|
Radek Sikorski Throws Eggs At Ben Judah And Blake Hounshell – Hits Faces
Yesterday Politico promoted a story about "Putin's Coup written by junior neocon Ben Judah. The lede:
The war in Ukraine is no longer only about Ukraine. The conflict has transformed Russia. This increasingly is what European leaders and diplomats believe: that Vladimir Putin and his security establishment have used the fog of war in Ukraine to shroud the final establishment of his brittle imperialist dictatorship in Moscow.
Among those who believe that this is happening, and that Europe will be facing down a more menacing Russia for a long time to come, is Radek Sikorski, who was Poland’s foreign minister from 2007 until September.
Anything that starts off by calling the elected government of the Russian Federation an "imperialist dictatorship" is obviously rubbish.
But the hard right-wing Radek Sikorski, who ones had a U.S. British passport and is married to the neocon Washington Post columnist Anne Appelbaum, always makes some funny jokes, like identifying Obama's grandfather as a cannibal, so I read on.
And I was right, there were some really funny lines in there:
Russia has attempted to involve Poland in the invasion of Ukraine, just as if it were a post-modern re-run of the historic partitions of Poland. “He wanted us to become participants in this partition of Ukraine,” says Sikorski. “Putin wants Poland to commit troops to Ukraine. These were the signals they sent us. … We have known how they think for years. We have known this is what they think for years. This was one of the first things that Putin said to my prime minister, Donald Tusk, [soon to be President of the European Council] when he visited Moscow. He went on to say Ukraine is an artificial country and that Lwow is a Polish city and why don’t we just sort it out together. Luckily Tusk didn’t answer. He knew he was being recorded.”
So Russia was planning, in 2008, to divide Ukraine between Poland and itself? Why the hell should or would Russia ever take up such a burden? Why should it create a mess in Eastern Europe which would be against all its interests? Anyone who has intelligently watched Putin and Russian politics would immediately recognize that Sikorski's claim is obviously false. Putin does realpolitik, always and ever. He reacts when Russia gets attacked, by Georgia's artillery on Russian peacekeepers or by a U.S. plotted neonazi coup in Kiev, but he is certainly not one who will risk anything significant for some lunatic imperial phantasy.
Whoever came up with that funny joke must have had way too many drinks. And the reporter who believed it and the editor who published it must have way too few braincells.
Reuters though thought differently, or just for fun wanted to stir the caldron, and distributed the nonsense on its wire.
Following that wire, Russia characterized the claim as "a fable" and Sikorski was pressed to take it back. That did not go well either:
In a news conference on Tuesday, Sikorski was vague about whether he made those exact remarks to Politico Magazine and told journalists to refer to another interview he gave to a Polish media website. He said there that he didn't hear Putin's words firsthand, but stressed that they were treated in 2008 as "surrealistic" or a joke.
Later in the day, he held a second news conference where he said his memory had failed him in the interview with Politico Magazine and that the bilateral meeting between Tusk and Putin didn't take place in Moscow, as he said earlier, but at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008.
So Sikorski said:
- "Putin suggested to Tusk to divide Ukraine between themselves."
- "Putin suggested to Tusk to divide Ukraine between themselves, but it was a joke."
- "Putin suggested to Tusk to divide Ukraine between themselves, but I wasn't present at the conservation."
- "No such conservation took place and I certainly was not present when it happened."
Sikorski even got the place of Putin-Tusk meeting wrong. The Politico author and editors, Blake Hounshell in this case, obviously did not even do a basic fact-checking of their sources claims.
Sikorski is nuts. Everyone in Europe knows this and that is exactly the reason why he was recently fired as Foreign Minister of Poland and reassigned to play Speaker of Parliament where one had hoped that he would produce less nonsense. As that reassignment did not help it is now really time to send him off to the American Enterprise Institute or some other asylum for neoconned lunatics. His boss seems to agree:
Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz, who's in the same party as Sikorski, criticized him for dodging reporters' questions on the issue at the first conference. Political opponents want him fired, saying there is no room in politics for what they called irresponsibility.
