Propaganda Inversion: Cold War I vs. Cold War II
Cold War I vs. Cold War II
Publication: 2022-11-14
Update 2022-11-14: My apologies. The “in text” link to the Gilbert Doctorow article was broken. It is now fixed. Additional sources are added with a little sub-text to invoke a smile in these dark times.
Update 2022-11-15: Added the most recent The Duran discussion. The meeting between Burns and Naryshkin is confirmed (i.e the heads of the intelligence services of Russia and USA) by the Antiwar article which is also added.
Update 2022-11-16: An “Update Revised” section has been added. The ABC deserved to be picked upon in the initial update. I felt it only fair to use similar analytics on a publication from Independent Media. This is the basis of this final update.
A reading of this article, and its initial update are available.
Introduction
It is widely believed in "the west" that the USSR used propaganda both internally and externally to keep its population under control and to serve as a beacon for the international communist movement. I believe both of these, though more in the former case. I have, however, no basis on which to make this claim. I am not a student of the USSR or of the international communist movement. I am also checked by Ray McGovern's claim that the vast majority of the CIA's data in monitoring the USSR (80%) was obtained from "open sources", by which he means reading Pravda and other Russian newspapers and listening to or reading speeches made by its political or military leadership. This statement does not deny the above. He, as an intelligence analyst, was trained in how to separate unverifiable or wild claims from the rest.
I will assume the above assessment, that the USSR used propaganda in a widespread manner for deliberate effect and that this was less so in "the west" during Cold War I.
An Inversion on the Scale and Success of the Use of Propaganda
A recent article by World Geostrategic Insights is a transcript of an interview with Eric Denécé, a former French military intelligence officer. The interview focuses on propaganda and a more informed or rational assessment of the lead up to and current staus of the conflict on the ground of Ukraine between Russia and USA/NATO. He summarizes the core of his comparison between the propaganda efforts by the Russian Federation and the USA/NATO block in the following:
While it is undeniable that Moscow seeks to present the facts to its advantage, its actions have nothing in common with the real information war machine implemented by the Americans and the Ukrainians. For the first time in history, “democracies” lie and misinform more than authoritarian regimes, whether we like it or not.
To reinforce his point, the banning of Russia Today by the majority of Europe is a bit of a give away. Further reinforcement is that the major western news media are reporting from Kiev repeating statements made by its regime representatives. Additionally, they don’t visit Donbas and report from "on the ground" on the other side of the conflict. It is a completely one-sided and skewed representation of events.
Gilbert Doctorow penned a recent article in which he expresses a frustration which comes from the effective propaganda being issued by the major media organisations of "the west". In this "media space" we constantly see that persons expressing ideas which are contrary to acceptable narrative are labelled as Putin apologists, or Kremlin agents or other brain-dead labels. Some of these commentators have embraces this spray paint and asked when the Kremlin will pay them for their work?
Doctorow visits an old social club of which he is a member. He describes attitudes there as “especially sympathetic to Russian culture and open to hearing nonconformist views of Mr. Putin’s Russia". The use of ad hominem attacks are anathema to discussions their. However, Doctorow finds a resistance to reasoned, informed argument with his interlocutors. He summarizes his frustration with the title of the article, "The lamentable state of intellectual discourse about the Russia-Ukraine War".
So, western propaganda is not only widespread, but also “successful” even educated circles.
[Image: a crop and resize of an image from an article by Donbass Insider.]
Some Light Through the Cracks
My recently published article moves from Dima's analysis (Military Summary Channel) to the wider geopolitical perspective with Xi Jinping's upcoming visit to Rihyad.
The starting point for that analysis was that Dima could not see how it would be possible for Russia to have withdrawn 30 000 troops and hundreds of tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieced and hundreds of tonnes of ammunition and other essential equipment from Kherson city across the Dniper and suffered no losses whatsoever. This was a perfect opportunity for Ukraine to turn this from an orderly withdrawal into a partial rout.
There is, of course, only one explanation for this and that is that an agreement was reached between Russia and the USA to deny Ukraine the intelligence they would have needed to attack the withdrawing forces. We then learn that Sullivan was in Moscow and then in Kiev in the days leading up to this withdrawal and that the discussions were about "de-escalation". Indeed, it has recently been announced that nuclear arms talks will be resumed, which is excellent news.
It is almost certain that this withdrawal plan had been drawn up or improved soon after General Surovikin was given command of the entire "Special Military Operation". He expressed from the outset that "difficult decisions may have to be made". We now understand at least one aspect of what he meant by this.
A Timeline
2022-10-08 RT announces the General Suroviki "will take command of all operations" in Ukraine
2022-10-13 earliest reports of civilians being evacuated from Kherson (outer settlements on the right bank, rather than the city)
2022-10-18 earliest reports of civilians being evacuate from Kherson City
2022-11-04 Putin declares that civilians should leave Kherson City
2022-11-09 the earliest reports emerge that Russia will be withdrawing from Kherson and surrounding territory on the right bank
2022-11-10 CNN publishes Christine Amapour's interview with Zelensky and wife
2022-11-11 Reuters reports that the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared that the withdrawal was complete. It had been completed at 5am local time that morning. 5am local time is still the previous evening, the 10th, in the USA.
Inferences and “Reveals”
There are a few "propaganda reveals" here.
Firstly, it should not be forgotten that there is a high-level contact between Russian and USA military. This was established during Cold War I as a de-escalation mechanism (or more exactly, to prevent mistakes or accidents being misinterpreted as provokations). This contact mechanism lives on to this day.
So, statements by officials representing the government that "no discussions are taking place" means no "diplomatic" discussions. This is a very silly idea, but gets run up the flagpole by western media to support the ongoing propaganda of "unified support for Ukraine". This is completely backwards. "Unified support for Ukraine" would mean finding a ceasefire as soon as possible and you can't achieve that without diplomacy.
That there was an agreement to allow the withdrawal is obvious. It is additionally obvious that the withdrawal had been under way for some days before it was announced by Russia. It doesn't matter how much of a logistical genius one is, I cannot believe that one can withdraw all of those troops and equipment across a contested zone in two days. So, the operation had to have begun before it was publicly announced, and obviously planned weeks earlier.
Next, if one believes that CNN's top international interviewer just happened to be in Kiev on the 10th then, as the Alex's from The Duran would say, "I have a bridge to sell you". I could count 5 cameras used in the first few minutes of the interview. You obviously also need a sound engineer and producer. You then want a few assistants, not to mention lighting and makeup. Many of these and their equipment may have been already in Kiev. Minimally, you need to transport Amapour and her producer there. To do that you presumably fly into Poland. You wouldn’t be able to use rail transport due to the unreliability of Ukraine's rail system because of recent Russian attacks on the power grid. Thus, Amapour and company and kit need to be driven from Poland to Kiev. To organize and execute this and give time for preparation after arrival it must have taken at least 36 hours. Plus, the video has to be edited and prepared for publication before it is released on the 10th. Thus, minimally, CNN were instructed to get Amapour to Kiev before the earliest announcements of the withdrawal. She may have been given the script later, but the logistics and travel had to have begun before the public knew about the withdrawal. Thus, this was not a random trip on CNN’s whim but was orchestrated by those “in the know” to have the interviewer at staff ready to go on the 9th or 10th, which again implies foreknowledge.
This is further evidence of contacts and arrangements between Russia and the USA.
The last crack of light, or reveal, is the second "I've got a bridge to sell you" “coincidence”. The public announcement of the withdrawal happens the day after the USA mid-term voting.
An Improved Timeline
If we put all of this together we can understand the likely sequence of events. The end result is that in 33 days Surovikin has withdrawn from Kherson the military and a large amount of the civilian population.
During early-to-mid October military evacuation plans are drawn up or improved and civilian evacuations from towns outside of Kherson City and from Kherson City itself are begun. Russia has learned what happens to civilians in areas they controlled when they withdraw. The key examples are Bucha and area west of Kharkiv. They focused on moving the civilians first, for which I give them credit. Indeed, it reinforces that they care about these people. Another snippet of care is that Russia removed from Kherson, a city created by Catherine the Great, relics and a piece of cultural history. They were moth-balled and carefully removed. I get a sneaking suspicion that Russia will have little sympathy for civilians who chose to remain, and even less for the “civilian infrastructure” of the city they have emptied.
Somewhere between mid and late October, Russia contacts the USA and informs them of intentions to withdraw and require that this will be allowed without being targeted. Only the military know how long this took. But, agreement is reached, and the date for the proclamation of the withdrawal is to be following the mid-terms.
One can understand the USA national political agenda with many or most senior USA military officers holding a conservative political outlook. Seeing as they were hoping for a "Red Tide", giving Biden the ability to dance around declaring a Ukrainian victory would have limited that potential political success. The military tend to be frank amongst themselves, and I am confident that most of the USA military would have been happy to see Kherson return to Ukrainian control. Thus, keeping a lid on this deal would not have been too difficult. The other element at play was revealed by Chief of Staff Milley when he began to call for negotiations after the withdrawal. There is certainly a faction looking to create "off ramps" or "exit strategies".
Meanwhile, the Russian military were busy enough and more time was just fine and dandy.
The civilian evacuations continue, with Putin declaring on November 4th that civilians should leave. One can assume that Russia must have received confirmation of a safe withdrawal by this time, so this was a bit of a give away if one had the perception to see it. Equally, the USA media would be all in a fit about the mid-terms and paying less attention to Ukraine which provides additional cover for the early “covert” part of the military evacuation.
The day following the mid-terms in the USA the Russian public announcement of withdrawal is made. Between these two dates much of the heavy equipment and personnel would have been withdrawn so that that last component of the operation could be achieved within around 24 hours. Interestingly, military commentators stated that it would take a week for the withdrawal. That is exactly the time it took, if you count from November 4th.
What lessons can be drawn from all of the above? For one, there are discussions under way, which is always possible at the military level, but is now admitted at the political level, with some parts of the military calling for more. There are often "back channel" discussions under way to reach agreements about which we learn very little until after the objectives of the agreement are reached. This is a lesson endlessly repeated in history.
We can see that the majority of "news" coming out of the western media is propaganda. We also learn that if one takes a wide array of sources and possesses a little patience one can finally understand much of that which was previously occluded.
But, what does the withdrawal mean?
Not much, really. Both sides can now redeploy their forces. Ukraine needs not maintain such a presence in the south, and the same is true for Russia. Both sides will build effective defensive positions.
Recent talk of Ukraine pushing from nothern Zaporizhzhia to the coast is a possibility, however one can expect that Russia will be preparing against this as it would be a devastating loss, breaking their logistic lines from Crimea.
So, the grind will continue, particularly in Donetsk. Some commentators are claiming that Russia is settling in for a long grind, which may be true. I’m a little more hopeful that increased discussions between Russia and the USA from nuclear talks while the Ukrainians continue to be ground down may provide for some hope.
Again, patience is required.
Update
Here it comes ...
The Australian government broadcaster, ABC, is "doubling down" on the approved narrative which gives us a timely study in propaganda. Yes, please. Come hither.
The article titled "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accuses Russian forces of committing war crimes in Kherson" is credited to "Reuters/AP/ABC". There is no "by line" so that nobody can be accused of writing this vacuous propaganda. Indeed, the article is as unattributable as the accusations within it. As a mathematician, I like symmetry.
The first four paragraphs of the piece are summaries of statements made by Zelensky or direct quotes. This is followed by "Reuters was unable immediately to verify his allegations." Is there a less obvious way of saying "we are just parroting what this person says and have completely abrogated our service to you, our readers, of actually checking what we print”? Or is this an agreed mechanism with the newly enshrined “fact checkers” to keep their green marks?
They continue with these unverified, unevidentiary and soon to be unattributed allegations targeted upon those who have already swallowed the hogwash they're previously massaged out of and re-printed from Reuters and AP:
Russia denies its soldiers intentionally target civilians.
Mass graves have been found in a number of places across Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion, including civilian bodies showing evidence of torture discovered in the Kharkiv region and in Bucha, near Kyiv.
Well, thank you, ABC. You referenced the exact same reprisal mass murders I have already mentioned in this article. Let me be clear; the Bucha massacre has never been independently investigated and the Russians weren't there when it happened. We all know it was the SBU. A similar situation happened in eastern Kharkiv after the withdrawal by the Russians and allies (LPR) from those areas.
The guilt by implication passive voice attribution is the core of western propaganda. This article and variations of it are what will hit western media for days. This is the "western victory" after the agreed Russian evacuation from Kherson City and its surrounds. Victory by lies and propaganda.
The ABC continues, parenthetic additions are [mine]:
Ukraine has accused Russian forces of committing the crimes. [who accused? of which exact crimes?]
A United Nations commission in October said war crimes were committed in Ukraine and that Russian forces were responsible for the "vast majority" of human rights violations in the early weeks of the war. [who? when? which commission? which report?]
The same composition tactic is at work again.
I accuse Ukraine of turning babies into salami. I accuse the moon of having higher intelligence and controlling the earth via running all of the pizza shops!
We thinking people give little credence to accusation. We want evidence, or at least attribution. [I claim to the first person to claim that our planet is run by an advanced intelligence in the moon which/who achieves its objectives by running all of the world’s pizza shops -- attribute to YesXorNo.] But, in a narrative this passive voice and lack of attribution establishes a conceptual framework. So, they follow on with the UN statement, which uses "said" not "has shown" or "accuses" or even better "documented". No, it is just "said". Since when did the UN building in New York start speaking?
To this point in the article the facts are that people "said" things. There are no links. There is no background. There is no analysis. There is nothing. This is modern propaganda, poorly constructed to look neutral. The article contains three photographs. They are of Ukrainian soldiers holding or signing flags. There are no pictures of bodies or of any signs of war crimes or of any of the other unfounded accusations about to be laid. The journalists who will not put their name to this piece of propaganda are hiding for they know that this is not journalism.
[Image: a screenshot for the ABC article capturing one of their sub-headings.]
Moving on with more "said":
Utility companies in Kherson region were working to restore critical infrastructure damaged and mined by fleeing Russian forces, with most homes in the southern Ukrainian city still without electricity and water, regional officials said.
Whoa, Nellie. Lets take this phrase by phrase.
What does "Utility companies in the Kherson region" mean? Its a bloody war zone, and Ukrainian forces have had access to Kherson City for a few days. Who the hell are these "Utility companies"?
"critical infrastructure damaged and mined by fleeing Russian forces". Really? Which critical infrastructure? Was it damaged (how or in what way?) before the mines or by the mines? And, dear ABC, they were withdrawing, not fleeing. The only people fleeing are you from your journalistic ethics.
"with most homes in the southern Ukrainian city [i.e Kherson City] still without electricity" say these dissembling troglodytes. You are telling me that in a few days, a survey has been performed to assess the electrical supply and water provision for a majority of the homes in this city of originally
280 000 people(divides by 4) 70 000 homes in two or so days, in a war zone? Who writes this crap?And then we get to the conclusion "regional officials said". Whoever these people are, if they have actually made these statements they are obviously not telling the truth. It is obvious that no survey could have been conducted in this time to assess electrical or water supply availability unless the Russians destroyed the transformers and water purification plants. And if they'd done that you would be screaming about it.
So, its is all just bullshit. The “regional officials” are lying to you and you know they are lying to you (or you are idiots). Assuming you are not idiots, you choose to continue the lying by lying to your readership. This implies that you are not journalists but complicit in the propaganda campaign. So, idiots or complicit propagandists. Take what you want.
They then move into more factual reporting after the top third of the article lays the propagandistic framework.
Would one learn that Kherson was taken by the Russians at the beginning of the conflict? That Russian journalists had been attacked by Ukranian rockets in a hotel? That Ukraine has been attacking the city for months which might account for some of the damage to infrastructure? That Russia just evacuated at least half of the population over the last four weeks? No. None of that.
The ABC should be ashamed.
This is what propaganda looks like.
Update Source
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accuses Russian forces of committing war crimes in Kherson, ABC, the afternoon of 2022-11-14 in AEDT
Update Revisited
While I hope that I have taken quite a bite out of the ABC for their dishonest, propagandist report analyzed above, I felt it only appropriate to compare that piece of trash with an article from the "Independent Media".
For this purpose I have chosen "Russia strategises with Iran for the long haul in Ukraine" by former Indian diplomat M. K. BHADRAKUMAR published 2022-11-14. The article is published in the same time period, though is not published at a news organisation but Mr. Bhadrakumar's own website.
The first thing that struck me is that M.K.B incorporates quotes into a narrative. They are not sign posts designed to create a narrative on their own, but are used to reinforce the analysis he is offering.
The two introductory paragraphs in which M.K.B sets the stage are omitted. Let us examine his third paragraph as he begins providing evidence to support his analysis:
The Iranian state media quoted Raisi as saying, “The development of the extent and expansion of the scale of war [in Ukraine] causes concern for all countries.” That said, Raisi also remarked that Tehran and Moscow are upgrading relations to a “strategic” level, which is “the most decisive response to the policy of sanctions and destabilization by the United States and its allies.”
There is no doubt about what "Iranian state media" means, that's PressTV (or whatever its called in Farsi). He inserts '[in Ukraine]' to clarify a quote, and of course, identifies who said it. There is no "regional officials said" here. The source of the quotes is identified, who said them is clearly stated and they are used to support M.B.K's analysis.
He continues in the next paragraph with:
The US State Department reacted swiftly on the very next day with spokesman Ned Price warning that “This is a deepening alliance that the entire world should view as a profound threat… this is a relationship that would have implications, could have implications beyond any single country.” Price said Washington will work with allies to counter Russian-Iranian military ties.
Again, the quote is worked into a narrative and the organisation from which it came (US State Department) and who said it (Ned Price) are provided. We can also infer the time from "the very next day".
