Western media pundits are quick to ask the plausibility of the alleged Islamist motive that Chechens had in murdering Nemtsov. They never, though, question the plausibility of Putin’s motives in their Putin-did-it theory. In general, when proof is scant, they are willing to believe in conspiracy theories that conform to their pre-conceived notions and reject conspiracy theories that don’t, by pejoratively labeling these “Conspiracy Theories”.
March 9, 2015
As news broke that Chechens had been arrested for carrying out the murder of Nemtsov, allegedly for his “negative comments on Muslims”, the Western media responded with undisguised contempt.
A typical piece is that by Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky who writes
So Bershidsky is (rightly) questioning the plausibility of the suggested motives as to why these Chechens would murder Nemtsov: for the latters alleged “anti-Islamic” statements.
Note however that no such questioning of motives is allowed when Putin’s hand in the murder of a political has-been like Nemtsov is mooted. As I wrote earlier on how the Western media sets the Dominant Narrative, it doesn’t make sense.
Indeed I would argue that the alleged motive for Putin having ordered the hit (using these Chechens) is as bizarre as the theory emerging now. Both are less likely than an anti-Putin outfit carrying this out to further smear Putin in further anti-Kremlin hysteria.
Yet this theory would be mocked in Western media as a “Conspiracy Theory” ie something to be ridiculed and the proponent of the theory held up as a “wacko”.
On “conspiracy theories” and Conspiracy Theories
Let’s be clear. No matter what your theory is, Nemtsov’s death was an illegal act carefully coordinated and executed by a group of individuals. This is the textbook definition of conspiracy.
The Western media has – without proof or even a consideration of motives and who gains / who loses – stated that the conspiracy they choose to believe in is that Putin-did-it.
An alternative conspiracy theory could be (say) the Ukrainian intelligence unit (the SBU) was behind this – after all the Ukrainian companion landing up the same day and Nemtsov choosing to walk to his apartment in relatively light gear versus take a cab is curious.
Yet, a theory which essentially depends on the narrative that Putin is so Evil and is crazy enough to do something that defies rational thinking, (tautological reasoning) is touted by Western media as not only MORE likely than the narrative that there are secret agencies on all sides at work doing things to undermine other states for their “national security”, but anyone who tries to debate this rationally pooh-poohed as being either a Kremlin agent or a crazed person.
That this was so when people tried to point out for example that Saddam having WMD was much more likely a lie than truth; that the assertion he could deliver warheads in 45 minutes was irrational. The hysteria caused by Western propaganda was apparently so great that even the media responsible for the hysteria in the first place were apparently caught out in what Brokaw described in an interview in 2008 as a “fog of war” or more accurately a war that was YET to start and wouldn’t have started in the first place if journalists did some elementary analysis.
Indeed it’s instructive to consider what Brokaw said fully (to justify his, and the Western media’s buy in of the information put out by the U.S. Government)
[grammatical errors fixed post publishing]