application of the mechanism of advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (concerning the issues of the Russian aggression in the east of Ukraine or the illegal occupation of Crimea) is also promising.

Ukraine may initiate proceedings in the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Permanent Arbitration court in The Hague, the High Court of London (as “debt dispute”) and under the special procedures of the Council of Europe, OSCE etc.

19) “Ukrainian precedent” of the Russia’s hybrid aggression caused the appearance of “Ukrainian lessons”. These “lessons” became the basis for partial destructive crisis of International law. This crisis means that today not law, but power regulates key “geopolitical” relations between states.

20) The world is still divided into those states and leaders that respect International law, and those who despise it. Russia continues to claim that it respects and even rescues the International law, while its leader has already committed enough crimes to be judged by the international tribunal. Russia violated at least 300 international agreements and it still remains unpunished.

21) The International law crisis means an informal review of international commitments regarding everyone, including Russia. The world is entering into a phase of strengthening International relations’ chaos on a background of reducing its safeness, which threatens as a general “war of all against all”.

22) The world today faces the appeal against the International legal reality. Putin defies the fundamental basics of the West foreign policy. The Kremlin demands for a status of International politics equal participant. The manifestation of such recognition, according to Moscow, is an obsolete Cold War principle, namely dividing the spheres of influence. According to the Kremlin, in such divide Ukraine has a role of satellite dependent on Russia.

23) An artificial crisis of International law system in Ukraine means gradual “smoothing” and the actual dismantling of International relations system developed after World War II. What is happening in Ukraine is a matter of basic principles governing relations between States in the 21st century. Confrontation between Ukraine and Russia is not another local conflict, but it marks the beginning of the change of “international rules.”

24) At the present stage Ukraine has to act as a subject of the World politics with significant dependence on other international actors. Ukraine did not use its brilliant geopolitical and geostrategic potential. In this regard, in the 2013-2016 our state had not got a full capability to realize its geopolitical project. Ukraine found itself in so-called intersystem periphery or geopolitical turbulence zone. At the same time Russia was unable to fully achieve its goals. Russia failed to destroy an independent Ukrainian state and Ukrainian prospect.

25) The most effective strategy against Putin’s aggression is the strategy of his “elimination”. Such elimination, on the one hand, includes international economic, informational, political, security and legal measures, and on the other hand, it means a formation of successful, reformed and economically prosperous Ukraine.

Source: iac.org.ua

Source: http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/04/30/russian-aggression-against-ukraine-and-international-law-25-key-theses/

RT, here’s your challenge.  If I can give you an example of RT inventing news, will you pay me a half a million rubles?  Do you accept my challenge?

I thought not…

</end editorial>

A Russian friend posted a link today to an article titled “Russian Megaliths in America”.

“Proof” that the Slavic culture inhabited, civilized, and then abandoned America.

It’s one big coverup that Russians originally inhabited America.

The cities were destroyed and their building stones and columns were used to build American breakwaters.

Breakwaters.

Breakwaters are generally shore-parallel structures that reduce the amount of wave energy reaching the protected area. They are similar to natural bars, reefs or nearshore islands and are designed to dissipate wave energy.

– The US Army Corps of Engineers: http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx?p=s&a=ARTICLES;187

I’m going to post only the link to the story here, it’s in Russian.

If you’re into whacko theories, have at it. Russia alternative theories. But I repeat myself.

Now I’m relatively certain my friend is whacko, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Get help, my friend, get help.

https://cont.ws/post/261299

May 03 2016

The member countries of the West are finally reacting to Russian State sanctioned propaganda and intelligence operations.

Russia, of course, cries foul when they do the same themselves.

I find it very interesting that nowhere in the English version of this article does it mention that Leonid Sviridov is a journalist for RT, only in the Russian language version.

</end editorial>

smh

Russian revisionism continues, Putin has decreed. So it shall be.  Stalin is no longer vilified.

Russian reality is as it is painted.

