How Turkey confounded Putin’s favorite narratives
“Putin´s use of the media for propaganda means is a constant, it turns around the true narrative of what´s going on in the world.”
Erreh Svaia
Taken From: The Washington Post
On Monday,
two Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian plane which Turkey said had crossed into
its airspace. Various interpretations could in theory be placed upon this
event. Depending on one’s point of view, it could be described as an act of
self-defense on the part of Turkey, a NATO member — or an act of aggression.
But to Vladimir Putin, and to his claque in the Russian media, only one
question matters: To which of his narratives should it belong?
I realize
that sounds like an overly literary, possibly even pretentious way to describe
Russian strategic communications. But follow the Russian media over any time
period and you soon begin to see patterns in the reporting of news. Nothing
ever just “happens.” Every event is always part of a larger story, usually a
conspiracy theory. Russia, or rather a plot to destroy or undermine Russia,
always lies at the center. Elements of reality are included in the story, but
distorted with virtual reality in order to suit the story line.
Over the
past couple of years, we’ve watched several versions of this process unfold.
Famously, the Euromaidan demonstrations in Ukraine in 2014 were repeatedly
interpreted by the Kremlin as a revival of Nazism, inspired and supported by
NATO. The Russian foreign minister scolded Germany for supporting a “Brown
Revolution.” Patriotic television entertainment depicted fantasy battles
between Russian biker gangs and “Ukrainian fascists” bearing swastikas or NATO
symbols. The propaganda continued even when elections brought centrists to
power and excluded the tiny far-right parties in Ukraine from any serious
influence, and even when NATO failed to come to the military defense of
Ukraine.
With the
Russian bombardment of Syria, Putin launched a new narrative. At the U.N.
General Assembly in September, he called for an anti-terror coalition “similar
to the anti-Hitler coalition” which could “unite a broad range of forces that
are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of
humankind.” This time, the enemies were not Ukrainians but terrorists. The
anti-NATO language was toned down. Patriotic television news showed effective
strikes against terrorist cells. This propaganda continued even as it became
clear that the Russians were targeting all opponents of Syrian dictator Bashar
al-Assad, mostly not the Islamic State.
The Russian
media did not dispense with their previous obsessions, of course. Instead, they
connected the dots. Russian state television has claimed that Ukraine is a
“supplier of weapons to ISIS.” The Russian Defense Ministry’s television
channel, meanwhile, has declared that Islamic State fighters are being trained
in Ukraine. It seemed possible, for a time, that both enemies could be
maintained at once.
But Turkey has
now added a new level of complexity. Is the downing of the plane a part of the
Nazi/NATO “aggression against Russia”? If so, that might require a Russian
response to NATO. Is it part of the terrorist plot against Russia? If so, that
looks a bit odd, given that Turkey claims to be fighting terrorism too.
For the
moment, Russia has chosen the second option. The NATO element has been left
out. Turkey, a false friend, and an “accomplice of terrorists” has “stabbed us
in the back,” Putin declared. “The Turks are saving ISIS,” one “expert” said on
Russian state television.
Given the
alternatives, that’s good news: It means that Russia is unlikely to respond to
the Turks militarily and unlikely to drag NATO into broader conflict. It could
also mean that Putin still hopes to be part of a larger coalition in Syria, or
that he still wants a role in whatever Western diplomatic effort might
eventually bring the war to an end. After all, he needs evidence for another
one of his narratives: That he has brought back his country’s “superpower”
status and its international influence.
But that
doesn’t mean that the story has come to an end. What if there are further
Russian losses, or another plane is shot down? What if the Syrian war begins to
go badly, or becomes unpopular in Russia? Then the Kremlin will need an
explanation for its failures and the narrative will have to change again. NATO
might still prove an excellent villain. The only question is whether Russia’s
response will then play itself out in virtual reality — or in real life.
Comments
Post a Comment