By definition, “propaganda” is a byproduct of dictatorships (like in Russia and China), while “information” is associated with democracies. “Information” depends on checks and balances from various sources. “Propaganda” is imposed from one source, usually by distorting or manipulating information. Expressing contrasting views is celebrated in democracies. Expressing disaccord with propaganda is punished in dictatorships. In democracies, information is questioned. In dictatorships, questions aren’t allowed.
Under these indisputable facts, it is therefore inconceivable that many intellectuals (especially in Europe) have accepted the narrative of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite knowing that he is a dictator who has imposed severe censorship on the country; that the Russian soldiers under his leadership are committing war crimes in Ukraine (as they did in Chechnya, Georgia, and Syria); and that he’s manipulating information (not verifiable by independent observers) for propaganda purposes.
The justifications given by these intellectuals have been varied: that the blame for the Russian invasion of Ukraine lies with the U.S., that NATO is to blame, that Europe is too Russia-dependent for gas. But they tend to forget the fact that Putin invaded a neighboring country (as did Hitler with Poland in 1939, starting the Second World War), and he’s committing genocide.
Once these two simple essential concepts are understood, all the rest of Russian propaganda should be debunked, at least by the less gullible minds.
And this is without considering Putin’s use of ruthless mercenaries from the private Wagner Group, Chechen mercenaries (the “Vestok” battalion), and Syrians.
It should also be emphasized how these intellectuals serve Putin by feeding his propaganda machine, which is then reinforced by disinformation. The latest manipulation
is that the Russians recently extrapolated some information from a BBC report, making it seem as though the report was pro-Putin, and publicized it, until the British media organization disavowed it.
However, these intellectuals are neither unique nor rare; similar attitudes were common during the rise of both Fascism and Nazism.
In final analysis, it remains inconceivable how these intellectuals can defend a dictatorship against democracy. For all the defects it has, the latter should always be defended against the dangers of dictatorship, at least for people of common sense.
Leave A Comment