Category Archives: pro-Russian

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.

As you can see, Russia is still losing the propaganda war. The image is from the BBC website. It’s not so much an illustration for this page as evidenceof the BBC’s playing along with the Russian message. I wish it weren’t here- or there.

Meanwhile I noticed something from the BBC’s linked article interestingly titled “In control and on the move”. Sounds dynamic, huh? It was where the writer of the article says “In the past few days, up to six Georgian navy vessels have either been crippled or sunk.
There are also reports of navigation equipment and computers being destroyed or removed. The Russians appear to be, to use military jargon, neutralising the threat.”

Wait a second there. The only Russian action that had any international support was the action in Ossetia. I am not sure of their “peacekeeping” mandate, but why is it not the focus of the article that the Russians are operating as a rogue state in Georgia? Richard Galpin only points out that the Russians are acting outside their zone at the very end of the article. The BBC keep reporting Russian agreements to this or that positive, constructive move. Nothing happens on the ground except that the Russians continue to extend their “mission”. Meanwhile the BBC can only say that they are “in control” and “neutralising the threat”. What threat would that be when the actions of Georgian troops, which some believe necessitated the Russian intervention, took place in South Ossetia, not Abkhazia? And furthermore what “threat” when the Russians have been destroying naval vessels outside the sphere of any possible action? And furthermore what “threat” when, as has been proven, the “in control” Russians are overwhelmingly militarily superior to their Georgian counterparts?

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.