M.K.B's next paragraph is:
Patrushev’s talks in Tehran touched on highly sensitive issues that prompted President Vladimir Putin to follow up with Raisi on Saturday. The Kremlin readout said the two leaders “discussed a number of current issues on the bilateral agenda with an emphasis on the continued building up of interaction in politics, trade and the economy, including transport and logistics. They agreed to step up contacts between respective Russian and Iranian agencies.”
He uses 'highly sensitive issues'. One may wish these to be better described, but M.K.B does not necessarily know what they are. Even if he did, as former diplomat he understands that it is entirely inappropriate to name them. He justifies his 'highly sensitive' from the fact that Putin called Raisi 'on Saturday'. One can verify this claim for he provides the link to the Kremlin readout of this conversation, which includes timing information.
Indeed, the quote from that readout contains the key phrase used by Pepe Escobar in his related commentary, "continued building up of interaction in politics, trade and the economy, including transport and logistics". M.K.B is selecting quotes by relevant officials from official sources, providing attribution and in some cases links.
The contrast to the propaganda published by the troglodytes at the ABC is stark. Note that I have provided three consecutive paragraphs following his introduction. There is no "cherry picking".
I posit that this retired Indian diplomat has a far better understanding of journalism and quality opinion writing than the persons who work in western legacy media outlets. Indeed, his understanding of the importance of words exceeds anything we see in these dinosaur legacy media. And English is not his native language!
Or, to put this another way, here is an analyst using a journalistic style from which I can learn and regularly enjoy reading. The corollary to that is that I don't read the "legacy media" because it is full of the type of article upon which I performed an autopsy in the preceding update.
Update Sources
Russia strategises with Iran for the long haul in Ukraine, M. K. BHADRAKUMAR, his website, 2022-11-14
Russia, India, China, Iran: The Quad That Really Matters, Pepe Escobar, The Unz Review (and PressTV), 2022-11-25
Sources (for main article)
Are Western Media Misinforming about Ukraine? - An interview with Eric Denécé, WGI interviews Eric Denécé, World Geostrategic Insights, 2022-11-02
No. No. They would never, have never, been a source of the ever persent mis-/dis-/information. WMDs. Oh, yeah. Wall to wall dis-information for years. Russiagate? Oh, please, leave these innocent idiots alone.
The lamentable state of intellectual discourse about the Russia-Ukraine War, Gilbert Doctorow, his website, 2022-11-11
Either their brains have gone to mush or they think there are microphones in the club. Hard to tell.
Blinken, Sullivan Don’t Agree With Milley’s Push for Diplomacy on Ukraine War, Dave DeCamp, Antiwar, 2022-11-14
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Southeast Asian Leaders Don’t Want Region to Be Frontline for New Cold War, Dave DeCamp, Antiwar, 2022-11-14
Just as shocking. They don’t want bombs, death and destruction. Don’t they know what’s good for them?
Yellen Says Some Sanctions Will Stay on Russia Even After War in Ukraine, Dave DeCamp, 2022-11-14
Okay. So it wasn’t about the war, eh? Must have been some tough love then.
Russia Says Arms Control Disputes With US Will Take Time to Resolve, Kyle Anzalone, Anitwar, 2022-11-14
No shit, Sherlock.
CIA Director Burns Meets With Russian Spy Chief in Ankara, Dave DeCamp, Antiwar, 2022-11-14
Here is an interesting article. In true Antiwar style it is short and to the point. Its just that the comments by the USA administration make no sense. The only reason to use CIA director Burns as a diplomat is because of his history as an ambassador to Russia. Lavrov is busy at the G20, and presumably the Secretary of State deputy is busy or has such a bad relationship with their counter part that they are the wrong person to send the message. Something very important and urgent was discussed. The meeting location of Ankara is also interesting; neutral ground.
Preparing for a long grind, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou, The Duran, 2022-11-13
Zelensky, "We are ready for peace." CIA Burns meets Russia's Naryshkin, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou, The Duran, 2022-11-14
Culture
Slow Ride, the first single from British band Foghat’s 1975 album “Fool for the City”, FOGHAT, uploaded 2015-12-01
NB: A thank you to Rick Beato for his music channel. It was his “TOP 20 ONE HIT WONDERS OF THE '‘70s’” publication which introduced me to this great old rock/blues song.
Check out the groove shifts and the slap bass! How does this fit the article? Patience, my friend.
If you like what you read here, you can please the author by sharing it.
Notification
Subscription is optional. Subscribers can expect notifications for most articles. Better is to use RSS, or bookmark the "Archive" page and visit at leisure. If you use Twitter, following @YesXorNo1 is also an effective notifications strategy.
Copyright and Licensing
This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture.