November 19, 2015 -
Ruslan Ostashko, PolitRussia -
Translated for Fort Russ by J. Arnoldski
"Terrorist attacks in Paris as a means of information war"
Today we’ll be talking about the terrorist attacks in Paris and how this tragedy is used in the information war, including against our country. As it appears, the terrorist attack took place in Paris, killed Frenchmen, and responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Islamic State. How can these facts be used for the information war against Russia? For some from the liberal opposition, everything is possible.
I’ll quote Ilya Valeryevich Yashin:
“Here we have France, which has long opposed ISIS. It wields a strong army and serious special services. It knows that such terrorist attacks happen. And yet it is still vulnerable - just a few months after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, there is such a massacre. Russia also knows what a terrorist attack is. Are our security services capable of defending the country? There are doubts. Practice shows that the the FSB is not something that society itself is by and large able to protect. A guy with a canister freely walked into the main building of the FSB right in the center of the capital, doused the door in gasoline and calmly lit it on fire. Only after a few minutes was he arrested, and who did it? A traffic cop! Let’s speak plainly: Putin has gone on an adventure in Syria which makes every citizen of Russia a target of resentful and bloodthirsty maniacs.”
There you have it. France’s intelligence services dropped the ball with the attack, but Putin is nonetheless the one to be criticized....
In general, such a tragedy means stress, a surge of emotions that often cause people to say what they really feel without additional filtering and often without thinking about the consequences. For example, another representative of the Russian opposition, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, said that Russia “is not so different from ISIS” But, after reading this statement, I can’t help but ask the question: And how does Khodorkovsky differ from ISIS? The sponsors are one and the same.
I have long been studying what consequences come from Western propaganda when people consume it in large quantities and over a long period of time. One of such consequences is the disabling of critical thinking and a willingness to constantly apply double standards.
Let’s take a more concrete example. Let’s imagine that there is a country which is carrying out a counter-terrorist operation abroad. A terrorist attack is carried out against the citizens of this country and there are numerous victims. How should one react to this situation? In fact, this is a choice of response to the question: is the state subject to the demands of the terrorists or not? I believe that the only correct response is to step up the fight against terrorism. But what is interesting is that our liberal compatriots don’t agree. They have double standards.
After the Airbus crash in Egypt, there was an open voting on Echo Moscow: “What should Russia do if this was really a terrorist attack?” The majority of votes (66%) were casted in for Russia to slowly withdraw from Syria. The same question was asked about France: “Should France leave Syria after the terrorist attack?” 60% of votes were cast for France NOT to cease its operation in Syria. Where is the logic? What happened with the thinking of our liberal compatriots?
Immediately after the terrorist attack in Paris, people began to cruelly joke on social networks that now someone will claim that this is all the fault of Moscow. Many people didn’t believe this, but reality has turned out to be worse than the most wicked and absurd fiction.
The permanent representative of Ukraine to the United Nations, Yurii Sergeyev, commented on the series of terrorist attacks in France on November 14 on his microblog on Twitter. Sergeyev referred to the famous French expression: “Cherchez la femme” meaning “look for the woman” (as one of those at fault for the disaster) and indicated that this “woman” is Russia.
I hope that people are already learning not to pay attention to the opinion of Ukrainian diplomats in Europe. But my concern is the risk that pro-American media will once again start to tell Europeans that “Everything is the fault of the Russians who are defending Assad and thereby provoking an influx of refugees and terrorists into Europe.” Do you think that this tactic will work? Can the Ukrainians and Americans, with the participation of Khodorkovsky, convince Europe that Russia was directly or indirectly at fault for these terrorist attacks?
I would like to discuss one interesting theory as to what caused the terrorist attack and who stands behind it. It’s possible that this doesn’t have anything to do with Syria or the Middle East, but rather the desires of the US to punish European partners for disobedience and once again demonstrate to them that only the Americans can ensure their safety.
The well-known blogger, Crimson Alter, reminded us in his article on our site that the French government recently began to threaten the Americans with a breakdown of negotiations over the Transatlantic partnership. The US hopes that the treaty will rescue its economy by fully opening European markets for American corporations. Yet, European energy companies are continuing to actively cooperate with Russia and promote the “Nord Stream-2.” From the point of view of the American hawks, Europeans are behaving badly. Maybe they decided to punish them?
There is a very strange coincidence. At the very moment that the Americans needed someone to severely frighten Europeans, a bloody Paris terrorist attack comes along. From the point of view of the American elites, NATO, the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSA, are a business enterprise which sells security or, more precisely, the illusion of security, while taking all money and freedom in exchange. Ordinary Americans have lost their civil rights in exchange for the illusion of security after September 11, 2001. Europeans are being offered the same unequal exchange, only they will have to pay with opening their markets to American corporations so that NATO, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA will protect Europe from terrorism.
Earlier, the US demanded that each European country allocate 2-3% of their GDP’s (about half a trillion dollars a year) for NATO, but, in the conditions of crisis, the US is simply trying to force Europeans to give up their markets to the Americans within the framework of the Transatlantic partnership. The economic stakes are all the more higher. We are talking about trillions of euros. Unfortunately, there are enough people in the world who will commit any crime for such money.
Look how cleverly the results of the terrorist attack are used by American politicians. The Republican senator, Joe Kasich, has urged that NATO be included in retaliatory actions and that American leadership on issues of European security be demonstrated. If you look at things soberly, then it turns out that the main beneficiary of this terrorist attack is the United States.
I want to pay particular attention to the reaction of Chinese journalists to the terrorist attack in Paris. This is very important because it was the Chinese who first began to openly blame the US for using ISIS. I’ll quote an editorial article from the Communist Party of China’s publication, “Global Times”:
“It is believed that the rapid growth of ISIS has been used by the US and Europe to a certain extent for eliminating the Assad regime. The US has not defined a plan for fighting ISIS. Terrorism exploits differences between superpowers and survives, and periodic terrorist attacks are literally invited to free societies.”
In my opinion, this is an obvious signal given by Chinese media to Washington. Beijing is asking the Americans to decide: who is ISIS for them? An instrument of geopolitics or an enemy? But are they hearing this question in Washington?
The terrorist attack in Paris once again reminded us that any tragedy will be used by politicians and some journalists for their own selfish purposes. The reasons behind the terrorist attacks in Paris have yet to be explored, and I hope that the European community will be able to draw the right conclusions. If in the near future we see that the media imposes on us the idea of strengthening the role of the US in the organization of European security, or information suddenly appears about the key issues of the Transatlantic partnership, then we can assume that in this concrete information battle, they managed to bend, and maybe even break, Europe. We will understand this all in the near future.
Now it can be said with confidence that Europe is not the safest place for New Year vacations. Russia now looks much safer. And yes, we have a beautiful winter! I hope that you understand what I’m hinting at.