Preemptive strife?

These days, nothing surprises me. At least nothing that is written, said or discussed in the Western press. But it does affect our readers and the way they see and perceive things. That is why, months after months we bring you this review to make you question things you take as God’s word. That is not to say that you shouldn’t question God’s word.

So, why doesn’t it surprise me anymore? Well, because unlike most foreign affairs journalists in this country, I have seen the Western media work from close quarters. I have seen their modus operandi in nations they are not particularly very friendly with or at least not very friendly with these days: Iran, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and now Russia.

It was still four days to go for the elections in Russia when I landed there to report (the only journalist from South Asia) and was horrified by the tone and texture of some of the articles that appeared in the Western press. Quite many of them, frankly, defied logic. For example, up to a week before the polls, the Western media was sure that Putin will need a run-off. Fair enough. Then, suddenly, as the exit polls started showing persistent but solid lead for Putin, the false euphoria and optimism that had emerged in the Western press following the Duma elections started melting down fast.

So, around 29th February, a stream of reports with changed tone and spin started appearing in the Western press with a logic defying consistency in uniformity of language and source cited. It all started with a column in the Foreign Policy (FP) magazine that featured Freedom House president David Kramer and Freedom House vice president, Christopher Walker. This article, titled “The Kremlin’s Big Gamble: Can Vladimir Putin’s simulated democracy survive another rigged election” is bizarrely self explanatory. It does not need an Einstein here to figure out that the article already implies that the elections, which polls have long indicated Putin is overwhelmingly expected to win, will be “rigged.” Now that is quite telling.

The article further added:
“Even if the system delivers the required results, clear evidence of rigging may lead voters to reject the election as unfair and illegitimate. The balloting, whatever its outcome, is therefore unlikely to extinguish the rising desire for real change.”

That is simply hilarious. Now, Freedom House, the mother of this article, works as an extension of the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), of which Freedom House is a subsidiary. NED is notorious for instigating regime changes and goes to any length to realise its design. And one of its tool is the so called “independent election observer” team GOLOS. GOLOS is often cited as the “key independent observer” across Western press while trying to prove that the election was rigged. GOLOS is hardly independent. NED’s official website lists GOLOS as a recipient of NED funding, which in turn is provided by the US State Department. It is pity that this apparent conflict of interest was never mentioned or cited either by GOLOS or the Western press that cites it religiously.

The FP article was followed by a barrage of articles similar in tone and approach, all conceding that Putin is the most popular contender and that he will win but he will rig the election too.

Obviously nobody asked a simple logical question that if Putin is indeed popular and will win, as you yourself concede, why does he require to rig the election then?

In a similar shameful preemptive editorial in The LA Times by American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled, “Putin’s Pyrrhic victory,” it was stated:

“Putin’s win will be a Pyrrhic victory. Far from enhancing the Putin regime’s legitimacy, the election will diminish it further in the eyes of a significant part of the Russian population.”

When it appeared, it was still five days to go to the Russian polls. And guess what! Nobody bothered to ask this simple question and it went on to be reprinted in several publications all over the world, including a few in India. No questions asked.

While we were at it, a video appeared online, a full two days before the elections, that showed how elections had been rigged on voting days in the past. Now that was rather too fast – two full days before the elections. Similar videos, most probably shot in studios to give the impression that rigging was being recorded, were used by GOLOS during the Duma elections too. Only this time, it got leaked prematurely.

Another interesting aspect was how the media kept changing stance. For example, it said that boxes will be stuffed at the booth. The Russian government stepped in and installed 90,000 cameras with live monitoring facility to stop that. While this logistically nightmarish, costly venture was put in place, the papers started saying that it won’t stop anything and that rigging will be done during vote tabulation and counting. The government installed cameras there too. Then the paper stared saying that people will be brought from villages to vote in the city. In fact, all attempts were made to discredit the video recording process by either trivialising it or calling it “big brother” in an apparent reference to George Orwell’s work.

Toeing the same line, following the elections, the preconceived headlines started making appearance. Wall Street Journal reported “Putin Claims Election Win as Observers Claim Fraud,” Fox News reported “Putin claims victory in Russia’s presidential election amid allegations of violations in election,” Reuters reported “Vladimir Putin ‘elected Russian president‘, opponents allege fraud,” and the London Guardian reported “Vladimir Putin’s critics cry foul over alleged voter fraud in Russian election.”

Rather not so surprisingly, each one of these reports mentions either US-funded blogger Alexey Navalny or US-funded GOLOS, or both as sources. Just to put it in perspective, there were 2000 or so other observers as well. Needless to say, they were never cited. Out of these, 89 per cent said that the election was “fair”, nine per cent said it was satisfactory and only two per cent termed it “bad”. But did you get to hear about it? Chances are that you’ll never.