It seems that’s what Russia is doing- taking delight in the cluelessness of our “national” broadcaster.
The BBC’s Helen Fawkes reports, apparently sans body armour, of a prisoner swap in Georgia. 15 Georgians are handed over in exchange for five Russians. She notes that there is a small Georgian protest and says:
“One of the banners said: “Stop Russian aggression.” This surprised one of the soldiers. “They say we are aggressors,” he told us. “We are not aggressors, we are just standing here,” he said.”
This seems to me the classic bully pose, saying, “who, me? I didn’t do nuffink”, with a little of the “yes, we can” Russian imperial spirit thrown in.
But actually the above is just an aside :-). The main problem here is that although Fawkes reports this Russian handover, the BBC fail to report the Russian prisoner taking. While 15 are handed over, 20 prisoners were taken in the Georgian port of Poti. In addition the Russians confiscated US-made Humvees.
Since Paul Reynolds has been so concerned for the BBC to examine the propaganda war, let’s look at this for a moment. The West hears about prisoner releases, the Russian army and populace hears about net Russian gains (the Russian army needs propagandising too). The Russians benefit from media exposure of conciliatory gestures, and get no penalty for additional intimidatory aggression on the ground. I bet those Humvees have made for some good glancing shots too — as Uncle Joe’s nephews take on the “world’s biggest polluter”
Actually this is no joking matter- if one day (gd forbid) we need to take on Russia in a serious conflict, we can be sure the “peace” brigade will have been banking away every “good deed” of [bad, mad] Vlad as a way of painting us the unreasonable parties.
A Spanish TV reporter last night told how Russian troops at a road block asked why she was there and not in Mallorca.
At least she had the bottle to ask him why he wasn’t in Mallorca instead of there.
Intruiging article, the kind of analysis that once made the BBC the first port of call for information.
What I would call ‘hard news’
Not marching in lockstep with the other media outlets used to be a beeb trademark.
Alas nowadays this is no more than a hungrily devoured crumb amidst the usual helpings of healthy lifestyle globul warming government policy gruel the beeb spoonfeeds us.
————————–
Russians losing propaganda war
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562611.stm
————————–
This conflict is really beginning to make me feel angry. Correction – the media’s coverage of the conflict, is the source of my disbelief and rage.
Let me clear one thing up, if I may: Georgia instigated this conflict by attacking civilians in South Ossetia, a full 24hrs before a single Russian troop was anywhere near the area. Then the Russians began to defend the Ossetian populous. Now, the Russians are no angels, but there is an agenda here.
All Western media, every single outlet, seems to be pushing the ‘Russia Invaded Ossetia and Georgia’ message, constantly. This is so obviously such a huge lie I cannot begin to contain myself. Does this corrupt and manipulative government, and national media, not understand that there is actually a select few in this drowning country that can connect a few dots, and we are not all Sun-reading drones that fall for the consistent celebrity-culture distractions?
Some day I’m going to have had enough. I would go on holiday, but as I am not a Labour supporter, nor a believer in the ‘war on terror’ (in its common sense), I cannot get through airport security without a 3hr consultation with an egotistical wannabee in a remote side-room.
When are we going to wake up? Jesus Christ.
“a full 24hrs before a single Russian troop was anywhere near the area.”
Apart from Russian “peacekeepers”. Heh.
Matt Harwood
Whatever the Georgians did, fact is that Russia invaded Georgia. If the Georgians were up to no good in their own land, shouldn’t Russia have gone to the United Nations? We’re always being told that’s what we should do.
Matt- I’ve found a site where you can cure your disbelief and rage:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106136-1/
Carbon copies of your view there.
The BBC reports of “The Russian Withdrawal” are getting a bit Groundhog Dayish.
and Matt
How come neo-chekist Russia was able to invade Georgia the day after the so-called attack on South Ossetia, when three to six weeks is normally required for mobilisation?
When are we going to wake up? Jesus Christ.
Matt Harwood | Homepage | 20.08.08 – 1:16 am | #
Perhaps when Russia nukes Poland for daring to implement a defence system designed to defend it and the West against Russian aggression?
This situation started many months ago when Putin was President. This guy is the most dangerous man on earth in my view.
This excursion into Georgia is merely to ‘test the waters’ for a bigger adventure into Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Ukraine.
So, as far as I am concerned Mr Harwood I am wide awake to the threat. Are you?
“Perhaps when Russia nukes Poland for daring to implement a defence system designed to defend it and the West against Russian aggression? meggoman | 20.08.08 – 12:21 pm”
Exactly, Russia failed to stick to those disarmament treaties when the US did.
Thank you everyone for your obviously informed replies – I would like to make it clear I’m far from an expert in this region, I’m just merely skeptical of the barrage of misinformation floating around.
Ed – indeed, a carbon copy. Russian media, for me, are just as untrustworthy as our western media, but thank you for the link.
Here is a video from the well-known propaganda machine Fox News interviewing Ossetian casualties – quite insightful IMO
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
Of course it is just my opinion, but I find it quite hard not to imagine Oil has some part to play in this conflict. The US had sent ‘Contracted Security Personnel’ (mercenaries) to Georgia weeks ago, which to me suggests why Russia may have been able to act as quick as they did (I’d prepare if the US were in my back garden). It’s war-by-proxy, and factoring in the point that Oil is the only real currency in this age, and Russia being the world’s second largest exporter of Oil, it peeks my interest.
Good discussion, and thank you again to everyone that has given me some points to read up on.
Matt
You wilfully fail to answer Gordon’s point.
Only in hollywood movies are can a countries military be mobilised in a flash – tanks need to be fueled and armed and as for the russian navy – how come the just appeared off of the geogian coast.
But you are right – this is about oil but not in the ususal snide America/bush/Haliburton manner you seek to imply – Georgia is one route for an oil pipline out of the region bypassing guess who – RUSSIA one source of Oil putin could not choke off to the west if it suites.I agree with the other posters – if putin isn’t stopped now (grant the Ukraine NATO menbership asap) then 10 years down the line we may once more be facing russian tank divisions lining up on the plains of europe and this time with a strong oil-backed economy behind it
And the difference between Russia invading South Ossettia to protect its interests on its southern border, and NATO invading Serbia(some way from the US/British borders) to ‘protect’, what, the interests of Muslims in Kosovo is???
This conflict has been busy bubbling away for some time hence the preparedness of the Russian military. It is just that the media and our politicians chose to ignore it,at least publically. I remain convinced that Iran has a great deal to do with it. What I do not know but the pipeline is at least as vulnerable to Iranian action as Russian. Iran is bent on a collision with the West and has been since 1979. It is within an ace of getting nuclear weapons and has long range missiles. Looking uncertainly into the future it is easier to envisage an attack upon Europe coming from Iran/ Pakistan and if the worse happens Turkey than from Russia. There is a realignment happening and Russia may very well be needed to defend Europe. That Russia would demand a price is inevitable but faced with a choice between Islamic tyranny or Russian “protection” I know which i would choose.
Why would we need Russia? We and the other European states no longer act as nation states with a will to survive. Russia still does.
Terry Aherne | 21.08.08 – 3:57 pm |
And the difference between Russia invading South Ossettia to protect its interests on its southern border, and NATO invading Serbia(some way from the US/British borders) to ‘protect’, what, the interests of Muslims in Kosovo is???
Which country was trying to absorb all of Serbia? I forget.
“Protect its interests on its southern border,” is it now? Good one.