Anti-Russianism. Why?

Recently, supposed “references” in international journalism have continued to reiterate Cold War diatribes against President Putin, the Kremlin, Moscow and Russia, at a time when Russia stands for the rule of law, respect for international legal agreements and peace, at a time when Washington stands for a unilateralist, aggressive, selfish New World Order based on the interests of the clique of elitists who control the Government. Has the western press been assimilated?

As Director and Chief Editor of the Portuguese version of PRAVDA.Ru, as collaborator of the English version of the same newspaper, I was careful to contact the Kremlin before beginning to write for this, the largest Russian online publication, asking to receive guidelines, as any western journalist would receive guidelines from the controller of the publication for which he/she writes. The answer came fast and was crystal clear:

Dear Mr. Bancroft-Hinchey,

We thank you for your contact but unfortunately we are unable to give you any guidelines because there are none. Good journalism is about writing the truth.


For those of us who actually visit Russia and who have contact on a daily basis with Russians, remarks such as we find in recent editions of The Financial Times (February 21st 2007) and Time Magazine (February 26th 2007) come as no surprise, for they are evidently written from the comfortable offices of those who receive news through their PC screen, the same offices which a few years ago were drawing lines on maps and saying “This is ours and that is yours”, creating the mayhem we see in the geo-political scenario of today.

The Financial Times article

The article written by Martin Wolf in The Financial Times is an example of anti-Russian hysteria, insolence, ignorance, ignoble attempts at self-promotion and the utter nonsense which can be published in today’s press, rife with Boiled Beef n’ Carrots type articles and managed by guttersnipe wannabes with the morals of a heroin addict desperate for a fix.

The title of Martin Wolf’s article alludes predictably to the Russian bear, much the same as British beer-swilling hooligans refer to Germans as Krauts (Cabbages) and French as Frogs and certain sections of the international press talk about British Pigs.

Unlike Martin Wolf’s pig, the Russian bear is able to give a hug and does not wallow in a sea of excrement, snorting in its despicable incontinence. It therefore comes as no surprise that this diatribe (sorry, “article”) begins by referring to the growling bear “caught in a failed transition”.

If a failed transition is a booming economy, rising salaries, increased standard of living, a GDP rate of 6.8% and a regaining of respect in the international community, while the USA and its lapdogs go globe-trotting launching illegal wars, massacring civilians and destroying infrastructures with military hardware, then maybe Martin Wolf is mentally advanced.

Furthermore, to make a claim that NATO expands eastwards because Russia “brought murder and oppression” on the eastern European countries “as it is doing now in Chechnya” is nothing short of barefaced insolence, and libelous defamation. NATO, responsible for acts of terrorism in Serbia, for imperialistic practices of carving out territories for terrorist organizations (UCK) and acts of mass murder (massacres of Serbs in Serbia and Kosovo) is basically nothing more than an old boys’ network responsible for channeling billions of dollars in arms supplies to willing cronies and sycophants.

In short, it is a weapons smuggling syndicate and as useful as a gaggle of drunken grannies armed with woolen handbags: the Russian Armed Forces could annihilate any concentration of troops on its borders within seconds if necessary. Therefore what is the point of NATO’s expansion? Business, for the arms lobby gravitating around Washington.

To claim that Russia murders Chechens proves the ignorance of the writer and the bias of this so-called reference in journalism. How about the FT printing stories about Spanking Sarah, or Three Breasted Alien Lesbian dressed as Priest abducts Nun in Underground Car Park? Chechen terrorists are as welcome in Russia as IRA terrorists or disgruntled Pakistanis with rucksacks in the London tube.

Almost 100% of Chechens voted recently to remain within the Russian Federation and against the separatist cliques of Al Qaeda-Wahhabis who have been controlling the illegal trafficking routes. If killing terrorists is “murder” then how to explain the killing of Iraqi civilians? How also to explain the political asylum granted to Zakaev in London? Kind of like blowing a raspberry in the face of the children of Beslan and their families…

For Martin Wolf, thereafter, to claim that Vladimir Putin’s government is based on “specialists in violence” and that the campaign against dissident oligarchs was no more than the Kremlin clamping down on individual freedom, is a lamentable yet predictable continuation of his Russian bear article. Quite obviously, those who were trying to siphon off the country’s assets for their personal benefit and who were open to overtures from western elements could live the life of Riley in Eltsin’s drunken times. What Putin did and has done effectively, is to restore the Kremlin’s authority over Russia’s resources. Russia’s assets are for the Russian people.

If Russia’s neighbours have a problem with that, and if those who perpetrate Cold War spin wish to ignore the truth, hard luck. The truth is that Russian influence over Eastern Europe came after a war in which repressive collaborationist fascist regimes were installed in these countries, in legion with the forces which slaughtered up to 25 million Russians and the truth is that the Russians simply supported the Communist parties in these states. Along came education, healthcare, a guaranteed house, job, pension, leisure time activities and a secure state. Out went medieval style plutocracies and miserable standards of living.

Time Magazine: Russia is interested in Middle East Instability

For a North American publication to make this claim, while the Iraq Disaster carries on and as countless families across the USA are visited by Government officials with the ultimate bad news before the body bag arrives, it comes as no surprise, especially from a country whose leader claimed recently that 'Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.' (??)

For Time Magazine’s Niall Ferguson, the fact that high oil prices are good for Russia’s economy means that Moscow has an interest in Middle East instability, which will continue to cause a bullish oil market. Bullish, or bullshit?

Moscow follows a coherent line in respecting international law, quite the contrary from Washington, where lies, skullduggery and greed shape the foreign policy of those duped into voting for a regime which perpetuated itself through the manipulation of fear. Working with Teheran and supporting its rights under international law is a fundamental part of this approach, as is Moscow’s relations with the democratically-elected Hamas and President Chavez of Venezuela, among others.

That Time Magazine could label this “no interest in Middle East stability” and that the Financial Times can label Vladimir Putin’s record as “an ineffective and repressive state” is so tediously predictable because the western media outlets are replete with wannabe journalists or those fearing redundancy, whose only way of perpetrating the state of filth in which they wallow, like pigs, is by churning out this nonsense which might fool their own readers, but fools nobody else in this New World Order where Moscow calls the shots.

For some good reason.



Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey