Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

BBC’s Steve Rosenberg amplifies President Putin’s message

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 1, 2024

The BBC’s Moscow correspondent, Steve Rosenberg, made a splash in British media by asking a question of President Putin during his press conference at the BRICS Summit in Kazan.

‘Journalist asks question at a press conference!’ doesn’t resonate with me as a headline as much as, say, ‘tens of thousands of innocent civilians and children killed needlessly in Gaza.’ And yet, the Daily Mail in the UK hailed Rosenberg as ‘the man who took on Putin,’ the Daily Wrap talked about a ‘grilling’ of the Russian President.

This provided a colourful insight into the different UK and the Russian perspectives on diplomacy and communications.

From the UK perspective, the British government has had a clear strategic communications aim since 2014 of talking about Russia rather than talking to Russia. Government strategic communications about have been and continue to be aimed at convincing UK, wider European and global audiences that the west is right, and that Russia is wrong. Since the Ukraine crisis started a decade ago, the British press has risen with great enthusiasm to the challenge of reporting in a very one-sided way about Russia. How unjust Russia’s actions are in Ukraine (the essence of Rosenberg’s question), how dreadful Russia is as a country and how it’s all President Putin’s fault. We talk about Russia, a lot!

A British journalist posing a question at a Russian press conference is firstly interesting because of its novelty. Western media consumers hardly ever see a British person talk to President Putin and practically never see a British politician talk him. When it happens, it fascinates, excites and terrifies in equal measure, like watching a Hannibal Lecter movie. Good job Rosenberg wasn’t invited for dinner.

The UK loves to talk about Russia precisely because we stopped talking to Russia ten years ago. Ever since 2014, the UK government has systematically cancelled opportunities for direct dialogue with Russia on issues of global importance, including on Ukraine. In recent history, this departure from diplomacy as a tool to resolve differences was accelerated by British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond after he took office in July 2014. Apart from a vanishing attempt by Boris Johnson in late 2017 to re-engage in diplomacy with Russia, the approach of not-talking to Russia (but talking about Russia) has remained rock solid for ten years.

It is driven by an unshakeable belief that, when it comes to Russia, might will prove to be right, and that the combined economic, military and demographic size of the west will prevail, without the need to take account of Russian concerns.

Russia is an adversary to be defeated.

The problem, of course, is that Russia hasn’t been defeated in Ukraine. Slowly, and inexorably, Ukraine is losing ground in the Donbas while the west vacillates about further supplies of military and other financial aid.

The BRICS Summit in Kazan, if anything, was a demonstration that Russia’s role as an important regional power within the developing world, is as strong as ever.

And that message is anathema to western politicians and bureaucrats who can see their policy on Ukraine slowly disintegrating.

So, in that regard, the coverage of Rosenberg’s question was in part aimed at deflecting attention from the real story of the BRICS Summit; a successful global meeting held in Russia amid a huge growth in interest among countries in joining a new and more inclusive format of diplomatic dialogue.

If that was the aim, I don’t think it worked. Rosenberg stands, visibly nervous and asks a tame question about the justice of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and about allegations of Russian meddling in British domestic politics. He also uses the abbreviation of the Special Military Operation (SVO) a term reviled in western media and largely cancelled out of press reporting (it doesn’t get mentioned in the BBC report).

And herein lies the Russian perspective. Rosenburg’s question was carefully choreographed. Watch the video and you’ll see Rosenberg is given the final question of the press conference, by a visibly amused Press Spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, who smiles at Putin. This question will bring the curtain down on the conference, so it has to be entertaining. President Putin laughs towards the end of Rosenberg’s question then offers a four-minute reply. He repeats key allegations he has been making for many years about the west looking to isolate and diminish Russia, and about Russian demands about no NATO expansion being ignored. Rosenberg stands awkwardly taking it all in.

This is the Putin I saw many times at big international conferences while I worked at the British Embassy in Moscow. He seems to like tough questions; I watched him go toe to toe with seasoned American journalists several times at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, for example. He appears to relish the opportunity get his and Russia’s messages across to a wider global audience.

Just as importantly, he is signalling to Russian viewers that he is open to dialogue. And that foreign journalists, however good they are, can never summon up the weight of arguments to overcome the legitimacy of Russia’s actions in the world. Hence the Tucker Carlson interview on 6 February 2024 served exactly the same purpose. Over two hours, President Putin made himself available for a wide-ranging discussion. Some western commentators turned on Carlson visiting Russia and conducting the interview, which rewinds us back to the concept of talking about Russia, not talking to Russia.

But, unlike western leaders, even though the timing, questions and journalists are chosen carefully, President Putin has shown a consistent willingness to make himself available to for in-depth discussions. You never see western leaders do the same thing. Imagine Keir Starmer holding a two hour in-depth discussion with a journalist from Rossiya Segodnya ? It simply wouldn’t happen. Not only would that break the cardinal rule about not talking to Russians, it would expose him to some harsh questions about the failure of western policy in Ukraine.

As for Steve Rosenberg, he often receives fantastic access to senior political and policy figures in Moscow. Since 2022, he has interviewed Sergei Lavrov, Sergey Naryshkin and Maria Zakharova. He also interviewed Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenko in the margins of BRICS. Every time, the interviewee mounts a robust defence of their actions and a critique of the west. And the videos are posted extensively on Russian media.

I wonder whether, in fact, the headline from Kazan should have been, ‘BBC journalist asks President Putin to put across the failure of western policy to a global audience.’

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

West sees red over failed second color revolution in Georgia

Strategic Culture Foundation | November 1, 2024

The United States and European Union are threatening consequences for Georgia after its citizens voted “the wrong way” – for peaceful relations with Russia and traditional moral values.

Farcically, this is while the U.S. heads into presidential elections that are mired in chaos and recriminations over vote rigging and buying of votes by oligarchs and big businesses.

Welcome to Western-style democracy where if you vote the way the powers-that-be want, it’s a fair election. If you vote the wrong way, it’s a rigged, flawed result that should be ignored or, worse, overturned.

Such was the heated reaction from Western states to the electoral victory of the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party last weekend in the South Caucasus nation. The party campaigned on a strong, clear platform for pursuing peaceful neighborly relations with Russia.

GD also declared support for traditional social and moral values, rejecting the Western pseudo-liberal agenda of promoting gender-bender LGBTQ+ identities, which was espoused by the Western-backed Georgian opposition parties.

At the end of the day, Georgian Dream won a stunning victory, taking nearly 54 percent of the vote, translating into obtaining 90 out of a total of 150 parliamentary seats. Four opposition parties, which touted closer integration ties with NATO and the EU and acclaiming LGBTQ+ rights, won less than 38 percent of the vote.

The Georgian people are to be commended for asserting their democratic rights in the face of massive Western interference in the election. Western money and NGOs amplified the opposition parties. If they had won, the new pro-Western administration would have turned Georgia into a second war front against Russia in conjunction with the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime. Georgia and Ukraine have been at the center of the Western policy of expanding NATO around Russia’s borders. Both countries were declared future members of the military bloc as far back as 2008, although NATO membership is a red line for Russia.

Fortunately, Georgian voters were aware of the geopolitical stakes and rallied to the cause of prioritizing peaceful regional relations and rejecting the notional security privileges of NATO.

Western recriminations were fast and furious after the result. Western media reported that “Western pollsters” claimed that there were voting irregularities. What were Western pollsters doing in Georgia in the first place? Such entities sound more like a plant to stir post-election trouble.

As it turns out, there were indeed incidents of vote buying, ballot stuffing, and intimidation at polling stations. But videos showed that the incidents were agitprops organized by the Western-sponsored opposition parties.

However, thankfully, such malfeasance was relatively minor and did not invalidate the overall final result. Georgia’s Central Election Committee declared the process to be free and fair. The authorized election invigilating body has given its verdict, and that should be the end of it.

Disgracefully, the defeated opposition parties, who behave more like fifth columnists than patriotic representatives, have refused to recognize the result as legitimate. Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili demeaned her constitutionally designated office of political neutrality by accusing Georgian Dream of “stealing the election.” She was afforded a prominent interview on CNN to peddle her treasonous slander that Russia interfered in the election to hamper the opposition.

Moscow vehemently repudiated accusations of interference. It pointed instead to the abundant evidence that Western states had vigorously tried to enhance the vote for opposition parties touting a common agenda.

At this early post-election stage, it is not clear if the opposition parties will persist in threats to hold street protests denouncing the new legislature. Certainly, one can well imagine that Western powers and entities will only be too glad to assist and amplify such civic disturbances – if they are not already inciting them.

Georgian Dream leader Irakli Kobakhidze applauded citizens for voting for a peaceful future. He indicated confidence that the opposition protests will fade into futility because, he said, they do command the support of citizens.

History shows that such confidence might be misplaced, or, at least, should not be complacent.

There is an ominous echo of the U.S.-led coups in Georgia during the 2003 Rose Revolution and the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014.

Georgia was one of the first in a series of so-called color revolutions that occurred in the post-Soviet regions. The fingerprints of the CIA, USAID, Soros Foundation, and other Western imperialist agencies are all over these movements. There is no doubt they were orchestrated with the help of Western media to foment regimes hostile towards Russia with the ultimate objective of destabilizing Russia itself.

The color revolutions have been a disaster for targeted countries. The Georgian Rose Revolution led to the despotic, corrupt regime of Mikhail Saakashvili who is currently in jail for abuse of power.

In Ukraine, the Orange Revolution in 2004-2005 led to the Maidan movement of 2014 that culminated in a NeoNazi regime, which destroyed that country in a proxy war with Russia at the behest of its NATO masters. It is estimated that 600,000-700,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in nearly three years of conflict. Millions of Ukrainian citizens have been displaced or fled their country. The nation has huge debts to Western capital, and its natural resources are owned by Wall Street.

As for Georgia, it has escaped the same fate – so far. The truth is that Georgia was subjected to a second color revolution in the run-up to this latest election. To be clear, a second color revolution is not on the way in Georgia; it is already underway. The question is: can the Georgian nation of four million defeat it definitively?

The United States and European Union are huffing and puffing about the latest Georgian election, hinting that they will not recognize the new government and that there will be “consequences.” The fact is the Western despotic powers were threatening consequences in the weeks before the vote on October 26. Georgians took courage and refused to be intimidated by Western threats or bribes. Such courage bodes well for their future independence and development. But vigilance is the watchword.

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

NATO trying to push Russia out of Black Sea – Putin aide

RT | November 2, 2024

Russia must work to strengthen its Navy to counteract NATO’s continued efforts to establish dominance in the Black Sea, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide Nikolay Patrushev has said.

During a meeting with the command of the Russian Navy and the Black Sea Fleet, Patrushev, who serves as the chairman of the Maritime Collegium, pointed out that pushing Russia out of the Black Sea has long been one of the primary goals of Washington and its allies.

“Historical facts show that pushing Russia away from the Black Sea shores has traditionally been considered one of the key tasks in Anglo-Saxon politics. And today, the collective West, led by the United States, is hatching plans to establish its own long-term presence in the Black Sea and along its perimeter to the detriment of the legitimate interests of our country,” Patrushev said.

He added that the US and its NATO allies are currently “hatching plans” to expand their naval presence in the Black Sea through the use of Europe’s internal waterways for military purposes; in this case, to access it through the Danube.

“Reducing Russia’s role as a maritime power in the Black Sea region is one of the areas of action of unfriendly Western states in the context of their policy aimed at inflicting a strategic defeat on our country,” he said, noting that the increase of NATO’s presence is also a violation of the Montreux Convention, which limits the presence of military vessels in the straits between the Black and Mediterranean seas.

Patrushev also pointed out that according to Russia’s maritime doctrine, the Black Sea and the Azov Sea are regarded as key regions for the protection of the country’s national interests in the global ocean space.

He stressed that it was necessary to ensure “a balance of power” in the region and increase the universality of the Russian Navy and expand its range of its tasks to help protect national interests.

In July, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky had signed a decree outlining the country’s maritime security strategy, which included the establishment of a permanent NATO presence in the Black Sea and the organization of maritime patrols in the Azov-Black Sea basin in coordination with Kiev’s partner countries.

Moscow responded to the move by pointing out that a “concentrated presence” of NATO ships in the Black Sea represented a threat to Russia’s national security and that it would respond by taking measures to protect its interests in the region.

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

TV host slams ‘climate alarmism’ among Western media

Sky News Australia | October 31, 2024

Sky News host Chris Kenny slams the overwhelming “climate alarmism” among Western media which is catastrophising and scaring children.

“When it comes to climate change and climate alarmism, it is almost pointless fighting back,” Mr Kenny said.

“But I’m going to keep pointing it out because, you know, facts matter. Now people hate to challenge this stuff because then they’re called climate deniers and they’re mocked, shunned or even abused. So, for the record, yes, the climate is changing.”

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »