How Russia's top leaders and educated class were deceived.

https://t.me/EurasianChoice

It should be noted that the informational pressure on Russia, specifically as Russia (not just as an Orthodox country, but as Russia), began in the 1820s after the end of the Napoleonic wars. The British understood very well that their main adversary on the continent was Russia. Moreover, this adversary was more formidable than Napoleon. Napoleon was a European power, whereas Russia was a Eurasian power.

It was during this time that a powerful information propaganda project was launched - Russophobia, that is, hostility towards Russia as a country of Russians. In essence, this was an informational preparation for the Crimean War (1853-1856).

And it must be said that the preparation yielded results because, if you look at what Europeans of various political views were writing on the eve of the Crimean War (for example, the Archbishop of Paris on one hand, and on the other, Karl Marx), they were writing about the same thing - that Russia needed to be crushed. Because (Karl Marx wrote) Russia was a barbaric reactionary country, and the Archbishop of Paris claimed it was a barbaric Orthodox country.

In other words, it didn't matter if it was Orthodox or reactionary, what mattered was that it was a barbaric country. This was the result of this Russophobic campaign. After Russia began integrating into the global capitalist system following the Crimean War, it became the object, or rather its resources became the object of desire for the West.

The information war continued. Russia was portrayed as an undemocratic, autocratic, and backward country. The goal was simply to bring Russian resources under control.

In 1884, a resolution was adopted at the Berlin Conference stating that countries possessing significant and abundant natural resources but unable to use them themselves should open up to the world. And if they didn't open up willingly, they should be opened by force. Formally, it was said to be about Africa, but Africa could be exploited without this resolution. The real target was Russia.

It was assumed that the young Tsar Alexander III would yield, but he did not yield. In other words, the information pressure on Russia was a function of the geo-economic and geopolitical struggle against Russia.

In the 20th century, the information war against Russia took on a new dimension because Russia became the Soviet Union, a system opposed to capitalism, and this process continued. It must be said that with the exception of the period of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s (perhaps partly the 1960s), Russia did not win information wars but generally lost them.

What are the reasons for this? I think there are several. Firstly, it is important to understand who conducted this information war against Russia. It was not individual states like Britain or, in the 20th century, the United States. It was the transnational elites of the West who had a tremendous experience in conducting information wars since the 18th century. They were adept at using information as a weapon.

In contrast, Russian elites not only had a poor grasp of this weapon, but there's more to it. The issue is that after the Petrine reforms, we had a Westernized nobility, and in the 19th century, a Westernized intelligentsia, both liberal and socialist, emerged. These people viewed Russia through Western eyes.

In other words, in terms of the state, Russian elites were opposed to the West, but in terms of information, they were part of the West. They looked at their own people through Western eyes. In a sense, they were ideologically and informationally captive to the West.

As Antonio Gramsci said, "he who is the master of cultural discourse is the master in politics." In other words, this Western orientation of the Russian intellectual and political elite disarmed them in front of the West. Because the Western propaganda line was, "You are a backward country." Yes, we agree. We are a backward country because we look at our own country with our own perspective. The West says, "You must become like us. You must implement reforms."

This was said in the late 19th century and during the perestroika period. "If you implement these reforms, you will become like us." Russia carried out these reforms, and these reforms led to revolution or the disintegration of the country, as happened at the end of the 20th century.

From the diaries of the famous American diplomat George Kennan (October 15, 1986):

"I told Annelise [Kennan's wife] that if I were to talk to Mr. Gorbachev about these matters and he were to ask me how to overcome the extraordinary suspicions and hostility with which the United States regards his country, I would answer him: '...You can do absolutely nothing here. You can yield to us on all points in negotiations, and yet encounter nothing but stony hostility from official American circles, and your concessions will be used by the President as proof that he intimidated you and forced you to submit, and that the only language you understand is that of force. And here you are dealing with a deeper and broader phenomenon than Mr. Reagan. Powerful elements of the American people feel the need for a completely inhuman enemy. They need such an enemy to reassure themselves of their own exceptional virtues. Politicians know this and, being, for the most part, superficial, short-sighted people with a narrow outlook, they usually cater to these chauvinistic reactions, even at the expense of our relations with other countries. You must seek opportunities for normal, satisfactory relationships in any other parts of the world. You can write off the United States in this regard. Seek peace, trade, and civility elsewhere, not here.'"

By the way, in the early 21st century, a high-ranking American official, President Bush's representative for conflicts, Stephen Mann, was very candid in saying that "the U.S. strategy of controlled chaos towards Russia was implemented through two things: pushing the Soviet Union (referring to the Soviet Union) towards democratic reforms in the political sphere and creating a market economy in the economic sphere."

This led to a situation of chaos in the country. He viewed both of these as the realization of the strategy of controlled chaos. Those of my age and slightly younger remember very well the era of perestroika when the destabilization of the Soviet system began with informational attacks. First on Stalin, then on Lenin, and then on socialism.

At first, they said, "More democracy, more socialism!" And then they started saying that democracy is incompatible with socialism. Democracy is a sign of a civilized society (it wasn't referred to as a bourgeois society but a civilized one).

In other words, one of the main reasons for the Russian, and later Soviet, elites losing the information war was the absence of their own worldview. When you receive someone else's worldview and look at the world through someone else's eyes, you start to see the world in someone else's interests.

The exception during this period was the 1930s to 1950s when Soviet people were convinced (whether they were right or not) that they had the best society and the best achievements. They sent a man into space. They won the most terrible war in human history. They had the lowest mortality rate in the world in the 1960s, at 6 per thousand. This gave them confidence. And confidence in the future.

Then in the 1960s, it became clear that there was inequality in our society as well. The vulnerable point of the Soviet system was that the ideology claimed that we were building a society of equals, while the reality told us something completely different. In this regard, the current post-Soviet system is less vulnerable. It doesn't claim to be building a society of equals. It says something completely different. And from this perspective, it's not as easily challenged. Just like Western society that says, "Yes, people are not equal. Everyone has a chance. There's the American dream." Although it's perfectly clear that in today's America, the American dream... there, for example, a cobbler's son cannot become a millionaire. It's a myth.

If the elite, which should be the main driving force in the information war, looks at the world through someone else's eyes, it means they are subjected to a constant stream of foreign information. It means that they have been disarmed in terms of information warfare. They are informationally defenseless. They have no weapons.

For example, when someone tells you, "Your country is bad," and you respond with, "Yes, my country is bad," that's a problem. An attempt is made to impose the thesis on modern Russia that it is just as guilty as Hitler and the Third Reich for starting World War II. Then you start justifying, saying, "No, we are good."

Instead, a different approach is needed. We should prove (and there is plenty of evidence for this) that the main culprits of World War II, alongside Hitler, were the British and the Americans.

It was their contradictions that created an explosive situation that Hitler exploited. There is no need to make excuses; we need to attack.

Source

Compiled and translated for t.me/EurasianChoice