REPRINTS
Interview by Alexei Pankin of William Dunkerley
Komsomolskaya Pravda
October 22, 2012
Is it true that the West is against Russia? Is it waging a propaganda war?
--Let’s discuss!
If the answers to those questions are yes, how is the anti-Russian propaganda
organized, and who is behind it? Is it possible to counter it? And are our
authorities negligently leaving the formation the country's image to the
enemies of the president? Alexei Pankin talks about all this in conversation
with well-known American media analyst William Dunkerley.
Q. Bill, recently, The Moscow Times published a scandalous article by Steven
Korn, president of the American governmentally-sponsored Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty. In it he relates a very disparaging characterization of president
Vladimir Putin. I was very struck by Mr. Korn's sincerity. I get the feeling
that he himself believes what he’s written, and thinks that for
English-speaking audiences all those negative allegations are self-evident. Is
it true that the image of the Russian president in the West is one of a leader
who is a "ruthless politician" who "dismantled Russia's
democratic and free market reforms" in order to become a
"totalitarian leader"?
A. Yes, that's right. According to an opinion poll in March 2012, only 15
percent of Americans have even a somewhat positive view of Putin. Over the
years, the most prominent Western news stories about Russia have claimed that
Putin has used energy as a weapon against Ukraine, ordered the murder of
Alexander Litvinenko, and ruthlessly invaded Georgia to strangle democracy
there. From the start of Putin’s presidency, the news has characterized him as
a sneaky former spy with an insatiable thirst for power. There was a brief reprieve
from that negativity when Putin was the first foreign leader to contact the
American president with sympathy over 9/11. That resulted in a surge in
positive feelings toward Russia. But, there has always been a notable absence
of major news stories commenting upon the improvements in Russia’s economy and
standard of living during Putin’s tenure.
Q. You once said that it seems like Putin has been spat upon in the Western press, and all he does is wipe it off.
A. Indeed, he doesn’t seem to object to the negative news stories. The trouble is that when publically-made allegations go unchallenged, they become fixed in the minds of Westerners. It’s not like Putin started his Kremlin life with an established positive image. Frankly, he was an unknown in the West. So the allegations have been all that people have known of him. For most Americans, Russia is not a highly interesting news topic. The whole topic of foreign news is not of major interest here. So there is no natural curiosity to reality-test the stories Americans have heard. People just accept them. Putin’s absence of response has allowed his enemies to control the story. That certainly puts him at a disadvantage in face-to-face international negotiations. Korn's article is perhaps evidence of what Putin is up against.
Recently, Putin’s arch enemies have even found success in turning negative international stories inward. That’s been responsible for emboldening agitators and fomenting dissatisfaction in the heart of Russia. Putin’s popularity has slipped. The negative stories are gaining ground.
It’s said newspapers are the first draft of history. That’s bad news for Putin. In the West he won’t be judged by his achievements and failures, but by the negative allegations advanced in the media by his enemies.
Meanwhile, the Pussy Riot band of serial exhibitionists have earned themselves a so-far unchallenged place in history as recipients of the John Lennon Peace Prize for opposing Putin’s purported oppression, and as the European Parliament designees as finalists for the Andrei Sakharov Prize. Western audiences would be aghast if they saw pictures of some of the young women's previous lurid exploits.
The Enemies
Q. Honestly, in Russian terms, phrases like "enemies of Russia" and "enemies of Putin" conjure up very painful recollections of the "enemies" of the Stalinist past. You are using those terms very liberally.
A. I wouldn’t agree that I use the terms liberally. Modern warfare includes cyber attacks and advanced psychological warfare. The definition of an enemy can no longer be limited to foreign countries. After 9/11, the United States became acutely aware of what it is like to have non-state enemies. I think that Putin needs to awake to the realities that he faces. He seems to want to conceive of things primarily in state-against-state terms. It may also be repulsive to him to believe that he and the Russian state may have mortal enemies that were born and raised on Russian soil. Russia and Putin himself would be better served if he reacted to the real situation.