Kopacz said she expected Sikorski to directly answer reporters' questions.
"I will not tolerate this kind of behavior. I will not tolerate this kind of standards that Speaker Sikorski tried to present at today's (news) conference," Kopacz said.
Note to reporters and editors: Publishing such nonsense like Sikorski's obviously rubbish claims is egg on your faces. Lots of it.
Poroshenko (and Yats, etc.) are between a rock and a hard place.
Internally, the hyper-nationalists, or fascists, and many pols / others, incl. a good % of Ukraine citizens, want to see the Donbass gone, in one way or another. Can be rabid banderista bloodlust down to the more prosaic getting rid of voters who will never support Kiev. They (incl. many members of the Gvmt) saw a golden opportunity to instrumentalize the US and poodle-EU in a war against Russia. Yay! – They will support us, pay our gas bills, give us money, arms, and we get rid of Russkies at the same time!
So far, politically speaking, the ‘fascist nationalists’ – and they are not just some violent external to Gvmt. gp – have managed to more or less get rid of the Party of Regions, the Communists, and ‘lustration’ will eliminate ppl that are not on their side. (Btw, the condition of ‘having worked for one year for the Yanukovitch Gvmt.’ which makes one eligible for firing exists because Poro-choko was a member for not quite a year.)
They have also managed some symbolic victories – commemorations etc. – and concrete ones, freeing some of their ‘agitators’ (murderous gangsters) by threatening to march on Kiev. However, their opposition to the privatization of part of Naftogaz (demanded by the IMF and EU) did not succeed. In short, on the important issues, they have been side-lined. Note that the Svoboda manifest, a public stance, not claiming it is representative of those on the street, reads like a conventional if very in-your-face nationalist program.
http://en.svoboda.org.ua/about/program/
However, the W backers of Kiev, as well as Russia, want an end to killing, though they may differ in their final plans, or plan A, B, etc. The W insists on the ‘unicity of Ukraine’, they don’t want destruction, strife, to interfere with their goals such as energy extraction, agri, banking, cheap labor, etc. and certainly don’t want to deal with two separate entities, mess, walls being dug, or trouble; nor to pay for reconstruction, billions is past gas bills, etc. However, *one faction* persists in using Ukraine as a proxy for aggression against Russia.
Russia would prefer some ‘regionalisation’ or ‘federalization’ or the like, to put an end to strife, a kind of return to the status quo ante. Plus, part of the Ukr. populace is against war and killing and only wants ‘peace’ even if they become poorer. The Minsk agreement (which followed on from a Putin proposition) is supported by all the external parties. Yet the war in the Donbass goes on, the cease fire was never really respected, and now is beginning to look moot.
Lastly, the oligarchs who play their own game of control of that or that industry, dependents, territory, have militias, are in vicious masked competition – their role is hard to dope out but one suspects far more important than is generally documented or acknowleged.
So the Poro-block is caught in these contradictions and the situation is extremely volatile and dangerous.
Posted by: Noirette | Oct 23 2014 16:16 utc | 62
from Nils van der vegte:
A guide to lazy Russia journalism
October 17, 2014 at 5:04pm
I wrote this article some time ago, but I will repost it here after receiving multiple requests.
A SHORT GUIDE TO LAZY RUSSIA JOURNALISM
So you’re a Brit or an American who wants to become a Russia journalist? Once you get past the self-serving bluster, it’s really a very safe, well-paid, and rewarding job – but only on condition that you follow a set of guidelines. Inspired by a post at the blog Kosmopolito on lazy EU journalism200, I decided to provide a similar service for work ethic-challenged Russia journalists. Enjoy!
1. Mastering and parroting a limited set of tropes is probably the most important part of your work as a journalist in Russia. Never forget to mention that Putin used to work for the KGB. Readers should always be reminded of this: The «former KGB spy», the «former KGB agent», etc. Other examples include (but are not limited to) «Putin destroyed democracy», «The Russian economy is dependent on oil», «There is no media freedom», «Russia is more corrupt than Zimbabwe», «Khodorkovsky is a political prisoner and Russia’s next Sakharov», «Russia is really weak» (but also a dire threat!), «Russia is a Potemkin village» and «a dying bear» that is ruled by «a kleptocratic mafia.»You get the drift…
2. Not sure who is doing what? Not sure how Russia works? Just make a sentence with the word «Kremlin». Examples include «this will create problems for the Kremlin», «the Kremlin is insecure», «the Kremlin’s support of anti-Westerndictators», etc.
3. This «Kremlin» is always wrong, and its motives are always nefarious. If it requires many signatures to register a party – that is authoritarianism, meant to repress liberal voices. If it requires only a few signatures to register a party – that is also authoritarianism, a dastardly plot to drown out the «genuine opposition» amidst a flood of Kremlin-created fake opposition parties.
4. If visitors to your blog or website criticize you for your one-sided coverage, don’t try to argue with them (or explain your reasoning). This will only hurt your professionalism. If one comes a-knocking, call him or her a «KGB agent», «FSB agent» (names of security services always work well), «fellow traveller»,«Stalinist», «useful idiot», «Kremlin troll», «Kremlin bot», «Putin’s pilot fish»,or «Surkov propagandist». If they persist, start deleting their comments and banning them.
5. Your job as a journalist isn’t to be objective. Instead, personal grievancesagainst the Russian authorities should always be prioritized. Remember, Putin is the Stalin of our age. If the Russian police are trying to arrest someone because he violated the law, it is perfectly acceptable to try to physically prevent the police from arresting him. In no way will this impinge on your professionalism.
6. Hyping anti-government demonstrations is of the utmost importance. A demonstration in downtown Moscow of 500 people at which your fellow journalists outnumber the protesters? ¡Viva la Revolución!
7. An important rule is that reporting on Russia means NOT researching important issues or looking past the rhetoric. To partially invert what C. P. Scott once said, «Comment is free, and facts aren’t sacred.» If various anonymous «experts» say that corruption in Russia is worse than in Zimbabwe, but the Russians themselves only report paying bribes as frequently as Hungarians, it is clear which line you should copy and paste. «Russia is dying out» is another good trope to raise at any opportunity, even if (obviously Putin-controlled) statistics agencies are saying that the Russian population is now growing.
8. You must also learn to suppress any cognitive dissonance you might get from arguing that Russia is really weak and in a state of seemingly perpetual collapse («dying bear», «rusting tanks», «mafia state», etc), but at the same time a dire threat to Western security and civilization itself.
9. Every non-systemic opposition member is a potential ally. Don’t cover any negative sides of these people, as this will only complicate things for your reader.Though it may be true that the leftwing activist Sergey Udaltsov is known for his Stalin admiration, that the anti-corruption blogger Navalny is prone to making racist remarks, that liberal journalist Latynina doesn’t want poor people voting, and that Khodorkovsky is a mega-crook even according to the European Court of Human Rights, these are all unimportant details that detract from the overall goal of overthrowing the bloody regime and true democratization.
10. Speaking of democracy – as far as a democratic journalist like yourself is concerned, anybody who is against Putin is a democrat. No matter if the demos, the people, only favor him or her with single-digit approval ratings (and evenregardless of his or her own views on democracy). To the contrary, any Russian who supports Putin is part of the «sovok» cattle herd, and his or her opinions are invalid due to their inherent stupidity or Kremlin brainwashing. Feel free to express these sentiments on Twitter, but do make an effort to cloak them in political correctness when writing at more august venues.
11. The systemic opposition – i.e., those who participate in the farce knownas Russian elections – are really Kremlin stooges in disguise. Even though the Communists are by far the formal biggest opposition bloc, it is non-systemic activists and sundry «dissidents» who are the «genuine Russian opposition».
12. Everything in Russia involves around Putin. There is no one else in Russia, never was, and it is he who decides everything in the biggest country on this planet. Did it take an annoyingly long time for you to get your clothes back that one time you lost your dry cleaning ticket? Or maybe someone stole your purse in Moscow? All Putin’s fault!
13. Don’t bother learning Russian. It does not help to increase the quality of your articles. You can always rely on your fellow non-Russian journalists for juicy rumors about Putin’s Swiss bank accounts and nubile mistresses. If anything, learning Russian will put your professionalism at risk by exposing you to the opinions of ordinary Russians, which may accidentally leak out in your articles.
14. If you do end up learning Russian, make sure to keep your circle of Russian acquaintances limited to other democratic journalists and leading members of the liberal opposition. Never mingle with non-opposition Russian journalists, i.e. propaganda mouthpieces of the regime.
15. Above all, you must cultivate a burning, righteous hatred for «the Kremlin’s TV channel», RT, and anyone who works or even appears there. It is «low brow», «full of conspiracies», «slavishly pro-Putin», «anti-American», etc. Never directly compare it with Western media bias, because that is «moral relativism» and «whataboutism» (see below). It’s one thing if Kremlin propagandists broadcast in Russian, it’s quite another when they directly compete for your Anglophone audience by covering irrelevant and anti-American stuff like Occupy protests, Wikileaks, or US indefinite detention laws. Attack them like yourprofession’s reputation is on the line!
16. Whenever you study conflicts between Russia and other countries, always blame everything on Russia – regardless of objective facts, and especially when the conflict is with a staunch Western ally. So, even when Russia bans wine imports from a country one of whose own Ministers described said wine in scatological terms, it is «economic warfare». Ergo for cutting off gas supplies to a country that refuses to pay for them. Killing Russian soldiers is always commendable; any Russian retaliation is typically «imperialist», «nationalist», «neo-Soviet revanchist», and various combinations thereof. Never forget that Putin hates the West and dreams of building a fascist neo-Tsarist empire. Any expression of Russian goodwill is a dastardly plot to dupe or divide the West, which is tragically all too trusting. Any expression of Western goodwill towards Russiais «appeasement», and is to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Never forget Munich! Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!!!
17. Guessing is fun! In the event you find guessing a bit too taxing on yourimagination, just interview some marginal, highly unpopular Russian politician.Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and Gorbachev are usually good bets. Their guesses are usually a lot more creative than what you could have come up with yourself.
18. Never try to place Russia’s problems in a broader perspective. Don’t mentionthat population decline is far steeper in the Baltics, that more Americans were arrested in Occupy events than Russians protesting against Putin, or that more Britons say they want to emigrate than Russians. This is called «Sovietstyle whataboutism», and only «Kremlin trolls» engage in it. Leave logic and statistics to those losers; your weapons of choice as a democratic journalist are rhetoric, personal attacks and insinuations.
19. Always remind readers that Putin kills critical reporters – brave journalists kind of like yourself, in fact! – and prove it by quoting one he has not, or by including in your examples murdered journalists who were supporters of Putin.Under no circumstance should you mention that the rate of journalist murders was much higher under Yeltsin, or that it is lower in Russia today than in «democratic» Mexico and Brazil, or that unlike Russia, Israel currently imprisons several journalists.
20. Stalin. Always remind readers that Russians like Stalin very much. Putin,even more so. Their names both have two syllables and share the last two letters,what more evidence do you need? Every time Stalin appears on a bus or in a school notebook, or is described as an «effective manager» in one of dozens of textbooks, it must be on orders from Putin himself. Do not mention any instances of historic revisionism involving glorification of SS and nationalist war criminalsin the Baltics and Ukraine.Good luck on your new career as a Russia journalist!
https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152755563213328/
Posted by: brian | Oct 24 2014 7:26 utc | 66
|
