July 27, 2014
Expectedly , the British based, self-described guard dog in service of US Government foreign policy corporate outlet The Economist, as part of the Charge of the Atlanticist Brigade agitprop writes the following piece with the headline
A web of lies
Vladimir Putin’s epic deceits have grave consequences for his people and the outside world
The article blasts off by this following para
IN 1991, when Soviet Communism collapsed, it seemed as if the Russian people might at last have the chance to become citizens of a normal Western democracy. Vladimir Putin’s disastrous contribution to Russia’s history has been to set his country on a different path. And yet many around the world, through self-interest or self-deception, have been unwilling to see Mr Putin as he really is.
A “normal Western democracy”. That shows the bias straight off the bat. It shows the crux of the Russophobia runs historically deep in the British mindset: Russians are not like us “normals”. It is the same mindset that has enabled the West to slaughter those “not like us”.
Ok at least that’s just The Economists ethnocentric point of view. The next statement is truly breathtaking in its audacity against facts.
Vladimir Putin’s disastrous contribution to Russia’s history has been to set his country on a different path
His “disastrous contribution”? OK let’s look at that. The Economist, one would naively expect, actually understands economics. If one takes the blind hatred out, and look at these strange numbers called Historical Data the Putin administration pulled Russia from the shock-therapy proposed by US “experts” such as the IMF (now lovingly giving advice to Ukraine now that it has been subsumed into the “normal Western democratic order”) after the collapse of the Soviet system which impoverished Russia with real GDP falling 40% over ten years of this therapy. While The Economist might not do economics but concentrate on propaganda, knowledgable economists have praised the management of the Russian economy under Putin-Medvedev-Kudrin from 2000-2008 and for the difficult years following the 2008 western based meltdown. Indeed with a flat tax of 13%, elements of the economic plan are more in line with many conservative Western fiscal policies than mainstream ones. Which is why the main source of opposition to Putin are – wait for it – the Communists (whose candidate came second in the 2012 election with 17.2% of the vote after Putin’s 63.6%).
The above indisputable growth of the Russian economy under Putin and Medvedev is a key reason why they has been popularity elected in Russia by overwhelming margins in the last few elections.
All this doesn’t matter to The Economist of course. The second para whips up emotion talking of the “desecration of [the MH17] bodies” (they are all savages really, not normals) and then rises in crescendo to accuse Putin and those who rely on facts as “intoxicated by his hysterical brand of anti-Western propaganda.”
Note that Putin, whose factual pronouncements are freely available on the Kremlin Website has only rebuffed the Russophobic Orgy of Hate and Western propaganda like this hysterical piece from the Economist.
The world needs to face the danger Mr Putin poses. If it does not stand up to him today, worse will follow.
Oh yes? What “world” is that? That of the “normals”? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US government and NATO (including the newly “normal democracies”) rampaged through various countries of the real World causing death and destruction on a huge scale, and participated in torture and kidnappings. This is not assertion, not propaganda but facts. Currently the Ukrainian government is killing civilians to liberate them; and another “normal democracy” elsewhere in the world is massacring residents without mercy in full view without deathly silence from the Western governments even if their brave citizenry rise up in protest.
And Putin is the threat. Wonderful.
The propaganda piece goes on
Mr Putin has blamed the tragedy of MH17 on Ukraine
Putin made a simple statement that Ukraine Government had the responsibility to ensure the flight’s safety. This is incidentally the ICAO’S stance which would presumably be looking into why Ukrainian aviation authorities allowed the flight to fly over a war zone.
Putin has otherwise from the beginning called for calm and a through impartial investigation. Unlike the “Burn him! He’s a witch!” type of Monty Pythonesque Western government and media (is there a difference?) shrieks.
In rising hysteria, the Economist, which one would otherwise suppose to be a data driven instead of some sort of mouth-frothing nutty jam-the-facts-to-fit-my-case outlet, talks of a
“A high-court’s worth of circumstantial evidence points to the conclusion..”
and points to “social media chatter”. You say circumstantial evidence is good enough to hang someone? How about circumstantial evidence that the inept Ukrainian military could have fired off a Buk. How about the freely available official Russian briefing of some of their initial findings versus the anonymous assertions by US “intelligence” officials?
The propaganda piece goes on
First, it looks as if the missile was supplied by Russia, its crew was trained by Russia, and after the strike the launcher was spirited back to Russia
Based on what? This Reuter’s article which actually contradicted itself? Or just because you choose to believe it?
Ignoring the referenda of the Donbass republics (those yokels can’t think freely – they have not yet been “normalized”), and the FACT that Poroshenko is killing what he calls his own citizens of Ukraine (confirmed by HRW no less), the rest of the piece just goes on and on in rising hysteria trying to rally the readers (many of whom are anyway converts to The Economistserving as a mouthpiece for those who advocate Western aggression worldwide) to its anti-Russian agenda.
It ends frothing and howling about “appeasement” and “insults to the innocents of MH17”.
As a propaganda piece I will give the Economist article a “B”. I didn’t hear the term “AntiChrist” (which may have got the Christian votes also) and “Raelian Reptilian being” thus ignoring another important constituency and which might qualified it for a higher grade.
As a work of serious analysis, it gets an “F”. Of course this garbage by The Economist is part of the larger service that the UK Government and its outlets play as lapdogs – there is another canine metaphor one can also use – to the US government trying to rally / coerce / threaten the Germans and French into trying to destroy the Russian economy so that they can retroactively blame it on Putin. This is part of the Western Empire’s modus operandi for centuries. Nothing new.
Having seen the playbook before with Yugoslavia, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, this Orgy of Hate by the Western media is almost always followed by a War.
And so it goes.