Mass media is the main resource of the “fifth column”
The information space of Russia since the last years of the existence of Soviet statehood has been largely controlled by “Westerners”. Quite a large part of the Moscow and St. Petersburg "elite of journalism" adheres to pro-Western and liberal convictions, sometimes not hiding their political convictions and attitudes towards modern Russian authorities, sometimes disguising themselves more or less carefully as "peacekeepers" and "opponents of war." There are several information resources that do not hide their opposition to the Russian political course and directly emphasize their loyal or even enthusiastic attitude towards the Kiev regime. A very large amount of information about a pro-Ukrainian character is supplied by such resources as Ekho Moskvy, Dozhd, Novaya Gazeta, as well as by specific information resources of the liberal opposition like Kasparov.ru (in this case, we are talking only about Russian information resources and there are also Russian-speaking, oriented to the Russian audience, representations of the Western media - American, English, German). However, consumers of information broadcast by these resources, are still a smaller part of the Russian audience of TV channels, newspapers and online media. The infiltration of the “fifth column” into those mass media that are considered “governmental” or “pro-governmental” is much more dangerous.
The impact of the “fifth column” on the Russian information space is, first of all, in the form of information being submitted. Firstly, most information resources constantly speak about events “in Ukraine”. Thus, the right of the peoples of the Donetsk and Luhansk republic to self-determination is denied, the results of referendums are not recognized. As a result, for the most part, consumers of information flows still perceive the conflict between the Novorossiysk republics and Ukraine as an internal conflict on the territory of the latter. Accordingly, the attitude of a part of the population to the events as an exclusively “Ukrainian problem” is being formed.
The next point of view stems from here - since this is the “internal Ukrainian problem”, then Russia has no need to interfere in its solution, let alone provide assistance and even accommodate refugees. Many people, either because of incompetence, or because of the zombie pro-Western media, are beginning to oppose the reception of refugees in Russia, arguing that refugees as Ukrainian citizens must flee to areas of Ukraine where there is no fighting. It does not take into account (or rather, it is not understood) that a significant part of the refugees are relatives of the militias fighting against Ukraine, most of them are Russians by ethnicity or, at least, by language and culture. The Rostov region, where the main stream of refugees is heading, generally has long-standing ties with the Donbas and Luhansk region. Historically - this is actually one region, with a very close population.
Most Russian information sources also avoid using the word "Novorossiya". If in Soviet times, this word was generally tabooed, then in the modern period, little has changed. Only a few (unfortunately) patriotic media in our country publish articles where things are called by their proper names. But the majority of the country's population is not readers of patriotic information resources, respectively, and does not encounter the positions of their authors, does not receive information about stories New Russia, its affiliation to the Russian civilization space. The absence of the use of the word “Novorossia” to designate lands in the east of the former Ukraine is combined in the mass media with the prefixes “self-proclaimed” or “unrecognized” to the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. This also has a serious impact on the perception of conflict by consumers of information flows. After all, this projected the attitude of society to the armed forces of Novorossia as at best rebels, or even simply separatists and even rebels, towards the leaders of the Novorossiysk republics — as political adventurers driven by material interest, tasks of the Russian authorities or personal ambitions.
Finally, the relationship to Petro Poroshenko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Arsen Avakov and other leaders of the Kiev junta as official leaders of the Ukrainian state is no less important. Although the legitimacy of these and other leaders of the regime is very doubtful. Liberals like to question the legitimacy of Vladimir Putin as president (although the third time he became president of the country not in a row, but after Dmitry Medvedev, that is, the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation were met), but they do not doubt the “legitimacy” of Ukrainian leaders who came to power as a result of riots and insurrection. Every time the Poroshenko’s president is called in the media, the other instigators of the insurrection are ministers or deputies, the very idea of the legitimacy of the authorities is crossed out, since all of these people have established themselves in Kiev, overthrowing the legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovych. In fact, this Petro Poroshenko should be referred to as "self-proclaimed President of Ukraine." However, the Russian press (with the exception of patriotic resources) already sees him as the legitimate Ukrainian president - and the reason for this may not only be a direct indication from the representatives of the “sixth column” in the Russian leadership, but also personal political sympathies of the heads of television channels and newspapers that are in the liberal plane and expressed, including, in sympathy with the Kiev regime.
In the liberal-oriented media, the line of identification of “negative” moments from the point of view of Westerners in Russian foreign and domestic policy exclusively with the personality of President Vladimir Putin and his entourage also passes. It is assumed that a change in the ruling regime in Russia will also contribute to a change in its policy towards Kiev. Accordingly, the logical conclusion of this chain is the direct connection between the Kiev regime and the Russian “extra-parliamentary opposition”, first of all, the “belolentechniki” liberals and the more radical left and right organizations associated with them, who openly talk about the desirability of the “Russian Maidan”. Obviously, only outright traitors and enemies of their own homeland and their own people can wish their country the consequences to which the Maidan in Ukraine (and these consequences are inevitable in the event of the development of events according to the Ukrainian scenario).
In recent years, the Internet space has also become a powerful organizational and propaganda resource, the potential of which can be used against the Russian state and its interests. First of all, we are talking about social networks - Vkontakte, Facebook, Twitter, thanks to which not only information can be disseminated, but also communication between individual interest groups. At one time, M. McLuhan, the notorious precursor of the information revolution, argued that the emergence and introduction into social life of a new communication medium was inevitably accompanied by social upheavals and transformations. The emergence of the Internet and, in particular, social networks, has led to dramatic changes in the very nature of the political and social activity of the population.
The experience of the notorious “Arab Spring” in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya shows that, if necessary, the potential of social networking sites on the Internet is easily used by anti-state forces to consolidate actions and form like-minded groups. It is Runet that today is the main information space where pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian activists feel most at ease. There are hundreds of sites and pages in social networks that spread anti-Russian information. Unfortunately, the Russian government is not yet sufficiently regulating the information space of the Internet and is unable to track all information flows. At the same time, it is the Internet that turns out to be the information space in which citizens themselves can change the alignment and the balance of power, being actively involved in broadcasting their own opinions. Indeed, social networks allow every citizen to publish their position, replicate messages of interesting media. Correspondingly, here the forces of patriots and westerners can become even if patriotically-minded citizens set themselves the goal of enhancing the presence of patriotic content in the Internet space.
"Star disease" or sober calculation?
Next, we proceed to the second point - the impact on the public consciousness through media persons. It is known that a significant part of the figures, significant for an average Russian citizen, was promoted in the Yeltsin period. First of all, these are pop stars, some writers and top journalists. In the 1990s, they actively participated in supporting Boris Yeltsin, some of whom welcomed the shooting of the Supreme Council in October of 1993. Approval of Vladimir Putin at the presidential post, most of them initially perceived calmly, but from the second half of the 2000s. begins the gradual drift of the "creative elite" towards open opposition. Naturally, millionaires - "stars" due to material interests would never support the patriotic, socialist and nationally oriented opposition. Moreover, only thanks to the established social system, they were able to unwind and acquire their social status. Indeed, in the Soviet Union, despite decent fees and all sorts of preferences, artists and musicians, writers and artists, even the “top” level were not dollar-based millionaires living openly in “two countries” (and even in “three countries”) that have double citizenship, but at the same time preferring to earn money in the homeland, at the same time reproaching it for all mortal sins.
The liberals, that is, the open “fifth column”, which organizes all sorts of provocations like the “Pussy Rayot” antics, aroused sympathy of the Moscow-Petersburg Bohemia. The war of Ukraine and Novorossia finally dotted the “and” in defining the positions of the majority of liberally oriented “stars” in relation to Russia, Ukraine, the West, the United States. So, back in March, 2014, representatives of the “Russian creative elite”, among whom were such famous people as Andrei Makarevich, Yuri Shevchuk, Boris Grebenshchikov, Lyudmila Ulitskaya and Grigory Chkhartishvili (Boris Akunin), signed an appeal against Russia's invasion of Crimea. Today, when Crimea has long been incorporated into the Russian Federation, according to historical justice and the free will of the inhabitants of the peninsula, these figures are left to “bite their elbows”.
Recently, only the lazy does not discuss the actions of Andrei Makarevich. An elderly rocker, who actually openly supported the Ukrainian government, but then offended by a negative reaction in Russian society and for some reason wrote a letter to Vladimir Putin with a request to protect him from the attacks of outraged citizens, however not the only one in the list of Russian “stars” who supported enemies of their own people. Should we talk about the position of people like, say, Shenderovich or Ulitskaya? By the way, Ulitskaya has recently been actively distributing interviews to Ukrainian and Russian media, constantly returning to the topic of the imaginary “Sovietization” of modern Russian society, “the return of an era of stagnation”, and “kitchen talk”. Interestingly, all these statements of the writer can be read in free access, nobody arrests her in Russia, and even, oddly enough, does not show much interest in her person. No one is going to oppose and arrest, prohibit and oppress other members of the Russian bohemian even after they allow themselves to openly anti-Russian statements and balance on the verge of compliance with Russian legislation. But this freedom of speech is not the basis for the cessation of arguments about censorship and "totalitarian control in Putin's Russia," which are so loved by the media in Western countries.
For all that, pop stars, writers or top journalists enjoy a certain influence on Russian society. Even the same Makarevich, who on the whole met with a negative reaction of Russian citizens to their actions, is supported by many. At least based on the fact that he is an "outstanding musician" and therefore has the right to express his opinion. An analysis of numerous comments on articles and notes on various information resources devoted to the behavior of Makarevich makes it clear that many Russian citizens are set up as follows: “Yes, Makarevich is wrong, but he is Makarevich, and who are you?”. This position is fundamentally wrong. Without even going into the question of what Andrei Makarevich did in his sixty-year life, which gives him the right to be not just a musician, but a “spiritual mentor,” it’s obvious that most musicians understand about as much in politics as most politicians do. . Therefore, the “credibility” of Makarevich's judgments and cultural figures like him on the issue of events in the territory of Novorossia and Ukraine is very doubtful.
However, Makarevich specifically, most likely, simply defends his interests - financial, political, social, if you like, which are connected not only and not so much with Ukraine, as with the liberal ideology, “Westernism”, the civilizational choice, which the United States is currently trying to impose on Ukraine, and New Russia, and Russia. Similar interests are driven by other well-known cultural figures who support the Kiev regime. Nevertheless, the Russian state and society should be concerned about the issues of bringing to justice frank Russophobes from among cultural figures. In this case, it is not necessary to talk about criminal or administrative liability. Sufficiently growing negative attitudes towards such figures in the society, which can manifest themselves in boycotting events organized by them, refusal to hold concerts, watch television films with them, buy their works or sell them in bookstores. As for representatives of the Ukrainian cultural sphere, openly speaking on the side of the Kiev regime, they should be taken sanctions measures prohibiting them from entering the territory of the Russian Federation before publicly apologizing to the Russian state and people for their Russophobic statements and actions. The most odious characters should be completely isolated from the possibility of coming to the territory of the Russian Federation and, moreover, organizing concerts and other events aimed at extracting material profits.
The third point is the organization of actions to support the Kiev junta and its policies on the territory of Russia itself. Initially, the “fifth column” tried to act on the territory of Russia solely with the help of the first two levers - its access to information resources and manipulation of public consciousness through the media, and influencing public opinion of iconic figures speaking in support of Kiev, threatening Russia with the prospects of the “third world” in the case of support of New Russia, etc. However, when it became clear that the majority of Russians are gradually “creeping out” from under the cap controlled by the liberals of the media, and the “stars” are beginning to be perceived not so much as stars, but as an obscene word that sounds similar, “fifth column” included a third resource - direct performances Representatives in Russia who are called upon to demonstrate mass opposition sentiments allegedly taking place in Russian society.
The first type of campaign is open support for the Kiev regime, which is called “Ukraine” in the liberal media. Thus, on August 20, the star on a high-rise on Kotelnicheskaya Embankment in Moscow was painted in the “yellow-blokyt” color of the Ukrainian flag. Law enforcement agencies were able to promptly detain four young men - two guys and two girls currently under house arrest. Then, in the center of Moscow, a group of five young people was detained by police officers, trying to hang out a “Yukto-0lakitnoe” cloth in front of the Kremlin. It is significant that despite the fact that these actions are carried out by four, five young people, who are not even necessarily supporters of the Kiev junta themselves, but may simply be “mercenaries” who commit hooligan actions for a certain amount, in the Western media, not to mention already on the Ukrainian propaganda machine, these actions are presented as an expression of pro-Ukrainian sentiments in Russian society. Another point is also remarkable - it is easy to imagine what they will do in Kiev with people hanging flags of the Donetsk or Lugansk Republic and even the Russian Federation. In the “terrible totalitarian” Russia, the detainees are unlikely to incur criminal penalties for posting “yellow-blakytny” cloth.
In addition to hanging flags, the Ukrainian special services with the help of the West use more dangerous and mass actions in Russia. Their goal is to show that in the Russian Federation not everything is calm, that it also has internal problems, including in terms of non-recognition of the right of individual territories to self-determination. Of course, Russia's internal problems, including with the separatists, have been known for a long time and to the entire population of the country. What is the situation in the North Caucasus, where the armed forces of separatists and extremists have been operating for the third decade? But the “fifth column” does not set as its goal to pay attention to the North Caucasus, since it will not cause the proper reaction either in the country or in the world. The task of the pro-Ukrainian elements in Russia was to simulate the presence of separatist movements in the regions and edges of the country inhabited by Russians. Indeed, in this case, the long-standing goal of the gradual disintegration of the Russian space, which began with the separation of Ukraine and Belarus and the continuing cultivation of centrifugal sentiments in the regions populated by the subethnos of the Russian people (Don, Kuban, Siberia and Ural, Far East, European North), is being realized.
So, 17 August in Novosibirsk was planned to hold a "March for the federalization of Siberia." It was organized by a group of artists led by Artem Loskutov. We see here also the use of “bohemia” for provocative purposes - the presence of artists and musicians among the organizers of such actions, in case of which, allows them to “move out” to the supposedly artistic, rather than political, meaning of such events, present them not as political, but “artistic and provocative” share. As soon as, for understandable reasons, the organizers of the event were denied permission by the local authorities, the media made a noise about the violation of the rights of Siberian citizens. Explaining the purpose of the march, the organizers called it a response to "Russian support for the separatists in the South-East of Ukraine." Although, in an effort to protect themselves from possible problems with law enforcement, the march organizers strongly emphasized that they were actually not carrying any separatist plans and were not going to call for the secession of Siberia from the Russian Federation, it is obvious that this event was planned if not directly aimed by Ukrainian special services it is clearly in their interest. In addition to Novosibirsk, some actions by supporters of the March for the federalization of Siberia took place in Yekaterinburg and Omsk.
One of the initiators of the March for the federalization of Siberia were the activists of the so-called. "National Bolshevik Platform", created by Mikhail Pulin. This former activist of Limonov's “Other Russia” left the party after Limonov and his associates officially supported Novorossia. Today, when many former party members of this man actively help the militia, he acts in the interests of the Kiev regime, organizing provocative actions in the Russian Federation. The support of Euromaidan and the actions of the Kiev regime in Novorossia constitute an important part of the political practice of this “platform”. Aggression against the civilian population of Novorossia is called by its representatives precisely as an “anti-terrorist operation”, that is, they fully associate themselves with the Kiev regime even in the terminological aspects of the coverage of hostilities. As for the domestic policy of Russia, the “platform” stands for the “real federalization” of the Russian state, which should be read as “for its collapse”, since the real federalization of the Russian state will only mean the intensification of separatist tendencies with the subsequent destruction of a united Russia along the lines and example of the Soviet Union.
Two days earlier, on August 15 2014, in Krasnodar, an attempt was made to conduct a march for the federalization of the Kuban. As is known, the Kuban was once settled, including by the Zaporozhye Cossacks, who were withdrawn from the territory of Little Russia by Catherine II. Modern Kuban Cossacks - descendants of Zaporozhian Cossacks - at the same time have a clear identity of their own and a pro-Russian political orientation, most of whom do not even think about separation from Russia. Naturally, in Krasnodar, local marginal opposition organizations became the organizers of the March for the federalization of Kuban. However, Krasnodar law enforcement agencies worked quickly, and their reaction was even tougher than that of Novosibirsk colleagues.
Even before the event, Daria Polyudova, an activist of the Rot Front party, was detained. According to information on social networks, this young woman is 25 for years, she is a lawyer by profession, and she has communist political convictions. She had once been in the Left Front Udaltsovo, but then became disillusioned with him. Apparently - in front of us is young and professional “opposition activist”. For many such people, protest is an end in itself and the raison d'etre, often they can act sincerely, not realizing that they are puppets, “pawns” in the hands of interested pro-Western structures.
In St. Petersburg, there is another group of “separatists” whose actions can be used in the interests of Ukraine and the West. This is the so-called. supporters of the "independent Ingermanland" or "Ingria". Although they are now perceived as marginal provocateurs or Internet trolls, in reality their public danger should not be minimized. Especially if you take into account the enormous potential of the social networks of the Internet, which can be used to massify the “Ingermanland propaganda” and recruit supporters among the romantic-minded youth. The activities of the Ingermanlanders, who advocate separating the territory of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region from the Russian state, are often emphasized by liberal and foreign media, which are obviously tasked with gradually promoting such marginal groups in order to increase provocative political activity in Russia. Thus, the St. Petersburg media often write or show stories about the activities of the “Ingermanland separatists,” thereby directly contributing to their popularization in society and the transformation of odious marginal politicians into “media persons.”
It can be assumed that actions like “Marches for federalization”, flag hanging and painting architectural monuments in yellow-black colors will continue, because their main goal is not so much to influence the public consciousness of Russians (fortunately, the majority of citizens are negative evaluates the activities of such “professional revolutionaries”), how much to create in the global information space the illusion that there are powerful opposition sentiments in the Russian Federation, including separatist groups ana Therefore, you should not take such antics as harmless pranks of exalted youth or individual "professional revolutionaries." Each of these events causes specific harm to the image of the Russian state abroad, and the internal stability of the Russian state.