</end editorial>

(Translated from Russian by my Chrome browser)

Larisa Sokolnikova , Novosibirsk News

As reported on the website of the Novosibirsk regional branch of the Communist Party, the appearance of several dozen banners with the portrait of Joseph Stalin Supreme Commander and the words “Happy Victory Day!” Timed to coincide with the 71st anniversary of the Soviet people’s victory in the Great Patriotic War.

Novosibirsk Komsomol members came to the rally to celebrate Joseph Stalin’s birthday

“The process of change in the attitude to Stalin in the Russian society has long been noted by observers. For example, last year for the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the wall of the Novosibirsk plant “Tyazhstankogidropress” appeared portrait of the Generalissimo. The fact that the Communist Party today restores historical justice, positively perceived by the participants of the Great Patriotic War “, – said in a statement.According to the deputy of the regional Legislative Assembly, Communist Zhirnova Andrew, is the most large-scale campaign in the country over the past 50 years.

“Liberals and Democrats are unhappy, but most of Novosibirsk were pleasantly surprised by the appearance of Stalin portraits on billboards», – he added.

He believes that, despite the contradictory personality of the leader, can not detract from its role in the victory over the Nazis.

Source: http://nsknews.info/news/159539

KM.RU, a Russian “news site”, just published an article by Valentin Katasonov: “Panama scandals and a secret plan of Davos-2016” (in Russian).

A quick review of Valentin Katasonov’s articles indicates he works full time writing articles derogatory of the West, blaming the West for all of Russia’s ills. 

This particular article blames the Panama Papers incident on “the main shareholders of the Fed. Leading performers – US intelligence agencies.”  

Want proof?  Evidence?  Corroboration?  Substance?  Here’s their proof:

Without going into details, we can say that the customer and the organizer of this operation were the owners of money – the main shareholders of the Fed. Leading performers – US intelligence agencies. 

In other words, no proof. Such is fabricated news in Russia.  Wholly made up.  Wholly without substance. Wholly false, fake, and lies.

…and again, this was posted by a Russian Foreign Ministry expert on information warfare.

The remainder of the article is quite the opposite of “Without going into details”.

Mr. Katasonov spares no words to convince the world that the banking system of the West is going to consume the world and put the rest of us into an “Electronic Banking Concentration Camp”.

Of course the target audience is the Russian people, with an external enemy preying on a weak and helpless Russia.

Also, FUD stands for “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt”.  This is what Mr. Katasonov and Mr. Panarin hope to sow in anyone susceptible in the West with these articles constantly pointing out the wholly fabricated evils of the West.

If only Russia had proof, somebody might actually believe them.

“No proof Russian air strikes in Syria killed civilians – Lavrov”

“Russia Says No Proof It Sent Troops To Ukraine”

“Unknown soldiers occupy Crimean airports“

Read the words carefully, but be very flexible on your interpretation.

The Moscow Times has fluctuated in its perspective. Sometimes so pro-Kremlin it’s nauseating. Sometimes it is so pro-Western I have to wonder how the author writes this and expects to live.

In this article there is a dichotomy. Most of the article is a damning indictiment against the iron-fisted rule of Putin over any instrument which may be a tool of expression. Then the article turns around and almost blesses this control, it implies it gives hope for the future.

Color me confused.  But, then again, we are talking about Russia.  Is only part of the article true and the rest is designed to placate the pro-Russian censors?  Do I need to pick and choose which parts I believe?  Is the editor editing only part of the story and forgetting the rest?

I notice two fairly severe spelling errors (I left them uncorrected), which seem typical of most Americans, perhaps the editor went to school in Russia?

smh

</end editorial>

By Vasily Gatov

May. 05 2016 12:49

Five years ago, then-President Dmitry Medvedev met with leading representatives of Russia’s online media community — digital entrepreneurs, executives, scholars, authors and some opposition-minded bloggers. The gathering took place in a refurbished Moscow City Youth Library, and it had the look and style of a U.S. town hall meeting.

Back then, exactly one year before President Vladimir Putin’s return to Kremlin, the reality of Russian media seemed so different. The participants addressed matters of the future, they spoke about innovation and openness, competitiveness and globalization. Of course, they talked about the problems: about free speech, media development and excessive state participation. But the assumption was that government was open for discussion. After all, Medvedev had promised an innovation economy.

Today, however, Russian media has been transformed from head to toe. Over five difficult years, state doctors have taken a scalpel to any “organs” non-compliant to the new rules — like RIA Novosti in December 2013. They applied “legal chemotherapy” to the rest, literally expelling foreign capital from media business. Aesculapian authorities practiced laparoscopic manipulations to remove undesirable journalists and editors from news outlets. And under a “genetic” treatment, the principles of editorial independence and freedom of expression were replaced by values of censorship, loyalty, manipulative propaganda and agenda-setting.

Roughly half of the participants of the famous Medvedev meeting in May 2011 are now either expelled from mass media, or live under scrutiny and legal persecution. Svetlana Mironyuk works for a bank, Anton Nossik had been charged for supposed “extremism” in a blog post, while the Russian startup leaders are now mostly based in California’s Silicon Valley.

An even bigger change occurred outside the media business. Over those five years, the Kremlin learned a trick or two about its public. It now understood that propaganda works only when you have reframed and primed your audience. Academics have yet to study the mass social manipulation that took place between 2012 and 2016. But we can say with some certainly that Russia has witnessed a shift from relatively pluralistic and open media to a new form altogether. Today Russian media channels a “besieged fortress” mind-set, and represents a jingoistic and socially conservative tribe that negates any kind of “foreign values.” The demand for neutral journalism has all but disappeared.

This transformation could not have happened without pressure from above. But it has also taken on an energy of its own. In order to “satisfy” the demand for a conservative mind-set, major Russian news outlets have became even more nationalistic, anti-Western and conservative than required.

There are few truly independent media companies operating in Russia today, and even fewer influential ones. Within dependent — controlled by state or its oligarch-agents — newspapers and television stations, laparoscopic exercises continue. This is the case with RBC (RosBusinessConsulting), arguably Russia’s most thorough and independent news organization, but ultimately dependent on the wider business interests of its billionaire owner, Mikhail Prokhorov. Whatever the reasons that have been given regarding the departure of editor-in-chief Yelizaveta Osetinskaya, it is safe to assume the Kremlin pushed Prokhorov to appoint a less combative editor to head the publication.

Putin’s five-year plan to conquer the media and free speech is celebrating an undoubted success across all traditional, broadcast and digital media. The commercial press, whether pro-government, oppositional or neutral, has been forced to adopt his agenda. It is an agenda that considers Russia to be more important then Russians, the state to be superior to citizens and power to be better then freedom.

You may pray for it or you may condemn it. But you can’t avoid it. As journalist, author or editor in Russia you act under the scenario of Putin’s playbook, leading down a road of no return, right up to the media cemetery.

Yet, with all such apocalyptic pictures in mind, there is a professional resurgence in some distinct areas — like the Latvia-based Meduza news website, the advocacy-based Takie Dela and Mediazona, and the education-based Arzamas.Academy, Open Lectures and Open University. Those startups feature innovative ideas, advanced journalism and creative use of content — and employ the creme de la creme of modern Russian journalists.

Smaller and less ambitious in scale then earlier democratic media, these experiments, in fact, secure the future of socially responsible communication in Russian society.

When society will ask for it again, however, is another question.

Source: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/567947.html

By Anne Applebaum and Edward Lucas May 6 at 9:28 PM

Anne Applebaum, a Post columnist, and Edward Lucas, a senior editor at the Economist, are this week launching a counter-disinformation initiative at the Center for European Policy Analysis, where they are, respectively, senior vice president and senior adjunct fellow.