Although, I don’t know the totality of the threat Putin faces, I have carefully studied what happened in the Litvinenko case. It clearly represented a media-based attack against Putin. And there, the finger of suspicion points to persons who were born in Russia, but are now closely connected with London.
Q. And so we pick up on the story of Russia's "non-state" enemies…
A. Let's discuss this by concrete example. The Alexander Litvinenko case illustrates the process through which Putin is regularly slimed internationally. My book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder, explains this process in detail. In a nutshell, though, this is a case of a “managed story.” The entire Western news story about Putin being behind the murder of Litvinenko was fabricated apparently by the Berezovsky camp. And then it was skillfully foisted upon unsuspecting Western media who were appreciative of getting an enormously attention getting story handed to them ready-to-use.
The story told is specious, but believable by the uninformed. The famous deathbed statement is a good example. That's the statement where Litvinenko accused Putin as being behind the poisoning. At first, an associate of Berezovsky's said it was dictated to him by Litvinenko just before his death. The associate said he wrote down Litvinenko's words. Later he confessed they weren't Litvinenko's words at all. Litvinenko didn't dictate anything. It was written by that associate. I didn't see where any journalists called attention to that discrepancy. But when facts change to suit the convenience of the news source, it reflects on the credibility of the whole story. Another issue is that news reports called Litvinenko a former spy. But there's no indication that he ever did espionage work. Even his wife has explained that he never was a spy.
Q. In September, the London coroner resumed investigating the case after a six-year hiatus. One independent London-based analyst suggested in a KP interview that the coroner may claim to be trying to establish the truth, but the prosecutor and the press will continue to spew the Berezovsky version. In any event, this seems destined to impact Russia's reputation negatively.
A. I would be very surprised if the coroner arrives at an honest verdict. The inquest procedure has telltale signs of being rigged. There has been no explanation why after almost six years there has not been even a conclusion on whether or not Litvinenko’s death was a homicide. When coroner Andrew Reid reopened activity on the case, he called for disclosure of MI5/MI6 documents that are relevant. But then it was reported that Reid was suddenly stricken by appendicitis and hospitalized. Next a scandal erupted over Reid’s employment of his wife several years earlier, and he was removed from the case. A new coroner was then appointed, who announced that the secret documents would not be disclosed.
Meanwhile, I’ve also seen collusive-sounding intersections between the prosecutor who formulated Britain’s allegations of Russian state involvement in Litvinenko’s death, and people connected to Boris Berezovsky. A lot of other inconsistencies in the case exist, as well. There seems to be a keen attempt to avoid full disclosure. Even if the coroner were to arrive at a verdict soon, there is every reason to distrust it.
Coroner Reid himself stated that "public interest plainly demands an open and fearless investigation into the full circumstances." He went on to say, "any lesser level of inquiry would not command public confidence either nationally or internationally." But now it seems that the public will indeed get a lesser level of inquiry. Relevant documents will be withheld.
Reid is wrong about public confidence, though. Western audiences won’t distrust rigged results. That’s because all they’re likely to see is continuation of the mythological version of the case, the "managed story," put forward by Putin’s enemies.
In my opinion, the whole case should simply be dismissed. There is little chance for a legitimate outcome. Not only is there reason to distrust whatever verdict may arise, but hasn’t the basis for going forward vanished? Coroner Reid ruled that "the whole purpose of the inquest is to investigate the credibility of the competing theories." That would mean: no competing theory, no problem. In the Berezovsky v. Abramovich case, the High Court judge ruled that Berezovsky is "inherently unreliable." That would mean that his theory in the Litvinenko case can not be relied upon. If one discounts Berezovsky’s theory that Putin is behind Litvinenko’s death, doesn’t that mean there are no competing theories to investigate? Why are the British going to spend a reported $6 million on a seemingly pointless inquest? Doesn’t it seem like there must be an ulterior motive?
Vigorous Resistance
Q. Okay, let's consider that the campaigns against the Russian president did not erupt spontaneously, and that they were skillfully directed. In that case, it is easy to speculate that the upcoming Olympic Games in Sochi will be an opportunity for new attacks. I remember that on the eve of the St. Petersburg G8 summit in 2006, there was talk of excluding Russia from this elite club. The 2014 Olympics are widely regarded as a personal project of Putin's. The event is very important for all Russians. Are these festivities destined to be spoiled? Or can trouble be preempted?
A. There is good reason to suspect that media-based attacks against Putin are opportunistic. Politkovskaya was killed on Putin’s birthday. The media blitz over Litvinenko occurred while Putin was attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Hanoi. The Sochi Olympics present Putin’s enemies with an obvious opportunity.
Of course, it is possible to employ preemptive tactics. But victory will not be simple, and there is scant time left to do an effective job.
I’ve studied the media-based attacks since the dawn of the Putin era. I’ve carefully analyzed how they have been used to defame Russia and its leader. That gave me the insight to see how the process can be defeated. I know exactly how it works, what the vulnerabilities are, and how to defeat it.
That leaves me amazed to see that Putin has employed virtually no effective countermeasures since day one of his rule. It’s hard to imagine why not. Maybe it’s out of ignorance of what to do. Or perhaps it’s a result of arrogance over the need to respond at all.
What can preempt an unfortunate scenario at the Olympics? I say that the first step must be an attitude change on the part of Putin. Isn’t it high time for him to get serious about protecting his own image, and to start becoming an effective steward of his country’s reputation? This is not a private matter, but a matter of national importance.
Q. You once said that it seems like Putin has been spat upon in the Western press, and all he does is wipe it off.
A. Indeed, he doesn’t seem to object to the negative news stories. The trouble is that when publically-made allegations go unchallenged, they become fixed in the minds of Westerners. It’s not like Putin started his Kremlin life with an established positive image. Frankly, he was an unknown in the West. So the allegations have been all that people have known of him. For most Americans, Russia is not a highly interesting news topic. The whole topic of foreign news is not of major interest here. So there is no natural curiosity to reality-test the stories Americans have heard. People just accept them. Putin’s absence of response has allowed his enemies to control the story. That certainly puts him at a disadvantage in face-to-face international negotiations. Korn's article is perhaps evidence of what Putin is up against.
Recently, Putin’s arch enemies have even found success in turning negative international stories inward. That’s been responsible for emboldening agitators and fomenting dissatisfaction in the heart of Russia. Putin’s popularity has slipped. The negative stories are gaining ground.
It’s said newspapers are the first draft of history. That’s bad news for Putin. In the West he won’t be judged by his achievements and failures, but by the negative allegations advanced in the media by his enemies.
Meanwhile, the Pussy Riot band of serial exhibitionists have earned themselves a so-far unchallenged place in history as recipients of the John Lennon Peace Prize for opposing Putin’s purported oppression, and as the European Parliament designees as finalists for the Andrei Sakharov Prize. Western audiences would be aghast if they saw pictures of some of the young women's previous lurid exploits.
The Enemies
Q. Honestly, in Russian terms, phrases like "enemies of Russia" and "enemies of Putin" conjure up very painful recollections of the "enemies" of the Stalinist past. You are using those terms very liberally.
A. I wouldn’t agree that I use the terms liberally. Modern warfare includes cyber attacks and advanced psychological warfare. The definition of an enemy can no longer be limited to foreign countries. After 9/11, the United States became acutely aware of what it is like to have non-state enemies. I think that Putin needs to awake to the realities that he faces. He seems to want to conceive of things primarily in state-against-state terms. It may also be repulsive to him to believe that he and the Russian state may have mortal enemies that were born and raised on Russian soil. Russia and Putin himself would be better served if he reacted to the real situation.
Although, I don’t know the totality of the threat Putin faces, I have carefully studied what happened in the Litvinenko case. It clearly represented a media-based attack against Putin. And there, the finger of suspicion points to persons who were born in Russia, but are now closely connected with London.
