“The EU and its member states have been concerned for some time about Russian propaganda, and about the fact that the counter-argument coming from the EU often seems to be poorly focused and unconvincing,” according to the BBC website.....
But it’s “unconvincing” not because of presentation flaws, or because insufficient money was put into “selling” the message, but because the dominant Western narrative on Russia and the Russian “threat” is false, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that it’s false.
That’s the basic problem that those seeking to push this narrative have. Setting up a new European TV channel, or giving money to ex-Soviet Republics to set up their own Russian-language channels to fight Russian “propaganda”, won’t remedy it.
“The Russian threat to the west”? You only have to look at a map of Europe and see how NATO has expanded eastwards since the demise of the Soviet Union to realize who is threatening whom.
“Russia is a dangerous aggressor which needs to be stopped.” This is truly risible. By any objective assessment it’s the US and its allies who are the dangerous aggressors. Was it Russia which invaded Iraq in 2003, falsely claiming it had WMDs? Or Russia which bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights in 1999? Or Russia which attacked Libya in 2011, helping to destroy a country which had the highest living standards in Africa? Or is it Russia which has killed up to 200 children in Pakistan in drone strikes since 2004?
Ouch.
RT
Anti-Russian propaganda is ‘unconvincing’, because Western narrative is false
Neil Clark
2 comments:
"Or Russia which attacked Libya in 2011, helping to destroy a country which had the highest living standards in Africa?"
Yeah man. The dicatorship of Colonel Gaddafi was the best.
Proportionality and legality.
I have to admit that although I was not for the war in Iraq based on the rationale, I was for taking out Saddam Hussein as a really bad person who had committed unspeakable crimes and was glad to see min and his cronies get what they deserved.
But General Shinseki, who was the Army Chief of Staff at the time, said it would take half a million troops to pull off. He got sacked for it and we know what happened then, and it is far from over yet.
Was it worth giving Saddam what he deserved, and was it even legal under international law. Oh, and there there's the torture.
Post a Comment