Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

name not needed

(11,660 posts)
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 05:22 AM Mar 2014

1984 in 2014: A new propaganda war underpins the Kremlin’s clash with the West

FIREWORKS, concerts, uplifting speeches and patriotic euphoria: the Kremlin is celebrating the annexation of Crimea as though Russia had won the second world war (again) rather than grabbing a piece of land from a smaller and weaker neighbour. The public seems intoxicated by victory in a war that was begun, conducted and won largely through propaganda.

Russians have been subjected to an intense, aggressive and blunt disinformation campaign in which they were bombarded by images of violence, chaos and fascism in Ukraine, sinister plotting by the West and evidence of Russia’s strength and nobility in response. The Russian media have always shaped reality as much as they have reflected it. But in the seizure of Crimea, television played as much of a leading role as the army. Russian television, widely watched in Crimea, bolstered the loyalty of the local population while justifying the Kremlin’s actions at home.

The propaganda campaign has seen several stages since the protests on Kiev’s Maidan began, says Lev Gudkov, head of the Levada Centre, an independent pollster. It portrayed Maidan as a conspiracy by the West. It showed the protesters as nationalists, fascists and anti-Semites who had staged a putsch, posing great danger to Russian-speakers. It faked stories of Ukrainian refugees fleeing to Russia (using footage of a border crossing between Ukraine and Poland). The case for taking Crimea, to defend the Russian population from an imagined threat, morphed into Russia’s reclaiming historic lands. Addressing a crowd in Red Square, Vladimir Putin boomed: “After a long, hard and exhausting voyage, Crimea and Sevastopol are returning to their harbour, to their native shores, to their home port, to Russia!”

Nobody knows how long Mr Putin has been working on the idea of this homecoming (some say since the 2008 war in Georgia), but the appointment of Dmitry Kiselev as the face of Russian propaganda in December last year marks the moment when he began to execute it. Mr Kiselev’s anti-Western and homophobic rhetoric made him a marginal figure a few years ago. But as the new head of RIA-Novosti, the state news agency, and an anchor on the state news channel, he has become one of Mr Putin’s key weapons (and is now subject to European Union sanctions).

...

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21599829-new-propaganda-war-underpins-kremlins-clash-west-1984-2014

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
1984 in 2014: A new propaganda war underpins the Kremlin’s clash with the West (Original Post) name not needed Mar 2014 OP
And to think he knew all this was coming pangaia Mar 2014 #1
He planned for a contingency. Igel Mar 2014 #2

Igel

(35,317 posts)
2. He planned for a contingency.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:33 PM
Mar 2014

That's what you plan for.

Unless the FSB sent in diversionary groups to engineer the Euromaidan's late-January evolution and the following events, the excuses offered by Putin wouldn't have been available. The planning wouldn't have been useful in the short-term, and may not have worked out for many years. Kiselev, in fact, might have moved on. Putin plans for the long-term. We see that as a constant criticism of the West--we plan short term for the most part. We hear it from Islamists, we hear it from Russophiles, we hear it from all sorts of folk. Perhaps one day we'll learn. We used to plan long-term rather well. Something broke along the way.

Still, let's not make the foe superhuman. He just hasn't forgotten something we used to know; perhaps we can re-learn that skill. I doubt it, though: It takes a certain amount of elitism to look over the current situation and say that short-term loss is fine if it yields short-term gain. Those who mostly feel the objective effects of the short-term loss are likely to be in the bottom half of the income spectrum, which is decidedly more than 1/2 of the population.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»1984 in 2014: A new propa...