Russophobia \ Putinphobia in the media

[Nikitn]

Well what do ya expect. The politicians know the mob must have something external to hate, and the press knows there's allot of cash to be made from a good "Russian boogeyman vs random underdog" story. So after a suitable amount of brainwashing, everybody forgets the other POV and completely ignore historical precedents.

[Aanker]

Context.

The context of Russian trespassing is what is ticking people off. As you accurately mentioned, Russia annexed Crimea and all but outright invaded eastern Ukraine. But the Russian military budget is also increasing, the border incidents are on the rise, and diplomatically the nation is becoming more and more aggressive with increasing amounts of posturing. With these creeping changes in mind, the treshhold for what becomes a significant event lowers. Which is good: at some point our shrinking patience must also be demonstrated.

As far as specifics go the OP was strikingly incorrect, to my knowledge Sweden lacks the military capabilities to even contemplate sending forces to the Arctic, and the Russian submarine is cruising around in Baltic waters, outside Stockholm.

And the apologists, as someone else mentioned earlier, only serve to make matters worse as we must ask how assumedly reasonable people are (for whatever purpose?) completely in the control of whatever RT says.

[alhoon]

As far as specifics go the OP was strikingly incorrect, to my knowledge Sweden lacks the military capabilities to even contemplate sending forces to the Arctic, and the Russian submarine is cruising around in Baltic waters, outside Stockholm.

Probably true, and you're (to a part) correct on the context of the rapidly chilling relations.

However, I just stumbled on this:
http://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-in...ck-kiev-279031

"Russian special forces plotted a series of armed attacks against Ukrainian cabinet ministers and several other targets in Ukraine’s capital city of Kiev this week, according to a spokesperson for Ukraine’s counter-intelligence services (SSU), after a weapons cache was uncovered.The explosive allegations come ahead of parliamentary elections in Ukraine on Sunday, and a suspected assassination attempt on a parliamentary candidate on Monday."

See, THOSE are important. A submarine is not even remotely as important as Russians trying to blow up a candidate the day before yesterday and having a crapload of weapons to attack other candidates. And yet, I just found out that a candidate has been hit by explosives while the submarine story is everywhere.

Context is good, true. But when Russians plant bombs in Kiev to kill candidates and had more planned, then focus should shift on the actions.

[Captain Jin]

Probably true, and you're (to a part) correct on the context of the rapidly chilling relations.

However, I just stumbled on this:
http://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-in...ck-kiev-279031

"Russian special forces plotted a series of armed attacks against Ukrainian cabinet ministers and several other targets in Ukraine’s capital city of Kiev this week, according to a spokesperson for Ukraine’s counter-intelligence services (SSU), after a weapons cache was uncovered.The explosive allegations come ahead of parliamentary elections in Ukraine on Sunday, and a suspected assassination attempt on a parliamentary candidate on Monday."

I don't doubt Russians are involved with ongoing military operations in eastern Ukraine, however I do doubt this claim. For one thing we have solid enough information linking Russian personnel to operations inside Ukraine, but as far as this goes it's a claim made by a member of Ukraine's counter-intelligence service which is pretty dubious if you ask me. What would Russia possibly gain in assassinating Ukrainian parliamentary candidates? It doesn't really make sense. Especially if they're making this accusation based on the discovery of a weapons cache. Cmon.

[alhoon]

Russia? Not much. But Rebels? They keep the war going. I don't think Russian agents themselves did that, but I believe those grenades I saw in the article were kindly provided by Russians to the rebels. As if there would be no rebel with a grudge towards Kiev for killing his/her family and wanted a little payback.

I'm also not sure whether it's true or fabricated. I really am not. However whether true or false, it's more important than Russia violating Estonia's airspace 5 times this year.

[Adar]

It got damaged there because... it trespassed Sweden's national waters. I didn't say they didn't do it, I say it's hypocritical to make such a hype over it when there are hundreds such incidents per year, every year by Russia that nobody cared for, for decades and that when others do it, it's still ignored. And I don't just talk about Greece-Turkey infringements here. USA also "comes close" to national borders of Iran quite often. And actually bombed inside Pakistan without warning a few times (although at least they killed OBLaden that way). Look at what importance China places to other countries national borders.
But suddenly, NOW, it's important that Russia did it. When Russians were doing that for years as the sources of both of you show... nah, then it wasn't important.

As far as "But the Baltic is on the other side!" well, from the article screaming "the Russians are coming!" http://www.examiner.com/article/russ...deploys-troops

"As the crisis over a 'mysterious' and unknown Russian submarine believed to be trapped in Swedish coastal waters escalates, President Vladimir Putin is taking no chances that their Northern European neighbor will use its military to threaten discovered oil fields Russia has made claim to in the Arctic region. And on Oct. 21, the Russian leader has decided to react with force and is deploying troops and robotic sentries to the Arctic to ensure the dispute reaches no further than its current location."

Russians, as the article states, put their military along the whole artic border. Well, good for them, it's their border. It won't cause WW3.




Now, THOSE are important incidents that I expect to be reported. Those are serious incidents that mostly everybody agrees they are important whether Russia does them or someone else.
And yet, I didn't see them in the news back when they happened. Why? because nobody cared about Russia then.

You tell me that they were practicing nuclear attacks in Sweden... and the Baltic states' various airforces weren't ready to intercept the Russian jets, but had to rely on the 16 NATO airplanes. That's how much everyone ignored what Russia was doing up to 6 months ago. Not only didn't the news that Russia was practicing nuking Sweden reach the mainstream news, they didn't even alarm Sweden!
And now, a lone submarine, or jets in international airspace, or Russia moving armies to the Artic border cause frenzy.
Why? Because the media decided to play on that hype.

First of all. Hypocrisy would be if the Swedish submarines violated Russian territorial waters, told the Russians to chill out and then got upset.

So for example, this statement is a pretty good example of hypocrisy. What you state is 1) Wrong since Russia so far is not known to have violated the territorial waters with submarines as far as I am aware and 2) Just an example that countries care mostly about themselves or close allies.

http://larouchepac.com/node/31021
Lavrov's warnings against NATO expansion to the borders of Russia were echoed by Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov, who said that NATO's build-up is a clear act of hostility.
Titov said:"We cannot help but see the alliance's military buildup near the Russian borders as a demonstration of hostile intentions...The additional deployment of substantial combat forces of NATO in Central and Eastern Europe, even through rotation principles, can hardly be called anything else but a direct violation of the provisions of the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act."

Secondly. The Russian easter was widely published at the time and I do not think media can be criticized for your lack of awareness.

[YuriVII]

Reporting on Russia never had much to do with the facts and this is waaaaaaay before Putin even became President. Alot of these "Moscow Beurau cheifs" never leave the hotel and don't speak a word of Russian. You guys have no idea what disservice they are doing to readers. I'm not talking about their opinions not being the same as mine but basing facts on outdated stereotypes that any guy on the street can see is a fabrication. If you want to know about a Western reporter on Russia who tries his most to actually be objective in his reporting and who uses things like published statistics I would recommend Mark Adomanis.

Also in West they have a centuries old superiority complex when it comes to the rest of the world...especially Russian. Doesn't matter what time period, we will always be savages to them. We could send the first man into space and we are still a technologically backwards hole who does not contribute anything to humanity.

[alhoon]

First of all. Hypocrisy would be if the Swedish submarines violated Russian territorial waters, told the Russians to chill out and then got upset.

So for example, this statement is a pretty good example of hypocrisy. What you state is 1) Wrong since Russia so far is not known to have violated the territorial waters with submarines as far as I am aware and 2) Just an example that countries care mostly about themselves or close allies.


Secondly. The Russian easter was widely published at the time and I do not think media can be criticized for your lack of awareness.

1) Who else could have sent the submarine there? Finland?
I never said Russia isn't hypocritical. But the Western media, which is the focus of this thread, also are because they focus on what "sells" these days. For example here you can see that the Chinese are building a 2km airstrip on what Vietnam considers their territory and nobody cares. Have you seen that on BBC lately? on CNN? And I don't mean buried somewhere in their pages. I mean in the top 10 news stories they put out each day.
Isn't building an airstrip on another nation's island kinda a bigger transgression? (Although it's disputed who owns what on that island)

As for countries, they care about themselves. They only care about their close allies because they benefit from those close alliances.

2) I just checked and I couldn't find anything about the exercise of nuking Sweden in March 2013 on BBC, Fox news or CNN. It was in other, less known stuff like "newamerican" and "aviationist" that I didn't know till today.
It certainly was important enough to be in BBC and CNN.

[Tiberios]

Nope, you missed Sweden moving their military towards the artic too.

This is a map of Sweden. Now do please tell me how Sweden is able to deploy troops in an area they can't reach without deploying troops in either Finland or Norway (or Russia itself)?

NATO seems to think that constant violations of national borders are non-incidents though. Our borders are infringed upon more times in a day than Sweden's are by Russia in a year and everyone calls us paranoid for mentioning it. Lazy excuse? How do you think we feel when we hear that lazy excuse by every agency in the world?
Why the double standard then? It's either "chill, a couple dozen dogfights per month in your airspace and in your neighbors airspace is nothing to worry about" as we are told for decades or it's "OMG! They went near your airspace! " make a pick.

So because NATO accepts, which they shouldn't, that Turkey and Greece acts like two spoiled brats it suddenly means that what Russia is doing is okay or not an issue? Yeah, I don't buy it.

It got damaged there because... it trespassed Sweden's national waters. I didn't say they didn't do it, I say it's hypocritical to make such a hype over it when there are hundreds such incidents per year, every year by Russia that nobody cared for, for decades and that when others do it, it's still ignored. And I don't just talk about Greece-Turkey infringements here. USA also "comes close" to national borders of Iran quite often. And actually bombed inside Pakistan without warning a few times (although at least they killed OBLaden that way). Look at what importance China places to other countries national borders.
But suddenly, NOW, it's important that Russia did it. When Russians were doing that for years as the sources of both of you show... nah, then it wasn't important.


As far as "But the Baltic is on the other side!" well, from the article screaming "the Russians are coming!" http://www.examiner.com/article/russ...deploys-troops


"As the crisis over a 'mysterious' and unknown Russian submarine believed to be trapped in Swedish coastal waters escalates, President Vladimir Putin is taking no chances that their Northern European neighbor will use its military to threaten discovered oil fields Russia has made claim to in the Arctic region. And on Oct. 21, the Russian leader has decided to react with force and is deploying troops and robotic sentries to the Arctic to ensure the dispute reaches no further than its current location."


Russians, as the article states, put their military along the whole artic border. Well, good for them, it's their border. It won't cause WW3.

Trespassed Swedish waters? It ended up in an archipelago close to the Swedish capital, that is more than trespassing, that is a deliberate provocation and a serious incident (at least for Sweden). If it had been an accident and the Russians had no intentions of violating Swedish territorial waters, a diplomatic solution would have been found quickly and the whole incident would have been a non-issue. As Aanker mewntioned, this also happens just after Russia has annexed the Crimea and sponsored an insurgency in Eastern Ukraine. Besides that, Russias military budget is being increased and, as I mentioned in my previous posts, incidents of Russian aircraft violating, or coming close to doing so, the airspace of their neighbours, have increased in the previous years.

This is not some isolated incident that just happens out of nowhere, which is the exact reason that it is indeed a serious issue.

As for the whole "the Russians are comming", I don't see any fear mongering in the article at all.

You keep reposting that article and now I'm wondering if you even bothered to read it, because it clearly states that Sweden deployed its forces to look for the submarine, which is in the Baltic, while the Russians has deployed their troops in the Artic. The very notion that Sweden is able to threaten seriously Russian interests on it's own and in the Arctic, is laughable and only portrays how poor Russian state propaganda is when they actually try to portray Sweden as some kind of threat to Russia's interests there.

So, as I said before, the Russians are deploying troops in an area outside of Swedens reach, based on Swedish military operations that they themselves have caused by violating Swedish territorial waters in the first place. Again, if Russophobia is alive and well in Western media, the actions of Russia isn't exactly making things any better and I must say your examples of Russophobia in Western media are far from impressive.

[mrmouth]

Im really not seeing all that much "phobia" with respect to Russia or China. I mean if you turn on 24/7 opinion news, please dont be shocked to see talking heads and their endless verbal diarrhea on any issue of the hour.


Please dont be shocked to see a legitimate news service report on incidents like this: NATO, Swedish fighters scrambled to intercept Russian plane


We are going to see a lot more of that with both Russia and China increasing their military spending and the subsequent and totally counterproductive flexing of their military muscle.

[Captain Jin]

Russia? Not much. But Rebels? They keep the war going. I don't think Russian agents themselves did that, but I believe those grenades I saw in the article were kindly provided by Russians to the rebels. As if there would be no rebel with a grudge towards Kiev for killing his/her family and wanted a little payback.

I'm also not sure whether it's true or fabricated. I really am not. However whether true or false, it's more important than Russia violating Estonia's airspace 5 times this year.

Except the article says Russian Special Forces. And rebels getting arms from Russia is already well known. So whether or not rebels try to maybe kill a member of Parliament or something doesn't mean that was Moscow's intent or that Russia even desires something like that.

[The Despondent Mind]

If the sub is Russian I am really having a hard time understanding their logic behind it. Why make this provocation for no reason? Why ?

[Kraut]

Nope, you missed Sweden moving their military towards the artic too.

Indeed interesting, please provide a source.

[alhoon]

Tiberie: Good post in general, although I don't agree 100%.

Again, if Russophobia is alive and well in Western media, the actions of Russia isn't exactly making things any better and I must say your examples of Russophobia in Western media are far from impressive.

I never said that Russian actions decrease the tensions. Not at all. I don't condone Russia's actions.
Yes indeed, there are way more impressive examples of Russophobic articles in the Western Media, but I don't read them.
As far as the deployment article: Yes, the article itself states what happened. But the title of the article "Russia sends military to protect Arctic oil region after Sweden deploys troops" made me think "OMG! Russia must have deployed tons of ships in neutral waters! ! !"... only to read that they put army in their island and their arctic borders.

BUT: I disagree with you that the rising budget of Russia, the "coming near" to violation, which is not a violation etc are important issues.
What Russia does in Ukraine is an important issue. What China did in South China sea, that nobody cares for, is an important issue. Russia staging exercises of nuking Sweden is an important issue.

A submarine inside the waters and "airplanes close to the borders" are not. I'm not saying that what Russia did with the submarine is OK, I never, ever said that. I also never said it's an isolated incident that has nothing to do with Russia's latest actions and their blatant disregard of international law, that seriously starts surpassing USA's levels.

I say that even with the Ukraine situation and the big picture etc... it's not as important as China building an air corridor in a contested island in South China Sea (and that also comes in context with Chinese aggressive actions in the area lately), not even close. It's not as important as NATO countries trespassing each other's borders 100 times/month. It's not as important as Russia staging nuking Sweden exercises (That also was in context with Russian actions but before Crimea nobody cared).

As your sources prove, it's not something Russia started doing after March. They've been doing it for years. But the media decided to care now. That's my point in this thread. There are threads that condemn or defend Russia's actions. This thread is about the media coverage of those actions.

If China annexes a part of Vietnam or something in 2 years, and the Chinophobia starts, people will say "See this? in 2014 Chinese built stuff on a contested island!" Yeah, but it wasn't given any attention in 2014.


* Kinda out of topic but must be said:

So because NATO accepts, which they shouldn't, that Turkey and Greece acts like two spoiled brats...

We are not acting as spoiled brats. We are protecting our airspace and along with it the integrity of our country as many times per day as it takes. We won't back down from our rights just because foreigners think we should.
The Turks do the same thing. We ... disagree on where the national airspace ends indeed, but it's not like we act as spoiled brats. It's a serious issue and we take national sovereignty seriously as do the Turks.

[alhoon]

Except the article says Russian Special Forces. And rebels getting arms from Russia is already well known. So whether or not rebels try to maybe kill a member of Parliament or something doesn't mean that was Moscow's intent or that Russia even desires something like that.

Ukraine intelligence claims it was Russian special forces. It could be false. And known or not, those grenades and the bomb that almost killed a candidate were 99.99% Russian origin.
I agree that Rebels trying to kill a candidate doesn't mean it's something Russia desired. But once you provide the weapons to rebels, you're responsible to a degree with what happens with these weapons. It doesn't take too much thought to realize that some rebels would be extremists and target civilians in Kiev.

Indeed interesting, please provide a source.

The article claimed the Russians moved their army to their arctic border for that reason, not I. I claimed the article was bullcrap putting too much importance in a non-issue.

[Geronimo2006]

Contrary to alhoon's OP, Russian planes have repeatedly violated NATO airspace. The BBC today reports an Ilyushin violated Estonian airspace.

As for "Russophobia": a better term would be Putinphobia. He is being judged on his aggressive foreign policy which includes using force to dismember a country to dictate their foreign and trade policy. He is a dictator. Yes there are elections. But in practice, only the systemic i.e. pro-Putin Opposition are allowed to run against the United Russia party i.e. the so-called 'Liberal Democratic Party', the Communists and "A Just Russia". All three parties 'won' all the seats in the Crimean 'election'. Before Putin, the Duma consisted of many parties and Independents. Now there are almost no critical voices left. They have been silenced. This silencing includes: politically motivated showtrials e.g. Navalny and Udaltsov and Khodorkovsky. The takeover of Yukos in large part paved the way for the energy-blackmail against Russia's neighbours. You can't blame countries constantly being economically and politically coerced for being afraid and resentful of Russia.

That adds another dimension to criticism of his foreign policy: namely the well-founded fear that he will export his authoritarian political system to other countries. The so-called 'Constitution of Novorossiya' does nothing to assuage these fears. Westerners - and the former captive nations of Eastern Europe are deeply attached to individual freedom and are right to be afraid.

[alhoon]

As for "Russophobia": a better term would be Putinphobia. He is being judged on his aggressive foreign policy which includes using force to dismember a country to dictate their foreign and trade policy. He is a dictator. Yes there are elections. But in practice, only the systemic i.e. pro-Putin Opposition are allowed to run against the United Russia party i.e. the so-called 'Liberal Democratic Party', the Communists and "A Just Russia". All three parties 'won' all the seats in the Crimean 'election'. Before Putin, the Duma consisted of many parties and Independents. Now there are almost no critical voices left. They have been silenced.

That adds another dimension to criticism of his foreign policy: namely the well-founded fear that he will export his authoritarian political system to other countries. The so-called 'Constitution of Novorossiya' does nothing to assuage these fears. Westerners - and the former captive nations of Eastern Europe are deeply attached to individual freedom and are right to be afraid.

Hmm, you're correct on all those.
[b]however, as I've tried to explain again and again this thread isn't so much about defending Russia's actions. It's about the way media portray non-important Russian actions as threatening. Yes, there are a lot of threatening Russian actions, but not everything reported is so.
The submarine issue, is way, way less important than what you mentioned.
The "Russia trespassed NATO airspace again today" along with "such trespasses have increased the past 2 years" is less important than Russia staging an exercise to practice nuking Sweden in March of 2013 along with "such trespasses have increased since 2011" that was buried in the news so deep that I couldn't find a mention of it in CNN, BBC or Fox.
"Putin has silenced all actual opposition" (while I'm not 100% sure about it) is more important than "Russia moved troops to strengthen their arctic border".

Contrary to alhoon's OP, Russian planes have repeatedly violated NATO airspace. The BBC today reports an Ilyushin violated Estonian airspace.

True. And the Chinese are building an air corridor in a contested island in South China Sea, along with repeated and increasing violations and aggressive actions there. And the media totally ignore that and I had to dig it out. Yet, when "OMG Chinese are coming" becomes the new media fashion, a Chinese warship in the pacific close to SKorea would spark an outcry of epic proportions as if Chinese increased aggression would be something unheard off before 2015 or 2016 or when "Chinese are coming!" becomes fashion.

[Geronimo2006]

Hmm, you're correct on all those.
[b]however, as I've tried to explain again and again this thread isn't so much about defending Russia's actions. It's about the way media portray non-important Russian actions as threatening. Yes, there are a lot of threatening Russian actions, but not everything reported is so.
The submarine issue, is way, way less important than what you mentioned.
The "Russia trespassed NATO airspace again today" along with "such trespasses have increased the past 2 years" is less important than Russia staging an exercise to practice nuking Sweden in March of 2013 along with "such trespasses have increased since 2011" that was buried in the news so deep that I couldn't find a mention of it in CNN, BBC or Fox.
"Putin has silenced all actual opposition" (while I'm not 100% sure about it) is more important than "Russia moved troops to strengthen their arctic border".


True. And the Chinese are building an air corridor in a contested island in South China Sea, along with repeated and increasing violations and aggressive actions there. And the media totally ignore that and I had to dig it out.

Well the US military is quite active in that part of the world in deterring Chinese aggression. As for the media attention on Putin - it's natural given that it's closer to us in Europe and the US still has 63000 troops (down from 486000 in 1985) there.

[alhoon]

True. Then the media should focus on the important stuff on Putin and his actions in Ukraine. Or how he now apparently listens only to increasingly paranoid secret services and officers, becoming increasingly paranoid himself.


And then, the media could move to other important stuff that happens around the globe, like what Russia does in Asia, that I guess is also increasingly aggressive or what China does or what happens in Africa outside the Ebola zone. Really, it's not like Putin doesn't give us something important to talk about every week or so. Do we have to talk about the non important stuff the rest of the week too?

[Geronimo2006]

If the Speaker of Parliament of a neighbouring state threatens to wipe you out (which Zhirinovsky recently did to Poland and the Baltic states) then you are entitled to be "phobic" of that state. However that's no excuse for tarring all Russians with the one brush.