Pickup from yesterday:
US State Department - and the West - warns about Russian disinformation: Russia 1) says West is Russophobic, 2) rewrites history, 3) says the West is in decline, 4) is victim of US sponsored revolutions and 5) sows confusion.
I seized upon the futility in establishing narratives and using narratives as logic. If statement P is wrong, then ¬(P) must be true.
Not so for narratives, but because of how our mind works, we implicitly assume it to be the case. People will end up believing that the “fact-checking” of these claims actually smashes them to the ground and proves the opposite.
Then I started digging into (2) just to see who said what.
I ended up following a single trail relating to the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The cheatsheet
- US State Dep. convulses on any utterance by Putin. They distill a broader set of statements into a single one and extrapolates into a narrative geopolitically beneficial to Russia.
- Sergey Radchenko reads Putin as if he was trying to establish a new narrative.
- Putin implodes when the West tries to express any narrative which discredits Russia.
- The EU runs the gamut from chauvanistic self-overestimation to zealous liberalistic puritanism. They are suspicious of anything from Kremlin. They demand that we all join ranks in condemnation of the past.
The trail - reader’s experience version
-
US State Dep. on disinformation
[…] in an attempt to minimize and rationalize Stalin’s decision to align himself with Hitler, Putin published a twisted version of the start of World War II, downplaying the Soviet role and shifting blame for the war to other countries.
Since I was not aware that Stalin started WW2 - I thought Hitler did - I followed the link to:
-
a ForeignPolicy.com article by historian Sergey Radchenko Vladimir Putin Wants to Rewrite the History of World War II who cites …:
-
Putin in a CIS meeting speech where he reacts to …
-
EU resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe
-
The resolution is part of an ongoing EU strategy. The discussion preceding sheds some light on who and why.
The trail - chronological version
It is easier understanding people’s motivations if you see them in a cause and effect context.
The EU resolution:
EU is a universe of its own.
The resolution is one in many that hails a new kind of citizen: Denouncing the past. Banning display of past relics, fighting the resurgence of ideology by demanding all states to join in condemnation of past sins. By so doing, the European citizens will be seen to be the innocent victims of yesterday’s demagoguery emerging from the ashes of tyrants’ empires fallen. They have bathed in the river of penitence and have washed the scourge of ideology from their minds and are thus unable to commit crimes.
EU suffers from the conviction that if you ban swastikas and hammer and sickle symbols, and form chains of people holding hands, then the new generation will not become fascists.
Putin never stood a chance of understanding what was asked of him.
15: Maintains that Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet totalitarian regime; calls, therefore, on Russian society to come to terms with its tragic past;
EU sees Nazism and Stalinism as the source of all suffering during WW2. All states must unite in condemning these ideologies…
to raise the younger generation’s awareness of these issues by including the history and analysis of the consequences of totalitarian regimes in the curricula and textbooks of all schools in the EU; calls on the Member States to support the documentation of Europe’s troubled past, for example through the translation of the proceedings of the Nuremberg trials into all EU languages;
Like Germany, Russia should be penitent for centuries.
Putin doesn’t get that. Russia already turned its back on communism. What is the EU then talking about?
Was Russia better served with communism than the chaos that privatisation turned out to be? Check the numbers. Could USSR protects its citizens? Putin thinks so.
So Vlad states it as something indisputable.
PUTIN
Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.
[…]
Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly.
[…]
Our society was generating […] the will for a new and free life. In those difficult years, the people of Russia had […] to accomplish the most difficult task: how to safeguard their own values, not to squander undeniable achievements, and confirm the viability of Russian democracy. We had to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state.
Extra snippets included by me because this quote seems to convince the West that Putin pines for the Stalin era.
The EU does not like such statements:
6: Condemns all manifestations and propagation of totalitarian ideologies, such as Nazism and Stalinism, in the EU;
The EU attitude is clear: NOTHING about communism was good! Putin himself must say so.
Brief detour
At this point, I need to express my own attitude to that EU project:
Read books, journals, transcripts, historical material. Form your own opinion. Strive to disagree with any organization provocatively handing out canonical bulls.
They suggest that schools should hand out transcripts of the Nuremberg trials.
To what effect? Trigger an immune response, so every time the pupil sees anything suggesting that nazi or stalinist ideology could be beneficiary, they cringe and vomit?
All we ask is that if you are a neo-nazist or neo-stalinist that you wear visible swastikas and hammer and sickle so the youth of the future can condemn you properly and form handholding chains around you like immune cells protecting society.
If these unsuspecting pupils really saw ideological writings for the first time, nothing can prevent them from falling in love, from seeing with the eyes of the purist, the enthusiast, the one caring for their class, their country, their future.
The real problem remains unresolved: How could it transpire that what started as romanticism and/or idealistic thinking ended up causing so much pain and suffering?
The cure against nazism and stalinism is to read the literature of the ideologies as well as the history that unfolded. Somewhere the unthinkable happened: A well intentioned revolution went rogue (communism) or a quest for the healty turned insidious (nazism).
The purists in EU are teetering on the edge of both.
RASA JUKNEVIČIENĖ
Having been born in occupied Lithuania, I would not have believed that I would ever stand in this hall as a member of the European Parliament. I am a living example that the expansion of the European Union and NATO best blurs the dividing lines drawn by tyrants.
dividing lines remain in eastern Europe. The Kremlin continues to seek to keep under its influence the countries that want to join us - Ukraine, Moldova and Sakartvela;
because Russia is the biggest victim of the Pact. The Kremlin, which lives in the spirit of Molotov, promotes the worship of Stalinism and spreads lies.
“join us”, the lambs who live in light versus staying with them, the worshippers of Baal Stalin.
Where are the sociologists in all this? Anyone worth his/her salt would immediately recognise the signs of a subculture slowly imploding into a sect.
Other MEPs are less “young” about the whole business.
BRONIS ROPĖ
Today’s debate is another opportunity to remind us that we must not leave history on the sidelines. We must resist attempts to glorify the actions of communist, fascist and totalitarian regimes and any attempt to downplay the crimes of these extremely brutal regimes.
Putin shoots back in all directions possible. He defends the honour of Russia.
Yes, we know who Stalin was, we have given our assessments of him. But I think the fact remains that it was Nazi Germany that invaded first Poland on September 1, 1939, and then the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.
Why do they fail to meet? Can’t you ask Russia nicely to condemn Stalinism? Why the overreaction? Because Putin, like Trump, does not believe a country can be strong without pride. He cannot possibly see the EUs gambit as well-intentioned.
Honestly, I’m not myself sure it is.
The smell was certainly in the room during the EU debate. Gilles Lebreton reacted to it like this:
GILLES LEBRETON
We must never forget the atrocities committed by these two totalitarian systems, communism and Nazism.
This duty to remember weighs particularly heavily on Europe, the continent that gave birth to them. We must pass on the memory of past horrors to prevent them from happening again.
However, I warn the European Parliament against the temptation of using them to attack today’s Russia. Russia has cut ties with the Soviet Union since 1991 and has become a respectable state, which deserves to be treated as a partner rather than an enemy.
Gilles’s party is of course also on the wrong side of the fence by today’s standards.
Putin’s speech at the CIS meeting:
Either Putin misread the intention of the EU resolution, or he got the picture perfectly clear.
He probably saw a thinly veiled attack on Russia once again:
If EU are the self-recognised anti-fascists, then guess what Russia will have to be.
EU RESOLUTION:
Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence;
PUTIN
I was surprised, even somewhat hurt by one of the latest European Parliament resolutions
[…]
What does it say? According to this paper, the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany), as they write further, divided Europe and the territories of independent states between two totalitarian regimes, which paved the way for World War II. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ‘paved the way to WWII…’ Well, maybe.
“Well maybe”. So not a flat out denial like the US claimed.
Hitler’s invasion of Poland made England and France declare war on Germany and therefore most historians label that event the start of WW2. Open war between three major countries is a clear signal that the game is afoot.
Clearly Putin reacts to something he deems is an attempt to smear his country. Perhaps he misreads EU’s intentions, perhaps he is on then mark.
Sergey Radchenko’s article
Fast-backward to the article Sergey wrote on Putin’s speech.
Sergey gives little credit to Putin as a historian:
Putin the amateur historian would not get a passing grade at any reputable university. Nor would he be able to get his views published in any peer-reviewed journal. Although the factual side of his presentation checks out, he has twisted his evidence to support preconceived notions. He is also guilty of gross omissions.
However some of the claims seem to be defensible:
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.
[…]
There is nothing about this claim that would lead serious historians to object. It is hardly unconventional to argue that Munich was an important turning point on the road to World War II.
Shouldn’t Sergey tell that to the EU? Because they seem to promulgate a different view, namely that we would have had peace in Europe without the insidious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Sergey do object to a lot of deeper details. I recommend his article.
After all, Stalin, just like then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Daladier, was playing for time, and the presumed Polish nonagreement to the transit of Soviet troops is better understood as a convenient excuse for inaction rather than a real obstacle to an early Soviet-led war against Germany.
The luxury of being a historian is the same as the duty: Narrate everyone’s motives as truthfully as you can.
At this point, you dear reader, must decide: Is the EU most in line with Sergey’s summary or is Putin?
-
EU demands that Russia admits to the importance of the M-R pact as the launch of the war and as a purely cynical deal struck between two totalitarian powers.
-
Putin demands that the nuances come into the light. Probably this is the reason behind US State Dep’s claim that disinformation theme #5 is to sow confusion.
PUTIN:
[…] promoting the thesis that Poland, the Baltic countries and the West really started the war. I do not think we have ever said anything like this, or that any of the above countries were the perpetrators.
Putin loves Russia. It may be his biggest weakest spot. He cites from the archives a diplomat making a few inquries as to the feasibilty of helping Czechoslovakia, and then uses that to conclude that Russia would actually have helped them:
PUTIN:
So what does this mean? It means the Soviet Union was ready to help Czechoslovakia, which Nazi Germany was going to rob. But the agreement between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia stated that the Soviet Union would do this only if France fulfilled its obligations to Czechoslovakia. France linked its aid to Czechoslovakia to support from Poland. But Poland refused to provide it.
Such a statement is bound to be political dynamite when expressed in 2024. And for sure, Poland reacted. Sergey Radchenko too felt this was a stretch:
SERGEY RADCHENKO
Indeed, none of the evidence he cites shows that the Soviet Union was genuinely committed to Czechoslovakia’s defense. Even as he accuses the British and the French of “cynicism,” he seems unwilling to see Stalin as a cynical operator who would have been overjoyed to see Germany and the West at each other’s throats.
Why should I disagree? Many communists of the time would agree. As to all things in history, though, I would exercise extreme caution before arriving at any conclusion.
WALTER HELD
The Czech bourgeoisie as well as the other “peace powers”, France, England, etc., does not at all defend abstractly the peace and the freedom of man, but the peace of 1918 which gave her dominion over nine million Slovaks, Germans, Ruthenians, Hungarians and Poles and the freedom to oppress and exploit these nine million as well as the proletariat of its own nation. The same holds true for the peace and the freedom which England and France, the allies of Czechoslovakia, defend.
The US Department of State:
In 2020, in an attempt to minimize and rationalize Stalin’s decision to align himself with Hitler, Putin published a twisted version of the start of World War II, downplaying the Soviet role and shifting blame for the war to other countries. Russia often takes this a step further by labeling those who disagree with its twisted version of history as Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.
So honestly no historians feel that the US State Department comes across as dishonest as the Kremlin? A lot of these “disinformation” narratives are very hard to quantify. Furthermore, almost everything the US writes, looks like a godsend chance to dream out loud.
Russia turns to one of its favorite labels to attempt to hit back: “Russophobia.”
There is no such thing as Russophobia. Completely unrelated to Crimea, Russia really was involved in the US elections in both 2016 and 2020 in a way that is leaps and bounds beyond the USAID programs’ contributions.
Russia pushes the false claim that Western civilization is collapsing
Rest assured: The US will prevail. Very stable country. Thomas Jefferson, should he come back from the dead, would immediately recognise his country.
This “values”-based disinformation narrative evokes ill-defined concepts including “tradition,” “family values,” and “spirituality.”
Why is this even listed as a disinformation narrative? The Western system of traditions is changing. Possibly for the better.
Russia has accused the United States of either instigating uprisings or plotting “color revolutions” in Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Ukraine, and throughout the Middle East and Africa.
What is the point in denying US involvement all over the world?!
Final words
All the stated themes are worth diving into, but I have chosen to dig in just one direction.
EU desires to disassociate with anything totalitarian.
EU adopts a resolution aimed at silently shifting responsibility for Hitler, Mussolini and all the WW2 atrocities from their own continent to a Nazi-Stalin plot initially, and from there, as far east as possible.
Europe: You have provided just as murderous dictators as every other continent. You share the spilled blood and the guilt just as much as Russia does.
/PARADISE LOST