The Notion Of Disinformation (part 1)

Here comes a necessary burp about Russian Disinformation as an entity that has taken on its own life. Like Russophobia.

Both concepts likely and probably has a base in reality, but the discrepancy between reality up close and reality perceived from a distance becomes huge and misleading when writers detach the idea from the full spectrum of originating instances.

According to the US Department of State these are the main five Russian narratives of disinformation, we should look out for (kindly summarized by ChatGPT):

Coming from the US state department, we should be slightly skeptical about the neutrality of the statements. But the themes are also manifest in main stream media. This essay is about these themes when used in western media, where one OUGHT to expect neutrality.

1. Russia as a Perpetual Victim:

   • Russia portrays itself as a victim of Western aggression.
   • Uses accusations of “Russophobia” to deflect criticism of its actions.

2. Historical Revisionism:

   • The Kremlin distorts historical events to align with current political objectives.
   • Examples include downplaying the Soviet role in World War II and altering narratives about Ukraine and NATO.

3. Collapse of Western Civilization:

   • Claims that Western values are decaying, particularly focusing on LGBTQI+ rights, gender equality, and multiculturalism.
   • Presents Russia as a bastion of traditional values in contrast to the “decadence” of the West.

4. U.S.-Sponsored ‘Color Revolutions’:

   • Accuses the U.S. of instigating pro-democracy uprisings in various countries.
   • Targets civil society organizations and independent media, denying local agency.

5. Creating Confusion:

   • Uses multiple conflicting narratives to generate confusion and distract from Russia’s actions.
   • Examples include the disinformation campaigns following the Skripal poisoning and the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.

Problem 1:

How can a narrative be disinformation?

Narratives are by nature 100% interpretation of facts.

And worse, the interpretation is according to value and inclination, not even a rigorous system.

Is Russophobia real? I will try to remember it is not next time all my colleagues at work expresses their disgust, especially for communism which Russia supposedly still adheres to.

Problem 2:

Is a claim only disinformation if it originates from Russia?

The same claim coming from a completely different group is then what? Plain non-factual?

Fortunately we can answer that already! Theme number 3 and 4 at the very least are not unique to Russia. They are old staples of anti-US imperialism which can be found anywhere. The west is in moral decline / The west is in economic decline / The west is in hegemonic decline / The CIA sponsors regime change / The USAID sponsors anti-government movements etc.

O tempora o mores. When I was young, you could hurl those statements around like crazy, without being called a useful idiot. Something has changed, and I’m not sure it is Russia.

Problem 3:

Anti-disinformation as formulated by the US State Department clearly attempts to instantiate anti-narratives in lieu of the narratives they try to dispel.

The anti-narratives are harsh claims, which can now be spoon fed without proof or argument.

Problem 4:

Russia’s (and USA’s) ludicrous mentality of denying any accusation often brings them in trouble.

This top soil of accusations and refutals actually ends up representing the major trouble.

Let’s take an example:

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:

Often used by right wingers to equate communism with nazism (and historians stay silent), this pact is liable to be the root of much debate.

At the ground level, we can of course say something solid about this pact.

1. It may have been the inciting incident that kick-started the war, but claiming that it’s non-signing could have prevented Hitler’s expansionism convinces very few.
2. Stalin was buying time like the rest of the world.

Now let’s look around at some of the claims:

US Dep. of State says:

For example, the 1939 non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which helped precipitate World War II, is politically inconvenient for the Putin regime.

Full text. Now comes the top soil issues. Do they mean: War was inevitable, but it had to start at some point, and Stalin carelessly provided that excuse. Or do they mean: Stalin caused the war. He enthustiasticly encouraged Hitler to annex Poland and then gladly took the rest.

Problem is that they only have to provide proof for the easier of the first of these claims, while frankly we all know it is the second reading that will be popularised.

Compare with Leon Trotsky writing from his exile:

In order to attack Poland and to conduct a war against England and Prance, Hitler needed the friendly “neutrality” of the USSR, plus Soviet raw materials. The political and commercial pacts assure Hitler of both.

[…]

Stalin above all is afraid of war. His policy of capitulation towards Japan in recent years testifies to this. Stalin cannot make a war with discontented workers and peasants and with a decapitated Red Army. I said it many times in the last years and I repeat it again. The German-Soviet Pact is a capitulation of Stalin before fascist imperialism with the end of preserving the Soviet oligarchy.

Trotsky does not pull his punches when it comes to Stalin and he probably knows Joseph better than today’s analysts in the state department.

Putin then steps in and reads through the history books himself. More top soil.

Let me first quote from the article linked to by US State Department. It is written by a historian.

First, he argues that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, an agreement that mainstream historians would agree, contributed handsomely to the outbreak of World War II by partitioning Poland, was not particularly unusual in the context of the times. Putin draws attention to the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Nazi Germany to gobble up parts of Czechoslovakia with the full endorsement of Britain and France.

Sergey Radchenko, January 21, 2020, ForeignPolicy.com

Sergey can agree to a little bit of the way in what Putin says. But he quickly jumps off the train when Putin claims Russia would have supported France in defending Czechoslovakia (had the French chosen to do so). And then Sergey carries on to defend his claim. Who is the better historian? Putin or the rest of them? I will stay out of that one, but I can agree with Sergey that omissions are evil. (Well, if Putin really spoke eight hours quoting from archives, then I will say, though, that he probably made fewer omissions that the lazy job done by the US state department).

Many layers to unpeel.

Why does Putin find it necessary to do that? According to Sergey because of this EU resolution: On the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe

A. whereas this year marks the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, which led to unprecedented levels of human suffering and the occupation of countries in Europe for many decades to come;

B. whereas 80 years ago on 23 August 1939, the communist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed a Treaty of Non-Aggression, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, dividing Europe and the territories of independent states between the two totalitarian regimes and grouping them into spheres of interest, which paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War;

C. whereas, as a direct consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, followed by the Nazi-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939, the Polish Republic was invaded first by Hitler and two weeks later by Stalin – which stripped the country of its independence and was an unprecedented tragedy for the Polish people – the communist Soviet Union started an aggressive war against Finland on 30 November 1939, and in June 1940 it occupied and annexed parts of Romania – territories that were never returned – and annexed the independent republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia;

What do you know. While we all looked the other away, the EU decided to commemorate and canonise that Russia bears the full responsibility for “unprecedented levels of human suffering”. Just connect the dots, A-B-C.

Didn’t we just agree that historical simplicism is bad? The EU didn’t just decide to condemn the Nazi and Stalin regime. They had to tie Russia into a position where they were fully responsible for Hitler’s actions.

Ask your collective conscience at this point:

1. Does modern day Germany bear the guilt of the Nazi regime?
2. Does modern day Russia bear the guilt of the Stalin regime?

Notice that you slightly leaned towards different answers for the two questions? You may not have. But if you pose the question to ten of your friends, would they on average give the same answer to both questions?

Framed like that, it starts to smell.

/PARADISE LOST