Figure of the Week: 30,000

The sky-high tsunami of stupid

Pro-Kremlin media use volume to create an impression. An example: So far in 2020, the word “Russophobia” or its adjective, “Russophobic”, has appeared in over 30,000 articles published across 4,800 Russian-language websites.

Russian state-controlled media outlets tend to use loud language. On 2 October, following fraudulent elections and violent reprisals against peaceful protesters in Minsk, a commentator on Sputnik Belarus said that EU members are “totalitarian” countries who speak “pseudo-democratic rubbish” and apply sanctions as “medieval methods(opens in a new tab)”.

At times, the hyperbolic language can turn bizarre. Last year, a regular German commentator for Sputnik declared that Western suspicion of Moscow’s intentions stems from a “genetic fear(opens in a new tab)” of Russia. And later, Sputnik Italy darkly warned about a “new world leader” who foresees “catastrophe for Russia, and not only [Russia]!”

Who was this rising, sinister global force confronting the Kremlin and its allies? UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson? Financier George Soros? Any outspoken critical voice against Kremlin policies?

Why, no. It was Greta Thunberg(opens in a new tab), of course. EUvsDisinfo has written several times before about the Kremlin’s fear of a teenage(opens in a new tab) girl(opens in a new tab).

Russian state invests in reaching out to audiences globally. RT has six online portals, and Sputnik at least 31. Together they publish more than 100,000 articles a month, in addition to countless hours of video and radio broadcasts. A small galaxy of websites such as News Front(opens in a new tab) also distributes pro-Kremlin stories, conspiracies theories, and the rambling ruminations of pro-Kremlin commentators.

In September, an Oxford study(opens in a new tab) on organisational behaviour of RT found that the goal of such disinformation is to create chaos and upend the political status quo, particularly in Europe. But if chaos is the goal, the means is sheer volume, like an incoming tsunami. The giant wave usually has currents that give the deluge direction and form, and it comes from a colossal faucet that the Kremlin can turn on and off as political circumstances require.

For example, following allegedly fraudulent elections in Belarus on 9 August, Sputnik Belarus went into hyperdrive. From 9 to 21 August, the outlet produced 500% more content and gained over 2,000% more user engagements. Since then, typically sober commentary has claimed that Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is using(opens in a new tab) “neuro-linguistic professionals” to influence public opinion and that Poland is supporting the Belarusian opposition in order to destroy the country and create a “Great Poland(opens in a new tab) between the [Black and Baltic] seas”.

Interestingly, RT English tries hard to look and sound like a serious source of news. But in the smaller outlets like Sputnik Belarus, fly-by-night websites and Twitter bots, the rims fly off and the tin-foil hats go on, particularly when it involves giving coverage to silly statements(opens in a new tab).

Here are a few memes that tend to reappear in Russian coverage across all its outlets.

  • Russia is great

Russian history is great(opens in a new tab). Russian vaccines are great(opens in a new tab), and you should buy them(opens in a new tab). Russian weapons are bloody fantastic(opens in a new tab), and you should buy them(opens in a new tab) too, particularly if you live in the Middle East(opens in a new tab). Also, Putin is great(opens in a new tab). With all this greatness, the reader has the sense that Kremlin propaganda is, as much as anything, a means of raising its rulers’ self-esteem. But the problem with declaring one’s greatness is that some people around you might beg to disagree, especially if you at Russia track record of media freedom(opens in a new tab) or human rights(opens in a new tab). And that leads us to…

  • Us versus them

A consistent dynamic in pro-Russian reporting is the outrage that follows when others, particularly Westerners, question the greatness or simply unacceptable Russia’s decisions to get away with post-war Europe’s security architecture. One example: the development of the Russian-made Sputnik V vaccine.

Back in March, Russia announced that tests(opens in a new tab) for a vaccine had begun. Sure enough, a mere five months later, Russian state media celebrated(opens in a new tab) that the country was the first to “register” Sputnik V(opens in a new tab). In September, the UK science journal The Lancet published(opens in a new tab) basic data about the vaccine, and pro-Russian outlets followed with more chest-pounding(opens in a new tab). But a group of mostly Italian researchers raised questions, saying that patterns in the data were “highly unlikely(opens in a new tab)”. The Russian response? Angry denials(opens in a new tab), followed by assertions that the West is trying(opens in a new tab) to destroy(opens in a new tab) the(opens in a new tab) vaccine(opens in a new tab) out of greed, or simply out of envy. And that leads us to our third meme…

  • Our adversaries are insane

Pro-Russian media commentators rarely address an opponent’s best argument. They prefer to assume that irrational impulses motivate their adversaries, particularly if doing so is a good way to deflect from the issue at hand.

One favourite: the allegation of “Russophobia(opens in a new tab)”. Russian media outlets like this word. So far in 2020, the expression or its adjective, “Russophobic”, has appeared in over 30,000 articles published across 4,800 Russian-language websites.

Its use serves an important purpose. A “Russophobic” action cannot reflect a legitimate interest or a sincere concern. Instead, it’s a symptom of a deep inbred hostility to Russia and everything Russian that cannot be argued or negotiated with. Because Russophobia is irrational, it’s also convenient because it helps to repress any nagging doubts that self-reflection might be in order. In this way, you can dismiss sanctions as a “sanctions itch(opens in a new tab)” and every opposing argument as a “”. You can even go truly meta and accuse your adversaries of needing an external enemy(opens in a new tab), just as you do. Ride this train of thought long enough, and you arrive at a simple axiom: if(opens in a new tab) you(opens in a new tab) oppose(opens in a new tab) Russia(opens in a new tab), you’re(opens in a new tab) a(opens in a new tab) Nazi(opens in a new tab).

Also, Greta Thunberg is spreading mass hysteria(opens in a new tab).

While those memes describe the contours of many articles that appear in pro-Kremlin media, one particular rhetorical trick shows up again and again within the articles themselves. It is…

  • Endless questions, then long leaps to wild conclusions

Here, the case of the alleged poisoning of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny is instructive. Rather than considering independent investigation into poisoning, Russian state-controlled media prefer to ask an endless series of questions. They include: why is Navalny still alive(opens in a new tab)? What’s the point(opens in a new tab) in poisoning Navalny? If Putin poisoned Navalny, why did he let Navalny leave(opens in a new tab) the country? How could Navalny’s death have helped Putin(opens in a new tab)? What about this “mysterious witness(opens in a new tab)”?

These questions are not unreasonable, but the commentators who pose them rarely follow them up for real answers. Instead, the questions are diving boards for jumping into pools full of dubious assertions. Wiretaps(opens in a new tab) prove that Merkel lied about Navalny. Navalny is working for the CIA(opens in a new tab). The West did it.(opens in a new tab) Novichok’s Russian co-creator(opens in a new tab) says, again(opens in a new tab) and again(opens in a new tab), that its use would have killed Navalny. But forget about that last story, because… Novichok(opens in a new tab), you say(opens in a new tab)? What’s that?(opens in a new tab)

But one question lies under all the others. Its answer is presumed to be self-evident. With Nord Stream 2 on the line, how could Kremlin higher-ups have been so stupid(opens in a new tab) as to have poisoned Navalny now?

The obvious riposte: Kremlin insiders are not stupid. But they might be presumptuous enough to think that with enough constant repetition(opens in a new tab), the lies might work.

And by the way, Greta Thunberg hates you(opens in a new tab).

(c) EU vs Disinfo

One comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.