Some countries are waking up to this, especially those that have been hardest hit. The invasion, occupation and dismemberment of Ukraine in 2014 was preceded by a highly effective propaganda blitz that fomented confusion in Russian-speaking areas and blinded both Ukrainians and Westerners to what was really going on. In response, Ukrainian organizations such as StopFake began to expose and ridicule Russian propaganda. A major project designed to teach “media literacy” has also been launched. A debate about the role that public broadcasters might play in reestablishing trusted sources of information in Ukraine has begun.

There have been broader attempts to tackle the problem. The European Endowment for Democracy (a much smaller counterpart to the National Endowment for Democracy) has carried out a comprehensive analysis of the Russian-language media, its reach and its impact. The European External Action Service, the E.U.’s foreign-policy arm, compiles weekly disinformation bulletins, tracking the activities of the Kremlin’s myth-makers. NATO countries have set up a small center, based in Latvia, that responds to Russian disinformation as well.

But so far, the United States has failed to invest seriously in understanding or pushing back against this problem. There is no modern equivalent to the U.S. Information Agency, an organization dedicated to coping with Soviet propaganda and disinformation during the Cold War. Although there has been some extra funding for U.S.-backed foreign broadcasters such asRadio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , they cannot provide a complete response.

Partly because the U.S. media market is so vast, there is still little understanding of how disinformation campaigns work here either. There is certainly no public analytical database of what Russia says, when and where. Nobody — even in the Western intelligence community — compiles transcripts. Nor do we know which elements of the Russian message are effective, who believes them and why. It’s high time we learned, because other countries, notably China, are beginning to use some of the same techniques. Fifteen years ago, the free press seemed unchallengeable; 15 years from now, we may find ourselves, as Ukraine did two years ago, the targets of disinformation campaigns we are unprepared to fight.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-danger-of-russian-disinformation/2016/05/06/b31d9718-12d5-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

Anonymouse Quote: “WW2 is being reinterpreted, misrepresented and mythologised by the Russian government to market the viewpoint that WW2 was almost exclusively an effort by Russians and that everybody else was irrelevant and played no useful part in the war, especially the pesky Ukrainians.”

Russia is becoming more and more soviet, including mass revisionism and extreme paranoia.  Former soviets, now leaders, realize their great wealth and power will exist only as long as Putin remains in power. Therefore, the leadership will go to extremes to maintain the status quo, fully knowing it is flawed and it subjugates the Russian citizens. Absolute control and might is held by the Russian leaders, the people  are de facto slaves to the system. Putin is right to form his own praetorian guard, for when the Russian people realize how disenfranchised and weak they have become they will revolt.

</end editorial>

The Daily Vertical: Paranoia — The Highest Stage Of Putinism 

I am currently writing an academic paper on Russian information warfare; I’m struggling with defining several abstract things as propaganda.

This article perfectly illustrates how propaganda is not just a poster, graphic, or a speech. In this case the Night Wolves motorcycle club are used as propaganda.  It was in Crimea in 2014, Harry Also made the case in “Meet the Night Wolves – Putin’s Hell’s Angels” and it applies equally today. The article does not call the Night Wolves the word propaganda, instead, the author, Masha Gessen, uses “soft power”.

Russia projects an image with everything it does, they try to associate anything Russian with power, machismo, and absolute might.

The point of this article, however, is to rightly point out that Russia is attempting to equalize the status of a motorcycle gang with an official Government delegation. This is a typical stretch of Russian logic.

Russia is displaying false umbrage for Poland denying the Night Wolves the right to cross.

#RussiaFail

Now if I can only find a way to put it in my paper…

<end editorial>

Masha Gessen

May 10, 2016

The Night Wolves isn’t just any motorcycle club; it’s the motorcycle club that’s shaping Russia’s foreign policy.

Late last month, after Poland banned the Night Wolves from riding across the country, Moscow summoned the Polish ambassador to inform her that the Kremlin was interpreting the denial of entry as a hostile act that will have consequences for which Poland will bear sole responsibility.

An official note from the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Poland’s position was particularly egregious for two reasons: because it was an “insult to the memory of those who fell fighting against Nazism,” and because a couple of weeks earlier Russia had allowed Polish officials to enter the country to honor the site where Polish leaders had died in a 2010 plane crash.

Let me try to explain. The Night Wolves is a motorcycle club that has long had special ties to Vladimir V. Putin. The Russian president has repeatedlyposed for photographs with club members and has given a medal to its leader — best known by his nickname, the Surgeon — who has campaigned for Mr. Putin. The Night Wolves is also widely known in Russia for its patriotic New Year’s parties for children. It is the semiofficial, macho, flamboyant, celebratory arm of the Russian government. The club hasacknowledged receiving about a million dollars in federal funding over 18 months. The Surgeon has said that’s not enough.

One of the Night Wolves’ activities is the Moscow-Berlin Victory Ride, which the group first attempted last year, in honor of the 70th anniversary of the end of what Russia calls the Great Patriotic War and the rest of the world remembers as World War II. (Then, too, they had to bypass Poland.)

That the most direct route from Moscow to Berlin runs through Poland is not merely a matter of geography. In 1939, Hitler and Stalin divided the country between them in a secret protocol to the Hitler-Stalin pact. After taking possession of its share, the Soviet Union executed, arrested and deported hundreds of thousands of Polish citizens. Soviet terror reigned in eastern Poland for nearly two years before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. According to Soviet and now Russian historiography, this was when the war began — and this is the main distinction between World War II and the Great Patriotic War.

When it was over, the Soviet Union kept a chunk of eastern Poland, and with the acquiescence of the Western powers, exercised dominance over Eastern Europe and made the Polish capital the nominal center of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet bloc’s answer to NATO.

After the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia gingerly broached the subject of the violence it had inflicted on Poland, but stopped well short of a proper reckoning. Possibly the biggest, and certainly the most heavily symbolic, part of history that Russia has never fully acknowledged is the massacre in 1940 of several thousand Polish officers and intellectual leaders in what has become known as the Katyn Forest, outside the city of Smolensk, in central Russia.

For decades, the Soviet Union blamed German troops, who occupied the area starting in 1941, for the Katyn massacre In the 1990s, Russia beganreleasing information about the executions. It was a painful, two-steps-forward-one-step-back process, and Russia has never fully acknowledged Soviet culpability.

Then something shocking happened. In 2010, a plane carrying 96 members of the Polish elite set off for Russia to take part in a memorial service at the Katyn site — and crashed outside Smolensk, killing everyone on board, including President Lech Kaczynski and the entire army command. It was an accident, but how could the Poles have believed that? Many of them still don’t, and that inability or unwillingness is a key component of the strange turn Polish politics has taken.

The leader of Poland’s current ruling party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is the twin brother of Lech Kaczynski. His party, Law and Justice, has capitalized heavily on conspiracy thinking about the plane crash. Since coming to power late last year, it has taken Poland sharply rightward. To much of the world Law and Justice looks like another European Putinite party, but to many Poles it looks like the ultimate anti-Putin party.

All of this memory, these politics and these politics of memory were at play when the Night Wolves were turned away at the Russian-Polish border last month. The riders were refused entry into Poland because of what they represent: Mr. Putin personally, denial of Soviet culpability for the Katyn massacre, denial of the Soviet occupation of Poland during World War II, never-ending heartache.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in its outrage over the blockade and in pointing righteously to Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s recent visit to Russia to mark the anniversary of the plane crash, is profoundly tone-deaf. It appears to compare a Polish government delegation with a Russian motorcycle gang, a man grieving for his twin to a group commemorating a decades-old military triumph and a tragic accident to Nazi terror. But such is the cynical core of Russian propaganda: It turns everything into the moral equivalent of everything else.