Russophrenia explained

Lately I’ve noticed one tactic of the Kremlin Krew that has been getting increasing use. It goes something like this: “The Western media are constantly writing about how Russia is a dying country on the point of collapse…but then they also say it’s a rising power that poses a threat to world security! How can it be both?” RT Op-Edge writer Bryan MacDonald termed this inconsistency “Russophrenia,” so let’s use that term.

One problem with the Russophrenia concept is that in order to accept it as a valid argument, you have to buy into the pro-Kremlin fantasy that all media not regurgitating their line is part of one hive-mind collective known as “the mainstream media,” or “the Western media.” In the real world, however, that “mainstream” or “Western” media is made up of dozens of private and public entities which give a platform to a wide variety of views. A great deal of those views may come from insta-expert pundits who don’t know what they’re talking about, but they can also come from serious analysts and veteran correspondents who do. Guess which ones the Kremlin Krew tend to focus on when criticizing the “Western” media?

Every time I see articles about this “Russophrenia,” I tend to see the same names popping up. One is Paul Goble, who can be classified as low-hanging fruit. Julia Ioffe is often mentioned, but in my opinion she’s hit or miss. Lastly MacDonald mentions ex-Guardian correspondent Luke Harding. How bad is Harding? Well his article “Enemy of the State” was so bullshit-laden that it actually inspired the creation of a certain blog. Yes, Luke Harding was actually more responsible for the creation of Russia Without BS than RT. As is typical in these discussions, a handful of pundits and writers are brought forth and made representative of a monolithic “Western media.” This serves as rather ironic projection, as unlike the foreign press, nearly all media in Russia is controlled by the state or backers of the state, and some of it, including RT, openly declares that it is representing a particular viewpoint, i.e. that of the Russian government.

Is it true that the “Western media” has been simultaneously predicting Russia’s impending collapse and rising threat at the same time? Again, this requires us to believe that this nebulous collection of various outlets is in fact controlled more or less by one source, much like the Russian media. But as it is not, the explanation is simple: Different people with different viewpoints write about Russia. To date, I’ve yet to see any of these Russophrenia therapists present any scholarly analysis of Russian media coverage to demonstrate their hypothesis. As such, it is easy to rely on the availability fallacy, remembering only those articles that portrayed Russia as a dying nation or a rising threat. I could just as easily remember reading all sorts of articles in the 2000’s on the topic of rising living standards in Russia. If we look at the golden years of the 2000’s, when Russia was attracting massive foreign investment, we should suspect that at least some significant portion of the “Western media” was writing favorably enough about Russia to convince investors it was a good bet. But memory can be deceiving, so let’s attack this from another angle.

What if we’re talking about contradictory claims from one source, even one author? Is it possible for Russia to be a “dying country” or facing economic collapse while still being a threat or a rising military power? The answer is yes, depending on what you’re looking at. First of all, one reason Russia is accelerating toward collapse, even if people like Harding or Ioffe were calling it way too early, is because it is sinking money into the military in a delusional attempt to play superpower without the economic base to do so. Russian military spending as a percentage of the country’s GDP is actually on par with that of the US, if not higher in recent times. When 10% cuts were announced in the immediate wake of the economic crisis, the military was the only item on the budget that was exempt. Does that make Russia a global threat? No, but it can be a threat to its immediate neighbors.

Having a nose-diving economy and being a military threat are not mutually exclusive. Nazi Germany’s jury-rigged economy might have collapsed around 1940 had they not chosen to go to war. In doing so, Germany was able to profit off of everything from slave labor to stolen infrastructure, gold, occupation fees, etc. And speaking of Nazi Germany, they were constantly portrayed as this invincible war machine when in fact only 10% of the Wehrmacht was mechanized throughout the war, and in 1939 they had virtually no forces that could withstand a Franco-British offensive in the West and much of their tanks and other heavy weaponry consisted of Czech designs acquired due to the annexation of Czechoslovakia (Thanks, Britain!). So which is it? Terribly advanced German war machine poised to steamroll across Europe, or laughable, mostly horse-drawn military whose best tanks largely came from a country they annexed?

In case the analogy isn’t clear, the point is that even if you are dealing with one point of view and not many (as with independent media made up of dozens of outlets in as many countries), you will find contradictions when assessing a country. If one comes to Moscow today, they’d be rightly impressed at all the modernization and renovation that’s been going on here in the past couple years. While it’s easy for someone with experience to locate post-apocalyptic zones within the city itself, a casual observer or typical greenhorn expat would likely not notice. Get outside the city, and preferably the oblast, however, and it’s a different story. Sure, you can find the same dilapidation you see in Russia’s hinterland in countries like Ukraine, and perhaps the Baltic States or Poland for that matter. There’s just one problem- none of those states were blessed, or more aptly cursed, with the kind of natural wealth Russia had. Today’s Gorky Park or Moscow City are impressive indeed, but if that’s all this country has to show after consecutive years of triple digit oil prices, not to mention a powerful gas provider that was once one of the world’s leading companies, something went disastrously wrong.

Another factor is that indicators and projections can be extremely tricky. Take a look at these two articles by Mark Adomanis. In the first, Adomanis responds to Masha Gessen’s rather weak criticism of his work, demonstrating that yes, Russian demographics have indeed improved, and no, it’s not necessarily because Putin waved a magic wand and made it so. That article is from September of 2014. Yet in March of 2015, Adomanis has another article telling us that Russian demographics may have taken a decidedly negative turn. So which is it then? Are Russian demographics better or worse? The answer is that they can be variable. As he points out, they are largely due to economic factors and in late 2014, Russia’s economy took a nose dive. In fact, trouble was already on the horizon long before 2014; the massive capital flight had begun in 2013, for example. Putin merely accelerated the process with a series of idiotic, desperate, impulsive policy decisions. Another thing to consider when dealing with living standards, economics, or demographics is that there are fluctuations and then there are general trends, as with climate change. MacDonald points out that his three year stay in Russia (2010-2013) corresponded with some of the most prosperous years the country has ever experienced. This is, according to some calculations, more or less true, but the problem is that the general trend for Russia was negative and 2013 was a tipping point. Even if the war never happened and sanctions were never imposed, Russia would still be facing issues with regional debt, and plummeting oil prices would still be a problem.

Getting back to the topic of contradictions in analysis, you could actually do the same thing with the US, or any country for that matter. This year the US economy is growing and unemployment is actually shrinking. Yet at the same time, 1 in 4 Americans spend half or more of their income on rent and utilities. The recent fight for a $15 minimum wage is somewhat mitigated by the fact that $15 an hour isn’t a living wage in many states. America can be a great place to live if your white and from a well-off family, whereas being poor and black means potentially facing summary execution at the hands of the police. So which is it? America the prosperous free society, or America the land of debt peonage and police brutality? Well as it turns out, it can be both at the same time depending on what you’re focusing on.

And while we’re on the topic of America, why don’t we talk about the Russian media’s Ameriphrenia? Why is it Russian media is constantly telling us that America and the West are on the point of immanent collapse due to degeneracy and tolerance, yet they’re also a dire existential threat to Russia, so much so that Russia must have a heavily restricted, mostly state-run media and one wise leader? I mean America was supposed to break into six pieces back in 2010, and Europe has got to be at least one gay parade away from exploding into a massive EU-wide civil war between gay activists and Muslim immigrants, so why does Russia even need things like Roskomnadzor? Why is it so threatened by tiny opposition groups which are simultaneously laughably unpopular (somewhat true) and yet horribly menacing as they are allegedly funded by the US State Department. Ukraine is controlled by neo-Nazis, yet it’s also a failed state because neo-Nazis are constantly threatening the government they allegedly control. Questions about these claims are actually far more valid seeing as how unlike the Kremlin Krew’s “mainstream media,” which in fact isn’t some monolithic hivemind collective, the Russian media is largely-state owned and its owners are openly and enthusiastically loyal to their best buddy Putin. Therefore the mutually exclusive claims in their product are far more problematic.

In summing up, Russophrenia is basically a delusion. Different analysts in a diverse media produce different opinions. Extremely biased pundits with an agenda like Goble or Weiss are going to gleefully predict the impending collapse of Russia while simultaneously warning that NATO is somehow threatened by it. These cheerleaders/doomsayers are checked by more objective, realistic analysts like Mark Galeotti or Vladislav Inozemtsev. Though severely misinformed, American publications such as The Nation or FAIR run articles that support the Kremlin’s POV without any kind of direct funding from the Russian government. This is what happens when you have a free, if not flawed press.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Russophrenia explained

  1. Jim Kovpak Post author

    Just a little update on this article. Keep in mind that in the monolithic “Western media,” there is absolutely NO ROOM whatsoever for the Russian POV. Pro-Russian voices like Stephen F. Cohen are totally shut out, until you do a 2 second search on Google, that is:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-must-address-moscows-grievances/2013/02/14/7e6bd356-7123-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kerrys-next-challenge/2015/07/21/e2d3215c-2f10-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rethinking-russia-a-conve_b_7744498.html

    The notoriously anti-Russian Moscow Times is also nothing but anti-Kremlin State Department-funded oppositionists…

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/sitemap/authors/178361.html

    Also the Western media never self-criticizes:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/08/18/how-the-rest-of-the-world-sees-ferguson/

    http://www.vox.com/2014/8/15/6005587/ferguson-satire-another-country-russia-china

    Seriously, all of the above were easily obtained with quick Google searches. Thus we see the falsifiable claim of the monolithic “Western mainstream media” has been falsified. Biased? Sure. Information war? Nope- that’s the Russian media’s racket.

    Reply
  2. Josh C

    This is one of your best posts ever, at least since I started reading your blog. It points out a truth that so many people don’t get: Not everything is black and white. For example, as a writer myself, I can write several pieces for a think tank like Atlantic Council (which is frequently accused of being an arm of NATO) strongly supporting the young reformers at NGOs like AnTAC and TI in Kyiv. I really hope for their sake Ukraine becomes a functioning European democracy. Yet, that doesn’t stop me from also writing pieces elsewhere criticizing the law glorifying the OUN-UPA and pointing out that Viatrovych is a prick.

    Likewise, I can also think Putin is a jerk and runs a corrupt kleptocracy, yet still analyze Moscow’s POV and/or argue as a patriotic American that it’s in our national interests to find some way to work with Russia to avoid World War 3. In sum, I believe in objective analysis and shades of grey, as opposed to the purely agenda-driven approach of guys like Weiss.

    Reply
      1. Josh C

        That’s a very relevant point about Moscow Times, and the future of MT has been very much on my mind. I have been writing op-eds for them for close to two years, and I’m rather frustrated to see everyone rushing to bury MT because of their new owner and the fact that they’ve cut back print editions to once a week. The expectation is now their coverage will be much less critical. Many saying this though do have the same type of Weiss-style agenda.

        The reality though is, it’s quite expensive to distribute a daily printed edition, especially one you give away for free. Like it or not, the future of media is online. Hell, I can’t remember the last time i read an actual physical paper. Like many, I’m sure MT is trying to figure out their best business model. So the key is just to watch their website – it will soon become pretty clear if they’ve now “sold out” and are self-censoring. Maybe they will indeed do just that. But at this point it’s way too early to tell what the outcome will be and I resent people almost gloating about the end of MT just because it fits in with their worldview and/or agenda.

        Ok, that was a bit off topic, sorry, but you mentioned MT and I had to get that off my chest!

    1. kvdsngj

      Bershidsky may be objective on Russia, but I’m struggling to respect him after his series of rants sucking up to Berlin regarding the Greek crisis.

      Reply
  3. armoured

    I object, sir, I object.

    Kremlin Krew really, absolutely, no other opinions are acceptable, must be written Kremlin Krü.

    Reply
      1. armoured

        Thereby proving that this blog is, in fact, just another incarnation of the Mainstream Media Hive Mind, mocking Russia with your quasi-German spelling.

  4. EP

    “Is it possible for Russia to be a “dying country” or facing economic collapse while still being a threat or a rising military power?”

    Not only is it possible, but historically there is a positive correlation between deep systemic economic problems and aggressive militarization. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are by far the most prominent examples, but the same goes for many of the grand old empires – their expansion would eventually run out of steam and they would not notice and react to the increasing strain on and diminishing returns to their economies anywhere near promptly enough.

    “Today’s Gorky Park or Moscow City are impressive indeed, but if that’s all this country has to show after consecutive years of triple digit oil prices… something went disastrously wrong”

    Something similar can be said about St. Petersburg, which literally rests on a mix of uninhabitable swampland and the bones of like 10% of the Russian population whose deaths directly or inderectly resulted from Peter I trying to force his way into Europe. In general, splendor in Russia tends to hide incredible inefficiency thanks to its rulers being able and willing to throw effectively unlimited resources at creating it.

    “I mean America was supposed to break into six pieces back in 2010…”

    It used to be that world capitalism was supposed to collapse some time in the 1920s, just in time for the First Red Cavalry Army to conclude its glorious march through the fires of revolutionary Europe… It totally would have worked, too, had Stalin and Trotsky not acted like two retarded manbabies… Right? Right?… 🙂

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      Well according to the ISO, it’s all because Stalin usurped the Communist monarchy and Trotsky didn’t become King of the USSR. Had that happened, we can honestly say that everything would have been different and the USSR would have reached full Communism by 1932, even though this should have been impossible according to permanent revolutionary theory.

      Would you like to buy a newspaper?

      Reply
    2. armoured

      It seems to me the response to this supposed contradiction is pretty simple: North Korea. Not a prospering economy or state, and still clearly a threat to Asian and world security.

      I emphatically am NOT attempting to claim that Russia is like North Korea – just that it’s a straightforward refutation of the claim that you can’t simultaneously hold the beliefs that a country is ‘failing’ (in some important sense, like being able to feed its population) and still represents a serious threat.

      [It doesn’t prove you _should_ hold those beliefs simultaneously, or in this case, but it’s a concrete example that there’s no inherent contradiction.]

      Reply
  5. gbd_crwx

    Maybe slightly off-topic, but not completely, could the recent doping scandal be seen in this light? How is it covered in RussIa?

    Reply
  6. Russian Avos

    Funny, in private conversation, Jim and I discussed both North Korea and Nazi Germany as being two countries which could hold the contradictions of “dying nation” and “rising military power” together. Year-on-year cutting back on infrastructure, healthcare and other social spending while increasing military spending is itself a recipe for disaster in the long term, but a lot of damage can occur before that future is now.

    Reply
    1. EP

      And neither of these two can hold a candle to the pinnacle of political retardation that was Imperial Japan in the early 1940s. Which didn’t stop them from bodyslamming Western navies and killing more Chinese than anyone other than Mao ever could.

      Reply
  7. Pingback: Russia Watcher’s Phrasebook | Russia Without BS

  8. gbd_crwx

    I thought Russofrenia was feeling the lumps on Putins head to guess what he would do next, but boy was I wrong 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s