View source for Russian propaganda for American libertarians

One evening I was routinely scrolling through the well-known social network Twitter. I do that with the Libertatian Party’s account as part of my duty is maintaining this account, and sometimes I enter into various discussions there. The same thing happened this time, and at some point I noticed a reply in English to my reply to a tweet about Ukraine by the Libertarian Party of America. I chose to enter a debate with that user, especially because his nickname indicated that the user is also Russian-speaking, so I believed that he would communicate. During the discussion I experienced all the cliches and manipulations that Russian propaganda conveys/broadcasts to the American audience. But since the points and arguments have been formulated to cater for Americans, they did not work on a Russian. After giving it some thought I managed to figure out some things which I would like to share and analyze. 

==Guilt trip==

As any propaganda does, the Russian one largely appeals to emotions. When addressing Americans, propagandists prefer laying a guilt trip. They hurl accusations of various armed conflicts, crimes and everything there is to be blamed for.

[[File:Rupro1.png]]

E.g. in the screenshot above we see an accusation of ‘giving nothing in return to kind Mr Putin who was implementing market reforms and helped the US so much in Afghanistan’'. The author is trying to cause a feeling of guilt by blaming the US for lack of gratitude. In reality this statement is  ⅔ false and ⅓ distortion of facts, but we will talk about it later.

[[File:Rupro2.png]]

Here the author refers to support of Chechen militants and then the Maidan Uprising in Ukraine. The recipe is always the same: take a few pieces of reality (in this case CIA flirting with islamism), smear them with lies (like participation in Ukraine uprisings) and intentional distortions (like in cases of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), and voila - a good reason to accuse. All these might look like distinct comments on actions of the US, but once they are out of good points, they begin to reveal the gist.

[[File:Rupro3.png]]

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: [They] provoked. The same way the US forced Kuwait to provoke Iraq in the 90s, forced Japan in 1941, forced the Confederation in 1861 and so on. </i>

Once elaborated arguments are over, the underlying core shows up: “The USA is always and everywhere bad. The USA provokes everyone”. At this point if you sum up all the previous arguments, you can see pretty clear that they were intentionally gleaned to lay a guilt trip on Americans. As libertarians we all know that there is no such thing as collective guilt. However, this is what the Russian propaganda appeals to.

[[File:Rupro5.png]]

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: The blame for the events of 2013-2014 lies solely on the West </i>

That’s the first place not to give it. And the first place where the propaganda did not work on me as a Russian. I could be listening to rebukes to the USA forever but what I really care about are the actions of my own country.

==Ignorance manipulation==

What are the best conditions under which to convince somebody that a certain state of affairs is taking place? Obviously the one when the person knows nothing about the matter of discussion. A big lie is dangerous though; it is easier to throw a bunch of smaller lies at the audience so that the opponent just could not check every point.

[[File:Rupro6.png]]

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: Putin is the most pro-Western leader Russia ever had. And all of his attempts to get closer to the West were met with nothing but contempt. You might keep believing in tales about Putin, the Evil “Chekist”. Or you might read Richard Sakwa, Max Blumenthal and other good political analysts. </i>

For example, you can claim that Putin is “the most pro-Western Russia ever had”. To be honest, I did not know what to say when I read it. To a person living in Russia it sounds like “the Sun rises in the North”. I was wondering why anyone would say such nonsense. And I realized: this argument is intended for the American audience. What’s the difference? Until recently, the American audience did not care much about politics in Russia, they missed all the insane speeches by Russian politicians. That was just out of the Americans’ view. That’s why Dmitry Medvedev would never come to an American’s mind – though he was the most pro-Western leader even according to Putin’s most vigorous fans (those even gave him a nickname “Dima-IPhone”). 

[[File:Yeltsin-klinton.png]]

And even less could remember Yeltsin. Moreover, thanks to Americans' lack of knowledge about events in Ukraine, one can make powerful statements like this.

[[File:Rupro5.png]]

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: The blame for the events of 2013-2014 lies solely on the West </i>

This combines well with the previous part of my article. This method reminds us to always check unfamiliar information. In the next part I will explain why one has to be carefull with it too, and to always pay attention to your sources.

==Expertocracy==

The best part begins when you are doubting such an argument. How to convince somebody if they do not believe you? You need to provide proof and evidence. But what if you are deliberately lying? Then propaganda creates its proof. Such proof is created via numerous so-called experts.

[[File:Rupro6.png]]

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: Putin is the most pro-Western leader Russia ever had. And all of his attempts to get closer to the West were met with nothing but contempt. You might keep believing in tales about Putin, the Evil “Chekist”. Or you might read Richard Sakwa, Max Blumenthal and other good political analysts. </i>

For example Sakwa and Blumenthal are suggested as experts on Putin’s liberality. 

[[File:Rupro7.png]]

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: Yes, I call [Putin] pro-Western because he has made a lot of concessions. He helped in Afghanistan, he provided intelligence data, he followed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty until Bush withdrew from it, and so on. So again, try reading at least Sakwa’s ‘Frontline Ukraine’ and stop this trash talk. </i>

Sakwa again… So, who the hell is Sakwa?

[[File:Rupro8.png]]

<i>Richard Sakwa - “Valdai” Club (https://valdaiclub.com/)
Professon of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent. Senior Research Fellow at NRU HSE and Honorable Professor of Political Science at MSU.</i>

Turns out this Sakwa is not just an ordinary man but a whole speaker at “Valdai” Discussion Club. If it is not clear yet, let me clarify: “Valdai” is Putin’s tame club. Moreover, Sakwa teaches at MSU. And if you check on his publications, you will see that he praises Putin as an apologist of neoconservatism. This is exactly how Putin is promoted among the American Alt-Right.

[[File:Putinbook.png ]]

<i>Caption Richard Sakwa ‘Putin: Russia’s Choice”</i>

It is worth mentioning that Sakwa has some more books about Putin in which he literally sucks up to him. So, it's up to you whether to trust such an expert or not. But in my opinion publications by somebody directly affiliated to Putin are not a valid source of arguments.
Actually, there is a number of laudatory books about Putin by foreign authors.

[[File:Putinbooks.png]]

<i>Michael Bohm ‘President Putin’s Mistake’
Henry Kissinger ‘Understanding Putin’
Eric Ford 'Betraying Putin’
Luke Harding ‘Nobody But Putin’
[Somebody] ‘My Neighbor Vladimir Putin’ </i>

While I was searching for a proper picture of such books for this article, I found an interesting article by “Current Time”<ref>[https://www.currenttime.tv/a/27180977.html "Project Putin" is written by unknown authors] current time</ref> . According to it, the credited authors of such books have not actually written them, and are very surprised to learn that there are such publications under their names. 
A shining example of this technique is the use of  “American military expert” Scott Ritter for the Russian audience, as nobody in Russia knows about this person. Thanks to his military regalia and thirst for money, the propaganda can use him to reinforce their statements.

==Denial of agency==

The last method I would like to mention is the denial of agency. As you can see from the previous methods in relation to Ukraine and other countries, the propaganda always tries to blame external factors. And, as it follows, the USA is the best external factor. The problem with this logic is that it suggests that all countries but America have no agency. From this point of view, the Ukrainians cannot have any will of their own, thus the USA is guilty of whatever they do. The Syrians cannot have any will of their own, so the USA is here to blame too. This way one can always accuse the USA of anything, one can always find traces of some abstract FBI agent or the US State Department. 


[[File:Rupro3.png]] 

<i>Alexey Chereshnev: [They] provoked. The same way the US forced Kuwait to provoke Iraq in the 90s, forced Japan in 1941, forced the Confederation in 1861 and so on. </i>

That’s why such fantastical claims, when the US is accused of provocations, occur. Because “if the US is always guilty, then it must be guilty in this particular case too”. Just appreciate how convenient this idea is for any loud statements.

==In general==

In this article I listed the main methods with which Russian propaganda addresses Americans. You may come across any kinds of statements, the same that I got or some others. But it is important to understand the patterns, so if you see a combination of these methods in somebody’s words, then they are most likely trying to fool you.
I gave examples of propaganda targeting the American audience, but propaganda for the Russians is not that different. Methods are the same: playing on emotions, use of ignorance and arguments from authority. 
The general conclusion here is that the main enemy of propaganda is communication. Do not be afraid to communicate with others, this will make propaganda's job much harder.
As for the person whose tweets I used, I do not know for sure if he truly believes in these things or if he is a propaganda worker, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the principles by which the propaganda operates. People who voice them may be completely different.

==Summary==

* 1)‘Putin is the most pro-Western president of all Russian presidents’
This statement would cause cognitive dissonance with 99% of Russians. What is the problem here? Putin has been solely ruling Russia for more than 20 years, and Russia has had only 3 presidents by now. Not so many options. But even the other 2 presidents were way more pro-Western than Putin. The first president of Russia was Boris Yeltsin who is often remembered negatively due to his pro-Western activities. During his presidency numerous contracts were signed with the West, thus opening up Russia for foreign capital.

[[File:Yeltsin-klinton2.png]]

He is the one who began actively cooperating with the US and Europe. Dmitry Medvedev was slightly less pro-Western, but he is still well remembered to be a fan of Apple products.

[[File:Dimaiphone.png]]

Medvedev also went down in history of Russia as a liberalizer of the economy. His presidency gave birth to the project of “regulatory guillotine” aimed to review and eliminate old regulations that were no longer needed and stood in the way of business development. Also under Medvedev negotiations on visa-free regime with Europe took place.

[[File:Dimafail.png]]

<i>Dmitry Medvedev (19.10.2010): [we] came to agreement that with the help of France and Germany we will make a roadmap to switch to a visa-free regime with the EU countries.
@timanozavr (22.08.2021): So have you made it?
@timanozavr (21.03.2022): How is it going, Dmitry? </i>

As for Putin, he preferred to use the West as a familiar boogeyman for people who still bore the imprint of Soviet propaganda.

* 2)‘Putin was helping the West but got nothing in return’
Another mind-blowing statement. Which begs the question, what was Putin supposed to get in return? Judging by the following arguments, it looks like he expected to get some kind of  ‘label to reign’ in all the CIS coutries, but the insidious West did not do that. But has Russia benefited from cooperation with the West at all? Oh yes, it did. This fact might not be obvious for those who have only lived in modern Russia, but it got a lot of thing which the later USSR did not have: financial markets, capital inflows, technologies, etc. Renault Group came to Russia and forced the domestic automobile industry to start producing something decent. Russian tanks got French thermal cameras, Russian communication infrastructure got American equipment. Russia has got everything that other countries had but Putin, apparently, wanted more, and more for his own benefit.

* 3)‘The NATO promised not to expand eastward’
One of the main tales in Putin’s Russia which finds its roots in the USSR. In order to concentrate power in his hands, Putin needed a foreign enemy. NATO suits this role for a number of reasons, especially because the population has an old habit of believing in it without giving it a second thought.

[[File:Natoru.png]]

There is a whole Wikipedia article on NATO's non-expansion promise <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion] wikipedia</ref>. To put it simple, there was a verbal agreement on non-expansion given to the USSR as a security guarantee in context of German reunification. But no one has ever given such promises to Russia. After all, what would have been the point of it? The Cold War was over, NATO was becoming a solely defensive alliance. Moreover, NATO was cooperating with Russia, even NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was created in 2002, joint exercises were conducted, an airport in Ulyanovsk was userd as a hub for NATO, and France, a NATO member, planned to produce Mistral warships for Russia.

[[File:Mistral.png]]

This gist is the same. Cooperation with the West did not prevent Russia from regarting CIS coutries as its own patriomy, thus depriving them of any agency. Some of these countries, e.g. Georgia and Ukraine, were perfectly aware that in this case they may only serve as satellites, and they were not satisfied with such a situation. Therefore they tried to join NATO, as a military alliance would defend them from Russia’s intervention and give them a chance for independence. As we all see now, they were right.

* 4) ‘NATO provoked Putin’
Here it suffices to recall the two previous statements, and it becomes clear that the fact of NATO’s existence already “provokes” Putin. Just a suitable boogeyman. It was just a matter of time when Putin’s growing ambitions clashed with NATO. This could happen not in Ukraine but in Poland, in Latvia, in Estonia. Just a matter of time.


At this point I would like to stop as this article has already become too large. Of course there are more methods and arguments that Russian propaganda uses but let us save them for later. 


The article was written by the channel “LPR: Sofa Brigade” <ref>[https://t.me/lprChairborn LPR Chairborn] telegram channel</ref>). Especially for the native [Libertarian Party of Russia].

[[File:LprChairborn.png|200px|thumb|left|Caption]]

autor [[Nidheg]]
[ru:Российская пропаганда для американских либертарианцев]