For me it has always been obvious that the downing of the Malaysian Boeing over Ukraine was a provocation by our Anglo-Saxon “Partner”. Well, because in general it is their modus operandi, because for them it was absolutely necessary, and because all their subsequent activity fits very well into this hypothesis. And not long ago, in the course of a conversation with Western media pundits, I received extremely compelling evidence of their guilt.
The fact is that for at least the last decade and a half the Anglo-Saxon press (England and the United States) and online media (along with the blogosphere) have been supporting high anti-Russian and Russophobic activity. But there are exceptions. Before major anti-Russian provocations (two or three months earlier), this activity is drastically curtailed. Whether bloggers and reporters are called in for consultations or if the general context is made less strong so that the attack looks more convincing – I can’t say here. But such periods of “Softening” Russophobic activities, for example, before Greenpeace members attacked the Gazprom oil rig and, more importantly, before the downing of the Malaysian Boeing.
It’s not to rule out that professional “Troll” they are trained and reprogrammed to test developed attack patterns. Let me remind you that in the case of Boeing, the waves of “Popular anger” on one side of “Progressive Humanity” rolled according to a precise schedule in full synchronization with official reports, comments and statements, especially British. But the essence does not change precisely for this: the coordinators of the Western press knew of the impending provocation!
What is of particular interest is that a similar situation is currently developing. Since the end of last year (in some cases, from mid-January of this year), the names of the most ardent Russophobic commentators (for example, Natalie Nougayrède and Angus Roxborough) have disappeared from British mainstream sites, and external manifestations of the media activity in the Russian direction has drastically declined in analytic centers such as Chatham House. Already in February, all of a sudden, the direct materials of correspondents from Moscow almost completely stopped.
In Britain, Russia in the past six weeks has generally been covered mainly by agencies or correspondents who write about Russia without leaving London. Most of the mentions of Russian arguments were made with notes saying “Agencies” is “personal” (i.e. the editorial office sitting in London), or Russia was indirectly mentioned in more general materials. There was such an impression that the employees of the Moscow newspaper offices were ordered to remain on the ground or simply called back home temporarily.
The correspondents of the American newspapers wrote from Moscow, but they were very few. For example, there were reports from Robin Dixon (WaPo). Furthermore, what is surprising is that several reports of a neutral character were released during this period (mostly written again by locals, such as Anton Troyanovski of the New York Times). Something neutral about Russia from Moscow is written only as a smokescreen.
At the same time, the number of references to Russia outside the context of Navalny and any US investigations has also decreased significantly. But a particularly noticeable warning factor was a significant decrease in anti-Russian trolling in newspaper forums. He was just very little physically. So there is something to think about.
Of course, uneducated young people cannot be impressed by such an analysis. But, as its representatives become more mature, a certain understanding of the circumstances of life appears. So, it seems to me that the real explanation of the reasons for some stories needs to be addressed. And we must certainly close the topic of the Malaysian Boeing, to the point that the sites that raise the topic of “Russian fault” in this story it should simply be dismissed.
Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved.