Sunday, March 1, 2015

Bloomberg View — Nemtsov's Murder Defines Putin's Russia


The new narrative.

This one is actually funny: "The government has also licensed Russian nationalists and the security services to pursue a covert war in Ukraine, a connection Nemtsov was threatening to expose with a report on the Russian soldiers fighting and dying there."

The new talking point that you'll be hearing a lot of in the US media and among its UK poodle and European vassals: Putin is creating a nationalist (fascist) attitude of hatred in Russia. (Who'se projecting here?)
There is no evidence the Kremlin ordered Nemtsov's killing, and it would have as much to lose as to gain from such a public execution on one of the most closely surveilled sidewalks in Russia. Nevertheless, since Putin returned to the presidency in 2012, he has systematically stirred up hatred for his political opponents, tarring men such as Nemtsov as members of a treacherous “fifth column.” [oligarchs, neoliberals, Russian mafia and assorted American stooges] 
Most recently, pro-Kremlin legislator Dmitriy Sablin joined in creating the so-called Anti-Maidan movement, which brings together ultra-nationalists, Communists and a Hells-Angels-style motorcycle gang [sic] to counter opposition protests. The government has also licensed Russian nationalists and the security services to pursue a covert war in Ukraine, a connection Nemtsov was threatening to expose with a report on the Russian soldiers fighting and dying there. [fabrication]
Indeed, the most frightening interpretation of the liberal politician’s death is that the alliance of security service officers and ultra-nationalist thugs Putin has unleashed is now beyond his control[Think US deep state here.]
Nemtsov’s death may not change things in Russia; much of the population appears to be caught up in a nationalist fervor. [In American it's called "patriotism."] But outside the country, perhaps it can end any illusions that Putin's toughness is somehow a trait to be admired. He has taken Russia back to an old and discredited form of government. [I'm confused. Would that be Stalinism or Nazism?]
Bloomberg View
Nemtsov's Murder Defines Putin's Russia
The Editors

Another talking point is that Boris Nemstsov was incorruptible.

Stringer News (pictures, Russian text) via Fort Russ, translated by J. Hawk
 “The second level, more expensive, starts at $1500 for an evening"--or how Nemtsov rolled

Another talking point is that Nemstov was popular. His party was at the 1% level with no national representation. Moreover, he was generally unpopular owing to his position in the Yeltsin regime that had brought the oligarchs to power and resulted in massive deprivation in Russia. On the other hand, Putin is broadly created for reversing that direction and returning Russia to a path of prosperity and greatness. Russians do not blame Putin for the current economic crisis, which they attribute to the fall in the price of oil and Western sanctions, which they regard as grossly unfair and politically motivated to attack a rising Russia.

6 comments:

Magpie said...

A relatively balanced analysis:

Who killed Boris Nemtsov - and why?
By Matthew Sussex
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-02/sussex-who-killed-boris-nemtsov-and-why/6274442

It does not offer any definitive answers, but it does raise some good questions.

So, whodunnit?

Peter Pan said...

Even if Putin was behind it, he would merely be claiming a right that Obama has claimed again and again.

Magpie said...

You've got a point there.

Tom Hickey said...

Matthew Sussex's first scenario is similar to the narrative that the CIA assassinated JFK, and the second scenario is similar to the narrative that LBJ was behind it. Both scenarios are still lively in the US.

A major problem with all Western reports that I have read so far is that they claim that Nemtsov was a much more influential and popular figure than he was, as well as that he was a clean politician, which is widely known in Russia that he was not.

Even many in the Russian opposition has said that the narrative that Putin or the Kremlin was involved is unfounded and improbable, since they had the most to lose over it, and Nemtsov was no actual political threat even though he was vocal in his opposition.

So I write the Western narratives off as conspiracy theory. The JFK narratives above are more plausible.

Moreover, there is a presumption in the West that if the Putin regime were replaced by democratic elections the liberal faction would win easily. This is patently false based on polls.

First, Putin enjoys 86% support himself, and the most popular other factions are the nationalists and Communists.

The liberals are just blip on the screen after they handed Russia to the oligarchs and Russian mafia in the Yeltsin era when Nemtsov was in power politically. He has never been a contender since then.

Magpie said...

In fairness, Sussex does not claim Nementsov was a popular figure. Quite to the contrary:

"What could be gained from eliminating a marginalised critic [B. Nementsov], without even a seat in parliament, and stirring up internal unrest?"

And, without going as far as accusing the deceased of any impropriety, Sussex does write that "some other highly plausible potential culprits include organised criminals and Russian ultranationalists".

In my opinion, the main fault in Sussex's article is that there is a very plausible suspect he did not mention (neither most commentators, for that matter): Western interests.

Tom Hickey said...

I was not referring to Sussex in most of what I said above, only that his first two scenarios are similar to narratives about JFK in the US. I gave no opinion on them, just drew a comparison.

I will say of Sussex that he did not bother to inform us, if he did take the trouble to inform himself, of the possible scenarios being discussed in the non-Western media propaganda.

The context is one of political intrigue and complex interests. The presumption of a political motive to get rid of a troublesome opponent on the part of the Kremlin appears to be much too facile and simplistic, if not simply implausible based on "cui bono?".