This article has to be one of the most despicable attempts by a BBC journalist to whitewash evil and extinguish the truth. I wish I could say “just kidding”.
According to Reynolds “One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so.”
Now this is just unbelievable. This is a regime whose secret service (formerly KGB, now FSB)response to the murder of Ana Politskaya was “I don’t know who killed her, but her articles were beneficial to the Western press. She deserved what she got.”
This is the regime whose secret service according to the Economist “was good at harassing journalists trying to find out the truth” about Beslan.
This is the regime whose “Kremlin-choreographed message”, according to Garry Kasparov , “presents Russia as surrounded by enemies on all sides, near and far, and the military intervention in Georgia as essential to protect the lives and interests of Russians”.
Mmm- so unsuccessful. No-one bought that line, did they?
This is the regime headed by a former KGB agent who has doubled and tripled his secret service operatives’ salaries, re-making it among the most sought-after professions in Russia.
Now of course I would accept Reynolds as having some point to make, if he offered credible evidence instead of assertion. But a man who omits mention of a word of the Russian secret service in this entire article! Can you recall “psy-ops” in Iraq? Pretty much every kind of public relations tool was scrutinised as such. Now- crickets chirruping once more as the caravan moves on.
Reynolds adduces two pieces of evidence in favour of his notion that Russia is the victim of US misrepresentation- both of them are the comments given to observers (the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford and Human Rights Watch) by supposed bystanders. Very weak Paul. So weak it’s almost a crime. According to Garry Kasparov again, “The administrations of the Georgian breakaway areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are stocked, top to bottom, with bureaucrats from the Russian security services.”
So who do you think the observers encountered in Ossetia? They’d surely never be singled out for special operative attention, would they?
As I said at the beginning, Paul Reynolds…
Oh, and should Paul Reynolds need any more educating, and should he care at all, about Putin’s knowledge and expertise in media matters, he might try reading this.
The BBC newswebsite seems to have given up on reporting the empty verbiage emanating from the European Union responses (e.g. by Merkel, Sarkozy, and Brown) to Russian power, threats and oil:
“Georgia: Europe wins a gold medal for defeatism” (by Gerard Baker)
[Extract]:
“Once again, the Europeans, and their friends in the pusillanimous wing of the US Left, have demonstrated that, when it come to those postmodern Olympian sports of synchronized self-loathing, team hand-wringing and lightweight posturing, they know how to sweep gold, silver and bronze.
“There’s a routine now whenever some unspeakable act of aggression is visited upon us or our allies by murderous fanatics or authoritarian regimes. While the enemy takes a victory lap, we compete in a shameful medley relay of apologetics, defeatism and surrender.”(Gerard Baker).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4534358.ece
I have to agree. For the most part the media’s position is that the school bully, after a long illness has returned to the playground and who are we to blame him if he beats up a few of the smaller children, in order to restore his self esteem?
The typical journalist is a moral imbecile
There are important implications for a re-examination of British foreign policy in the light of this European Union weakness towards Russia.
The arguments of the Bruges Group seem particularly relevant at present. The BBC could open up the debate on this, to include:
“Lost Illusions: British Foreign Policy” (by Ian Milne).
[Extract
“The lessons of the last sixty years are that the UK should re-think its fraught entanglement with the EU. Britain cannot simultaneously pursue pro-American and pro-EU policies: the two are mutually-exclusive. Whatever force they may once have had, the arguments in favour of further integration into a failing and declining regional bloc have little bearing on the geo-political realities of the 21st Century.”
(This is the Introduction to a 26-page paper.)
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=13225
Nothing new. Bill O’Reilly pointd out on his show last night that much of the US MSM is on the side of the Russians as well.
See His talking points memo (14th) 2 minutes in there is an NBC clip.
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
Oh and that anti Obama book has opened at No1. But don’t expect it to be reviewed on the BBC. They never even mentioned’Unfit for Command’ the book that did for Kerry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/us/politics/13book.html?bl=&_r=1&ei=5087&en=bf042c4d96f94d9e&ex=1218772800&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1218813017-Op9CjvmHp7og9rdlWfI7qg
Oh dear. B-BBC just gets rantier and less coherent.
While I’m no apologist for Russia (or the BBC), it now seems there was clear provocation for the Russian attack.
(I think there’s a very interesting question which I still haven’t seen addressed anywhere, namely why, when he had access to US military intelligence showing a Russian buildup on Georgia’s northern border, did Saakashvili order the shelling of Tskhinvali? Was it merely stupid, or intended to provoke?)
Moreover, the Russian public generally did buy this casus belli – as to some extent did the Germans.
I don’t see what Paul Reynolds has said in his report to incur ed thomas’ wrath – other than present both sides of a story, which is what journalists generally do. We may be more inclined to believe one side of that story but that’s our choice.
ed questions the veracity of the reports of the Tskhinvali attacks. Fair enough if these had only come from Russian or South Ossetian sources. But Reynolds cites a BBC colleague and HRW sources on the ground. Why is this “very weak”? Does ed believe that both of these are in cahoots with the Russians?
The remark of Reynolds which most inflames him is that the Russians “have not yet learned how to play the media game”. But how is this pro-Russian?
ed then bangs on about the Russian secret service, which has nothing to do with the subject of Reynolds’ article.
I started following B-BBC at the outset because I think it’s vital that our tax-funded national broadcaster be held to account. But lately a lot of the posts here have been lamentable.
Come on ed and David – either up your game or hand over to others who can actually put a case that the BBC and the wider public might bother to listen to.
looks like another recipient of an offshore pension plan…ah the good old days are back.
Yaffle, you’re going to have to explain to me how the report linked to presents both sides of the story. Reynolds seems extremely confident that Russia’s actions were justified, and that both Georgia and the US are in the wrong. Perhaps he’s right, but it’s not a confidence I see reflected in reports elsewhere.
Yaffle- whatever my post may be, it is certainly not incoherent. You just prefer to miss parts out in your analysis of it, that’s all.
Of course it’s fundamental to the veracity of Reynolds’ report that he omits mention of Russia’s secret service. One of the prime (if not the main) tasks of such a service is propaganda. Of course.
By the way, if all you can talk about is how we “bang on” about the things we believe important, and how our “wrath” is “incurred”, I suggest you go and get a little originality instead of simply regurgitating these peurile cliches.
Hugh,
Reynolds does not say the Russian attacks were justified; he just says that very little has been made, in the media or political reaction, of the initial attack on Tskhinvali that triggered it, which is is how the Russians justified it.
I sometimes wonder if contributors here are seeing the same material I’m seeing. How can you contend that Reynolds doesn’t present both sides? I think he’s been quite scrupulous in doing so.
Oh right Yaffle, that’s why he says at the beginning of the whole piece that the US is painting Russia as the villain. Here’s a thought about balance: how about entertaining for a moment the idea that Russia could actually be the villain?
That’s the point- Reynolds gaily assumes Georgian culpability (which as i point out is questionable) while ignoring so many facts about Russia’s military and information machine that they come across as the innocent party. This they could conceivably be, but the evidence of their build-up, their involvement with fomenting rebellion in both rebel areas, their “packing of the gvt” with agents as mentioned by no lesser figure than Kasparov (read the post, please!), would indicate otherwise. You’re wrong Yaffle/Hillhunt. Wrong- and disingenuous, and misleading, and, throughout, pathetic.
(also a bad writer, by the way, Hillhunt. Pisspoor)
ed,
I’m sorry but your original post wasn’t very coherent and your rejoinder isn’t either.
You said just then:
Of course it’s fundamental to the veracity of Reynolds’ report that he omits mention of Russia’s secret service. One of the prime (if not the main) tasks of such a service is propaganda.
But the point of the article is that this time Russia has failed in propaganda terms, at least in the UK and US – despite having a semi-credible casus belli. So for Reynolds to go on about how fiendishly clever and well-resourced the FSB et al are would simply have been irrelevant.
Honestly, there’s plenty of occasions that the BBC does show bias, and B-BBC used to be good at picking them up. What went wrong?
PS. Ed, it’s interesting that you believe everyone who is critical of your posts is the same person.
Posting here is starting to resemble being stuck at the bar with someone who believes all the woes of the world are the fault of the Jews.
Argument with such people is dispiriting and pointless (hello Martin – I see you’re here too). Sad to see a once vital site descend to this. Enjoy your little ranter support group, you guys. Fewer and fewer normal people are bothering to listen.
Oh ffs- uh, goodness gracious. There is Reynolds playing the violin for Russia, while over the last few days Russia has been busy destoying bits of Georgia, and hardware such as naval vessels that they could never use against Russia or Ossetia or anyone, and Reynolds is saying that they’ve lost the propaganda war! They’ve got away with it, mr Yaffle, so far.
Did you read the op-ed by ralph Peters? Haven’t you heard the widespread support Putin has garnered in Russia? Haven’t you noticed how Putin has been acclaimed as hard man and genius?
It’s patent nonsense to say that Russia has lost the propaganda war- and the key issue here is that Reynolds ignores any way they might have been attempting it.
Yaffle: “How can you contend that Reynolds doesn’t present both sides? I think he’s been quite scrupulous in doing so?”
Is it worth me copy and pasting the first 13 paragraphs or so?
“The Bush administration… trying to turn a failed military operation… into a succesful diplomatic operation… by presenting Russian actions as agression… Yet the evidence…indicates it was extensive and damaging.”
Then we get quotes from the Beeb Sarah Rainsford, reports from “many Ossetians” and Human Rights Watch all supporting Russia’s justification.
“They are very clear who they blame: Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili”
Then this: “Georgia, meanwhile, was comparing this to Prague in 1968 and Budapest in 1956. Even the massacre at Srebrenica was recalled.
The comparisons did not fit the facts, but some of the mud has stuck.”
Which would, on any ordinary reading, suggest the criticism of Russia was unfair.
Then the stuff about Rice: “She has refused to condemn Georgia and barely acknowledged Russia’s point that it had to protect its peacekeeping forces.”
No doubt you can point me to the part which suggests Georgia and the US have a point.
Yaffle- I deeply resent you comparing the criticism of the BBC here to racism and anti-semitism. How low can you go I wonder?
Good post, Ed. It’s not about whether or not Reynolds mentions one viewpoint or another; it’s all about the context in which the viewpoint is presented. In this case they may as well have had a little icon pop up in the lower right corner of the screen to tell the audience to put their tinted glasses on at the start.
Posting here is starting to resemble being stuck at the bar with someone who believes all the woes of the world are the fault of the Jews.
Especially if it also has a TV stuck on the BBC.
The BBC’s animus towards Georgia probably stems from the Georgians’ temerity in coming out in droves to welcome George Bush to Tbilisi in 2005.
That sort of thing doubtless went down like a ton of bricks amongst the BBC scumbags. They no doubt feel that Georgia had it coming.
Would it not make sense to send this criticism directly to Paul Reynolds? If he doesn’t read B-BBC, and it increasingly looks as though no BBC employees do, he is never going to know that there has been a demand for his resignation.
Glatiatrixq.
Already done. Not holding my breath though waiting for a response. Btw, I usually come across of BBC addresses in the visitors here whenever I check- they do visit, for sure.
update – the russians are still in Poti blowing up stuff.
i guess they’re doing the Palestinian version of a ceasefire – “you cease, we fire”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/08/separating_fact_from_fiction.html
Do you ever feel silly?
BJ- do you ever feel easily led?
Hi Ed,
You quote Reynolds:
“One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so.”
Do you think this is a favourite statement? Reynold is basically saying, that the Russians can’t get their message across i.e. many journalists and people do not believe what Russian officials say.
Funnily, you list examples, showing how bad Russian propaganda is. As with your Phelps blog, I simply don’t see what your point is.
BBC 10 oclock news showed the film of Russians shooting up Turkish TV car. BBC fudged the question of who was doing the shooting and omitted to mention that journalists were taken into Russia and roughed up before being sent back to Turkey.
Complete and utter propaganda.
Well Gunnar, I think the problem is that most people have tended to miss what Russia has been doing the last few years . You think that the things I outline are bad propaganda? Propaganda is not always about puppy dogs or English speaking matinee idol exotic presidents. It can be about instilling fear and respect too; it can be about mobilising such a mass of opinion that it intimidates opponents.
Think about this: Russia has managed to unite its core population behind Imperial games. A lot of that was about propaganda- the villification of the oligarchs, the destruction of opponents, the exile of enemies, and the poisoning or elimination of arch-enemies. All, on a small or great scale, have led Russia to a point where it can push around people like the leaders of the EU through actions like invading Georgia.
How do you think it looked when Sarkozy scuttled to resolve the fighting? To the Russian people it looked just fine and dandy. It’s still propaganda- it’s the kind the KGB/FSB really care about. It’s about a united Russia which, with its oil money behind it, will have real clout. There is no way the Russians are losing any kind of war at the moment, propagandist or otherwise.
For Paul Reynolds to miss that- for the BBC to assume that an english speaking Georgian President inevitably means propaganda, but that a chauvinistic sour-faced Putin doesn’t have propagandist value, is just totally unreal. But there I go explaining every little detail … sigh.
Shockingly biased article by Reynolds, and good post by Ed. Can you imagine the BBC writing that Israel had lost the propaganda war, after they have had to defend an attack from Palestinian terrorists?
The very word propaganda in the title suggests untruth by Georgia and the US – and the BBC are well acquainted with what that is!!! They are really showing their evil Gramski colours now!! On the day of their demise there will be champagne bottles at all the street parties!! And, I for one cannot wait.
So you’d have preferred that the EU took a greater lead? I thought B-BBC was full of Eurosceptics. Are you for EU integration or against? You can’t be both, and a Common Foreign and Security Policy is certainly deeper integration.
As for this article – it’s simply pointing out that Russia has been very poor at getting its side of the story across. Which is perfectly true – to paint the Georgians as innocent bystanders in this is ludicrous. Although the Russians certainly overreacted, we shouldn’t forget that Georgia invaded South Ossetia first, and rather brutally according to many accounts, not just by HRW and the BBC. Add to the mix the fact that over 90% of South Ossetians are Russian citizens and Russia’s initial intervention could be seen as even reasonable, again, despite the disproportionality of their response.
Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal
General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting “the allies of countries having nuclear weapons”.
He told Russia’s Interfax news agency: “By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2566005/Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Poland-over-US-missile-shield-deal.html
And how the BBC are covering this:
Russian anger at US missile deal
At a press conference in Moscow on Friday, Russia’s deputy chief of general staff, Gen Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said the US move “cannot go unpunished”.
“It’s a cause for regret that at a time when we are already in a difficult situation, the American side further exacerbates the situation in relations between the United States and Russia,” Gen Nogovitsyn said.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7563182.stm
Not one word about Russia threatening a nuclear strike on a country that Russia once invaded with Nazi Germany.
And some of the posts here claim that the BBC is impartial. Yeah right!!
Can you imagine the hysteria in the BBC if a US general had made a statement like this.
The BBC: Double standards, funded by the British Taxpayer and forever working against the interests of Britain. No credibility whatsoever.
Georgia invaded South Ossetia ???
And I thought South Ossetia was in Georgia.
Sorry, for the pedants out there: Georgia invaded the breakaway region of South Ossetia, hitherto defacto independent since the 1992 war, in order to re-integrate it into Georgia proper…
Sorry, also I might get shouted at for writing ‘defacto’ when I meant ‘de facto’…
Thanks for the correction Mark, but I would take issue with you about the ‘pedant’ comment.
In matters like this where there is a resurgent ‘Soviet Union’, and all the dangers that that entails, I’m sure you’d agree that accuracy is quite important.
There are mutterings that Russia is now seeking a permanent corridor to Kaliningrad. A city stolen by them.
You made mention that 90% of the inhabitants of South Ossetia are Russian. Possibly the figure is lower seeing that the new Soviet Union is handing out Russian passports on every street corner.
Kaliningrad/Königsberg is not a Russian city, but following WWII the communists starved the remnants of the population, finally expelling them in 1949. thereafter followed the ‘Russianisation’ of Königsberg.
Is that what has been goin on in South Ossetia?
All of a sudden the Typhoon Multi-Role Combat Fighter looks like an attractive investment.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
Pity that the BBC can’t bring itself to point out the the Patriot missiles now on their way to Poland are defensive and not offensive missiles.
Hi Ed,
Many thanks for your answer that did not address my question.
Again, what is your point? Reynolds’ article was talking about the outwars, not the inwards propaganda. Can you please stop moving goal posts and explain how:
“One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so.”
is favourable of the Russians? Afterall, you selected the quote.
Hi Ed,
Since you mentioned internal propaganda, perhaps you want to check out TPO’s posts above.
Am I really to believe that the “missile defense shield” is geared against Iran and not Russia?
Since you mentioned internal propaganda, perhaps you want to check out TPO’s posts above.
Am I really to believe that the “missile defense shield” is geared against Iran and not Russia?
gunnar | 16.08.08 – 1:25 am |
I’m breaking one of my rules here by responding to you.
I am not being bunged 3 billion. I am an individual. I am posting my own personal opinions.
It really doesn’t matter to me what you choose to believe about US motivations in positioning defensive missiles in Poland.
I for one know the dangers that are coming from Iran, even though that information is now three years out of date.
TPO – I find it difficult to see how anything written in the comments section of a blog can be particularly dangerous. In any case, I’m sure everyone knows the basic facts that South Ossetia is a breakaway region of Georgia…
Regardless – I’m going to have to buy a good book on this, but as far as I understand it the two situations are very different and it’s hard to draw parallels between them. The basic problem in South Ossetia goes back to the 1950s and Stalin’s policy of divide and rule; ethnic groups were spread across two sides of an internal Soviet border in order that both republics would have to rely on Moscow to settle their differences. Accordingly, North Ossetia is in Russia, South Ossetia in Georgia. It is instructive to note the fact that there were very high intermarriage rates between Ossetians and Georgians until the war in the early 1990s (over 50%); there was therefore very little natural cultural animosity between the two of them.
When the Soviet Union broke up, however, and Georgia declared independence, Ossetians (2/3 of the residents of South Ossetia according to the 1989 census) found themselves separated from each other by an international border. They wanted to become independent or rejoin their kin on the other side of the border; Georgians wanted to retain their existing borders, and ethnic elites on both sides exploited this situation for their own ends (chiefly, to advance their own power).
This is where the real problem comes from… and the fact is now, that because Georgia foolishly succumbed to provocation and attempted to forcibly retake the region instead of using peaceful and diplomatic means, it’s almost certainly lost it for good.
Kaliningrad, by contrast – I’ve heard very little serious discussion of giving Russia a corridor to it, apart from the unsuccessful discussions about granting Russians EU transit visas after the Baltic states joined in 2004.
(In other words, the situation’s actually very complicated, even leaving aside the whole other can of worms of Abkhazia and Ajaria, geopolitics, the competing egos of Putin and Saakashvili, energy security, nationalism in Georgian internal politics, likely power struggles between Medvedev and Putin, organised crime in the breakaway republics, posturing on the world stage, etc. It is understandable why the media (in general, on the left and right, not just the BBC, and Newsnight has had very good coverage on this) tends to simplify things and portray it as a resurgent Russia wanting to prove itself by bullying a small, defenceless country like Georgia, and there is perhaps some truth in this. It makes it easier for the public to digest and understand what’s going on in a relatively unknown part of the world. But it’s not the whole story.)
Gunnar: explain how “One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so” is favourable of the Russians?
Because being bad at PR is not, in fact, morally reprehensible. Starting a war with little justification is. Reynolds argument is that Russia was justified in invading, and its only real fault is that it has been unable to explain this to the public. Readers are given the impression that the only reason they might be thinking this was an example of Russia hankering after its Soviet past is that Russia doesn’t have Alistair Campbell to help it.
Joel: “Do you ever feel silly?”
Linking to a post on the Editor’s blog that mentions Georgia isn’t quite enough. You have to explain what it is in that post that makes Reynold’s article a balanced piece of journalism. What the post does, in fact, is make it even clearer that there’s not much ground for Reynold’s confidence that the US analysis of the situation is not supported by the facts.
It is abundantly clear that the Russian assault was carefully planned, premeditated. There is no way they could have mobilised and coordinated all this so quickly from scratch. They had a deep-laid plan – and then set about looking for a pretext to put it into operation. Complete with a media barrage.
I think Paul Reynolds is basically a decent guy. But we have seen him being studiously naive before.
Huge conflict – but not much sign of John Simpson, World Affairs Editor.
What does that guy do all year ?
Morning TPO,
Many thanks for breaking one of your rules.
I was referring to your links. Sorry for not making that clear. Today the Sun and Telegraph write of Russia threatens to nuke Poland. Is this for internal or external propaganda?
Besides that, who is putting the “defense” shield up? The Russians?
What does that guy do all year ?
JohnA | 16.08.08 – 6:42 am | #
Attack the real enemy. America.
Jack Bauer
Yes – it is amazing how one-sided the BBC is, how much glee it finds in any angle that allows sniping at America.
Or Israel.
Or the whites in Britain – and on and on.
I heard a World service item last night about problems in kashmir. The tone of the BBC interviewer – and the fact the he interviewed only a Muslim, was that Muslim rioting and violence is all the fault of the Hindus.
The BBC reaches its conclusion before it examines the evidence.
On Ossetia, any military appraisal shows who is the aggressor, who had done all the preparation for total violence. For Blitzkrieg.
But the BBC lacks any military nous – remember Ragee Omaah in Baghdad (still parading on BBC Radio 4 – I thought he had swanned off as an independent ?)
And the BBC lacks proper historical perspective. The Ossetia affair harks straight back to Sudetenland. The BBC’s response – now as in the 1930’s – APPEASEMENT, moral equivocation. Dictators are dictators are dictators.
The latest BBC nonsense is to fail to explain properly and in all necessary instances that the US / Poland defence missile agremment is exactly that – defence.
And not even defence against Russia, it is obviously designed to defend against Iran. But the BBC cannot give credence to the risks of attack by a loony Islamist autocracy, just as BBC interviewers fail to flatly contradict Russian spokesment when they clain that the missile deal is US aggression.
No – the drip-drip-drip of anti-American flavour continues.
He should also try reading this book, Putin’s Labyrinth
Absolutely chilling.
The problem is, you’re accusing the BBC not of bias but of not reflecting your world view. You want Russia to be portrayed as the big bad brute and Georgia as the small helpless victim. In general, this is actually what the BBC, as almost all other news outlets, are saying. But again the fact is, it is not entirely true. Georgia struck first, on much smaller and weaker South Ossetia, and as someone already mentioned a Human Rights Watch report said that there had been horrendous and brutal destruction in Tskhinvali.
Plus, you’re incredibly naive if you think Georgia is some kind of democratic paradise or bastion of freedom…
You want Russia to be portrayed as the big bad brute and Georgia as the small helpless victim.
Sure. Can’t think what gave anyone THAT weird idea. You have to be totally DEPRAVED to think that!
GEORGIA
total: 69,700 sq km
land: 69,700 sq km
water: 0 sq km
Irrigated land:
4,690 sq km (2003)
Area – comparative:
slightly smaller than South Carolina
Land boundaries:
total: 1,461 km
Population:
4,630,841 (July 2008 est.)
RUSSIA
total: 17,075,200 sq km
land: 16,995,800 sq km
water: 79,400 sq km
Area – comparative:
approximately 1.8 times the size of the US
Land boundaries:
total: 20,096.5 km
Irrigated land:
46,000 sq km (2003
Population:
140,702,094 (July 2008 est.)
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 16.08.08 – 3:19 pm | #
I don’t think that really proves anything. After all, the US has justifiably become involved in conflicts with far smaller territories.
As for the article, I agree that there needs to be a distinction made between the effectiveness of internal and external propaganda. The worldwide consensus is that Russia has been acting as a bully and overreacted. Hardly does it any favours on the world stage does it (though I’m sure internal is of more concern to them as always)?