The American magazine The Nation and Angela Merkel recognize Russia as a winner in the information war
Information warfare is nothing new to the world of people: it began long before the invention of mechanical printing by Johannes Gutenberg, and it thrives now, in the epoch of great technological achievements in communication. As soon as mankind understood that words cut sharper than a double-edged sword, information wars started. One of them has recently been acknowledged as won by Russia – and lost by the Western countries with their relentless foreign policy. For the last twenty-five years, the USA and its NATO allies have committed so many crimes against humanity that now, to explain it all to their people, they have to directly lie to them… and, of course, declare Russia the primary enemy. Before not long ago, the Western journalists had, at least, tried to write exquisitely, mixing true and false facts; currently, they are writing pure fantasy fiction.
James Carden, reviewer of the American weekly magazine The Nation, is not the first to get sick of all those blatant lies against Russia. “In one month, its government has been accused of hacking the DNC [Democratic National Committee], orchestrating the Brexit, tacitly supporting Trump, and more,” reads the beginning of James Carden’s article The Media’s Incessant Barrage of Evidence-Free Accusations against Russia.
Western journalists want everyone to believe that “the Democratic National Committee’s computer network was compromised by Russian hackers who stole caches of DNC opposition research on Trump”. This sensational statement belongs to The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima. According to her, “the Russian hackers were so thorough that they were able to access the DNC’s e-mail and chat traffic. Yet the firm that supposedly spotted the hack, Crowdstrike, admitted it was “not sure how the hackers got in.” They were definitely sure, however, that it was the Russians”. The text obviously contradicts itself: “not sure how – sure it was the Russians”. The trueness of such a message is at least questionable.
This nonsense had been published in nine global English-speaking media volumes. They had put even more effort in distorting reality. “A self-described “former spook” took to the pages of The New York Observer on June 18…” writes James Carden. “…to declare that not only do “Kremlin hacking efforts extend far beyond the DNC” but that the Islamic State’s hacking operation, the so-called Cyber Caliphate, is actually, you guessed it, the work of the Russians: “[T]he Cyber Caliphate” said the Observer, “is a Russian false-flag operation.” Well, that escalated quickly.
The comedy show did not stop there; as for the employers of the hacking operation, the CrowdStrike company that had allegedly discovered the information leak “thinks it might be the Federal Security Service, or FSB” [emphasis added]. One might ask: had anything happened at all?! The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima tried to give an answer in her next article: “a hacker who goes by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 had claimed credit for the DNC hack. In an interview with Vice Motherboard, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be Romanian, not Russian:
— And where are you from?
— From Romania.
— Do you work with Russia or the Russian government?
— No because I don’t like Russians and their foreign policy. I hate being attributed to Russia.
— I’ve already told! Also I made a big deal, why you glorify them?”
That had been published on June 15; it took Ellen Nakashima five whole days to make up something that would save her professional career. However, she had decided to deal a final blow to her already confused readers: “Analysts suspect but don’t have hard evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is, in fact, part of one of the Russian groups who hacked the DNC”. By the very end of Nakashima’s June 20th dispatch, readers were informed that it is also possible “that someone else besides the Russians were inside the DNC’s network and had access to the same documents.” Again, who had hacked what and why? No answer.
Another source of amazing failures of many American magazines is Donald Trump. Supposedly, he enjoys the direct support of Vladimir Putin; so direct that the Russian President had personally orchestrated all those cyber-attacks with the help of the mysterious, as-yet unheard of Cyber Caliphate.
Donald Trump. Photo by: KAREN BLEIER / AFP
The belief in the true friendship of Trump and Putin and their cooperation in all spheres imaginable is based on the following “facts”: “Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin”. That sounds quite suspicious as “the overwhelming consensus among American political and national security leaders has held that Putin is a pariah”. James Carden, who had declared war on hysteria, reasons the Russophobes: “How the reporters square this with Secretary of State Kerry’s regular meetings with Russia’s foreign minister or President Obama’s periodic phone conversations with the “pariah” himself was left to the reader’s imagination”.
However, more accusations followed: “Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities” and “the Russian ambassador to the United States, breaking from a tradition in which diplomats steer clear of domestic politics, attended Trump’s April foreign policy speech”. The tradition they are referring to remains unclear, but if it exists, it is one that American ambassadors break more often than not. For example, the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, attended anti-government protests in Kiev in December 2013. He was accompanied by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland who, as of now, has become a political meme in Russian and Ukrainian culture: “a woman with hot pies that leaves disorder in her wake”.
Space for more accusations was found in such domains as sport and technology. The British newspaper The Telegraph wondered: “Is Vladimir Putin orchestrating Russian football hooligans to push Britain out of the EU?” It could be a terrific story for the future generations if it were true. Speaking of the future, The Telegraph (again) was the first to report about a “strategic development program”, which had been “drawn up for Vladimir Putin”, that “would seek to develop teleportation by 2035”. Evidence must have already been teleported to the future, because Western journalists do not need that in their current affairs.
James Carden relates the high-pitching alarming tone of the media to the NATO summit in Warsaw: “…it seems the closer we get to the upcoming summit, the further divorced from reality the media’s coverage of Russia becomes. Misinformation from our media has eroded the possibility of any détente between the United States and Russia and has put the two nuclear superpowers on a collision course on the ground in eastern Europe, in the skies over Syria, and on the Baltic and Black Seas. In times like these the public would be better served by less sensationalist, more fact-based coverage of Russia and its government”.
Two day prior to the summit, Angela Merkel made the following statement: “It is getting more and more difficult to influence Russia. Talking about Russia’s foreign policy on the European direction, nothing has changed in a radical way. At the same time, the domestic policy of the European Union is quite volatile. The number of supporters of Russia is growing with every passing year; if we are not able to change that, we will lose Europe”. The Chancellor is undoubtedly right. However, the picture is distorted by information war-mongers in English-speaking countries. They used to be experts of advocacy journalism, but now have accepted one of the key principles of Joseph Goebbels: “the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed”.
Translated by Daniil Yakovenko