Q. And so we pick up on the story of Russia's "non-state" enemies…
A. Let's discuss this by concrete example. The Alexander Litvinenko case illustrates the process through which Putin is regularly slimed internationally. My book, The Phony Litvinenko Murder, explains this process in detail. In a nutshell, though, this is a case of a “managed story.” The entire Western news story about Putin being behind the murder of Litvinenko was fabricated apparently by the Berezovsky camp. And then it was skillfully foisted upon unsuspecting Western media who were appreciative of getting an enormously attention getting story handed to them ready-to-use.
The story told is specious, but believable by the uninformed. The famous deathbed statement is a good example. That's the statement where Litvinenko accused Putin as being behind the poisoning. At first, an associate of Berezovsky's said it was dictated to him by Litvinenko just before his death. The associate said he wrote down Litvinenko's words. Later he confessed they weren't Litvinenko's words at all. Litvinenko didn't dictate anything. It was written by that associate. I didn't see where any journalists called attention to that discrepancy. But when facts change to suit the convenience of the news source, it reflects on the credibility of the whole story. Another issue is that news reports called Litvinenko a former spy. But there's no indication that he ever did espionage work. Even his wife has explained that he never was a spy.
Q. In September, the London coroner resumed investigating the case after a six-year hiatus. One independent London-based analyst suggested in a KP interview that the coroner may claim to be trying to establish the truth, but the prosecutor and the press will continue to spew the Berezovsky version. In any event, this seems destined to impact Russia's reputation negatively.
A. I would be very surprised if the coroner arrives at an honest verdict. The inquest procedure has telltale signs of being rigged. There has been no explanation why after almost six years there has not been even a conclusion on whether or not Litvinenko’s death was a homicide. When coroner Andrew Reid reopened activity on the case, he called for disclosure of MI5/MI6 documents that are relevant. But then it was reported that Reid was suddenly stricken by appendicitis and hospitalized. Next a scandal erupted over Reid’s employment of his wife several years earlier, and he was removed from the case. A new coroner was then appointed, who announced that the secret documents would not be disclosed.
Meanwhile, I’ve also seen collusive-sounding intersections between the prosecutor who formulated Britain’s allegations of Russian state involvement in Litvinenko’s death, and people connected to Boris Berezovsky. A lot of other inconsistencies in the case exist, as well. There seems to be a keen attempt to avoid full disclosure. Even if the coroner were to arrive at a verdict soon, there is every reason to distrust it.
Coroner Reid himself stated that "public interest plainly demands an open and fearless investigation into the full circumstances." He went on to say, "any lesser level of inquiry would not command public confidence either nationally or internationally." But now it seems that the public will indeed get a lesser level of inquiry. Relevant documents will be withheld.
Reid is wrong about public confidence, though. Western audiences won’t distrust rigged results. That’s because all they’re likely to see is continuation of the mythological version of the case, the "managed story," put forward by Putin’s enemies.
In my opinion, the whole case should simply be dismissed. There is little chance for a legitimate outcome. Not only is there reason to distrust whatever verdict may arise, but hasn’t the basis for going forward vanished? Coroner Reid ruled that "the whole purpose of the inquest is to investigate the credibility of the competing theories." That would mean: no competing theory, no problem. In the Berezovsky v. Abramovich case, the High Court judge ruled that Berezovsky is "inherently unreliable." That would mean that his theory in the Litvinenko case can not be relied upon. If one discounts Berezovsky’s theory that Putin is behind Litvinenko’s death, doesn’t that mean there are no competing theories to investigate? Why are the British going to spend a reported $6 million on a seemingly pointless inquest? Doesn’t it seem like there must be an ulterior motive?
Vigorous Resistance
Q. Okay, let's consider that the campaigns against the Russian president did not erupt spontaneously, and that they were skillfully directed. In that case, it is easy to speculate that the upcoming Olympic Games in Sochi will be an opportunity for new attacks. I remember that on the eve of the St. Petersburg G8 summit in 2006, there was talk of excluding Russia from this elite club. The 2014 Olympics are widely regarded as a personal project of Putin's. The event is very important for all Russians. Are these festivities destined to be spoiled? Or can trouble be preempted?
A. There is good reason to suspect that media-based attacks against Putin are opportunistic. Politkovskaya was killed on Putin’s birthday. The media blitz over Litvinenko occurred while Putin was attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Hanoi. The Sochi Olympics present Putin’s enemies with an obvious opportunity.
Of course, it is possible to employ preemptive tactics. But victory will not be simple, and there is scant time left to do an effective job.
I’ve studied the media-based attacks since the dawn of the Putin era. I’ve carefully analyzed how they have been used to defame Russia and its leader. That gave me the insight to see how the process can be defeated. I know exactly how it works, what the vulnerabilities are, and how to defeat it.
That leaves me amazed to see that Putin has employed virtually no effective countermeasures since day one of his rule. It’s hard to imagine why not. Maybe it’s out of ignorance of what to do. Or perhaps it’s a result of arrogance over the need to respond at all.
What can preempt an unfortunate scenario at the Olympics? I say that the first step must be an attitude change on the part of Putin. Isn’t it high time for him to get serious about protecting his own image, and to start becoming an effective steward of his country’s reputation? This is not a private matter, but a matter of national importance.
So who are those notorious forces waging a propaganda war against poor innocent Russia? Strange as it is, nobody is accusing Italy of invading neighbouring country or Canada of killing and kidnapping it's citizens. Nobody is accusing governent of Sweden in all-penetrating corruption. That's a gross injustice. Unfortunately William Dunkerley forgot to tell us who are those evil evil evil manipulators
Posted by: Afeygin | October 25, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Italy and Canada are not being "accused" of the things you outlined because they are a part of the west (who, by the way, are also known to "kidnap and kill their own citizens" as well)....but I'm sure you already knew that. In the case of the Litvinenko case, Dunkerley clearly stated that the source of the "Putin did it" meme was Berezovsky. Whenever the west has taken the time to investigate many of the more egregious claims against Putin, they do happen upon the truth. For example, Several months ago Forbes published a list of Russia's 100 richest billionaries and the name "Vladimir Putin" was nowhere to be found on the list. They did a thorough investigation of his assets and found the "billionaire" lacking billions with assets pretty commisserate with his time served in Government. It turns out the story of Putin's $40 billion stash was concocted by one of Putin's political enemies and fed to the western press uncritically just as Mr. Dunkerley says frequently happens. Despite Forbes laying waste to the rumor, not many in the western press even bothered carrying the Forbes report on this.
If Mr. Putin were to "wise up" and turn his country into a western client state, all of this teeth gnashing over Putin would evaporate overnight. This ultimately has nothing to do with "democracy," "human rights" or any of the other phony notions the west "pretends" to care about only when it's in a political foes country, but everything to do with a vastly powerful (plenty of energy, wilderness & freshwater lakes) and culturally signifact country with its own nuclear arsenal and successful space program that won't bow down and kow-tow to western dictates.
Posted by: R.C. | October 25, 2012 at 11:29 PM
So, it's Berezovsky who secretly manipulates Western media? It's remarkably insightful of you and Mr. Dunkerley.
Putin's record of theft goes way back and there is ample evidence, even if not always as conclusive as the early one. It would be entirely stupid to think that Putin let all his cronie friends become super-billioners without having a share for himself. If course he has all the resources of the state secret police to cover his track and Forbes is not likely to have matching resources.
Not sure about "western client state" but you are absolutely right that Putin's power has nothing to do with "democracy," "human rights" or any of the other "phony notions". You really should go to Russia and enjoy all the advantages of the corrupt criminal regime. I am sure you'll like it.
Posted by: Afeygin | October 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM
I completely agree with the underlying premise of this article. I have discussed it several times and exchanges notes with Patrick Armstrong about it. Russia it completely hopeless when it comes to public relations and useless at putting its case forward.
PS: Viz the other commentator, I have been to Russia and I do like it. For the rest it seems to me that your comments are nothing more than a collection of non sequiturs.
Posted by: Alexander Mercouris | October 26, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Afevgin,
Unfortunately the Swedish ruling class is very corrupt and it affects life profoundly in many areas. But it is kept out of the eye of the citizens as much as possible.
So you will have to look elswhere for examples of honest leadership, not to mention the one working efficiently for the common good.
Posted by: Andreas | November 02, 2012 at 12:19 AM
It seems Afeygin knows more about Putin than Forbes does! I wonder who I would trust more with knowing what's what? A magazine that did a thorough investigation or some commentator who claims there there is "ample evidence" (which he obviously knows about but either can't or won't share...) but then gives the cover/excuse that because of Putin's resources he can cover his tracks (and thus gives himself a cop out if anyone asks for examples of this "ample evidence"). This is like one of those claims that the Illumanti rule the world in secret or that no astronaut ever made it to the moon. A crackpot theory that requires one to believe that some average joe somehow is able to find out the truth against an evil conspiracy with vast resources to hide itself where other interested parties have failed due to them being unable to match the resources employed by the evil conspiracy. I suppose this means that Afeygin has access to resources to match Putin's and that this is how he was able to uncover the truth where Forbes has failed.
Posted by: Hunter | November 05, 2012 at 07:13 AM
I would actually like to see Afeygin posting some of this "ample evidence" and not resort to:
- claiming it can't be found due to Putin using his resources to hide it (Putin for all the resources at hand cannot disrupt Google Cache and Internet Archive....). If he knows about "ample evidence" it should present him no problem to provide examples which can be checked (which is what "evidence" is, otherwise it is considered as unsubstantiated rumour at best and libel at worst).
- claiming that Putin's mere association with someone is proof. In most of the world simply knowing or being associated with someone who committed a crime is not evidence that you were complicit in that crime. If that were so then entire families would be locked up upon the conviction of any one member for a crime and entire social, cultural or ethnic groups would also be criminalized. Thankfully we don't live a world where you go to prison because you happen to be Vietnamese or a because you met Al Capone or dared to so much as rent him a room once or because your brother robbed a store.
- trying to change the topic by claiming that myself and other postings don't really know what is going (if we don't know what is going on and you do, then you can simply post it and inform us, otherwise why should anyone believe you?)
Posted by: Hunter | November 05, 2012 at 07:30 AM
Interesting interview.
I don't think Russia bothers too much with countering Western propaganda in the Western media because it's a fruitless battle. The negative image will continue because (as was mentioned above) it's part of their agenda. The best weapon which Russia has in this sense is it's own international media which BTW has a significant following and which it employs quite well, exposing topics and news items that the Western media either ignores or tries to spin. The days when the BBC, CNN, Fox could present an issue without being countered are over.
Posted by: Spartak | November 18, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Israel calls for Putin to dismiss Foreign Minister Lavrov. Arayik Sargsyan,academician. http://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2012/08/30/araik_sargsyan_putin_ne_ustraivaet_mossad/
Posted by: Anna | November 19, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Goes hunting for Putin.
Arayik SARGSYAN, academician, President of the Academy of Geopolitics.
All world think tanks, solid MEDIA began hunting for Vladimir Putin. State and special service behind these forces are interested in building relationships, including on a personal level, with the President of one of the most likely state of export of energy resources to the world market. Interest in the person of the President of Russia is growing and the fact that Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian leader. And Western States have "experience" with overspeeding authoritarian leaders of States which hamper the realization of plans of those countries and geopolitical. The fate of the former "friends" of world powers Nicola Ceausescu, Slobodana Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi-"the kiss of Judas" example. It is symbolic, and the first race for Putin's invitation to visit their country began Israil's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says, sitting on Monday its new six-year term as President, Obama said during a telephone conversation that will not participate in the work of the G8 Summit, 18-19 may, at Camp David. In addition, Russia refuses to take part in a two-day NATO Summit, starting its work on May 20 in Chicago. And really, why should the President of the Russian Federation to the United States after Magadan, Russia is linked to the United States and Mr Putin may meet with them without the unnecessary hype. And anyway, what's the secret of Putin nor known United States or British, if the Prosecutor General of Russia Yury Chaika worked on American analytical company Stratfor, which is often referred to as a "shadow" of the CIA. Beijing.http://osadchuktoday.ru/site/storyz/%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5
Posted by: Anna | November 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM