Just about everyone I talk to has swallowed the official line, hook and sinker : the Russians are back with their brutal ways, etc.
Only after a lenghty exchange, complete with chronology and historical background, will some people admit that things are slightly more complicated than what is served on the MSM. But by and large, just about everyone has bought into the easy Cold War Is Back rhetoric.
So, Russia has lost the information war, and the consequences will be felt, in terms of the kind of posturing our politicians will feel compelled to adopt.
Whether Russia could have averted this and how, I don't know.
But I sure hope you may turn out to be right in the end, people starting being more picky with the information they use, and discerning more complicated patterns in the present situation...
This kind of event is a bigger, better dog whistle for the low information types.
Up in the sunnier parts of the tree the policy view was already set, and I don't think anything much has changed here.
Public debates exist for as long as people are willing to raise an issue by publishing pieces about the topic. So the real question would be have 99% of bloggers, editorialists and talking heads on radio and TV grown tired of the issue? As long as they keep arguing about whether Russia was right or wrong there is no winner and the issue isn't settled. It's a matter of attrition, not logic. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
The Georgians didn't just take this message to heart, they took whole sections out of DoD's handbook on Information Operations and followed them to the letter. Even the most cursory look at this conflict shows that Georgia's attack was an almost perfect textbook example of how modern warfare should be fought on the information front. The Georgians showed an amazing grasp of Info Ops concepts, pulling off counterpropaganda, launching disinformation campaigns and manipulating media perceptions as if they did this type of thing every day. Oh, the Russians tried to do their part, too. But it still isn't clear if they didn't give a shit about what the world thought or just failed miserably. Either way, it was bad news for the Kremlin. Despite a military victory, they are going to have a heard time getting the world to go along with their plans for post-war Georgia. All because they failed to win over the hearts and minds of the world community. The Georgians knew the importance of a well-defined information war strategy. That's because Georgia has had ample training by the masters of this art: America and Israel. Both have provided military strategy assistance, not to mention weapons training. The Americans were just in Georgia giving them a month-long military refresher course called "Immediate Response 2008" (tab picked up by U.S. taxpayers). Israeli advisers were spotted in Georgia during the first few days of the war and had been training the country for years. In fact, Georgia's Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli himself. So how did things go so wrong for Russia and so right for Georgia? Borrowing a few talking points from a document on Military Information Operations prepared by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'm going to try to evaluate their performance. What did they do wrong? How can they improve?
Oh, the Russians tried to do their part, too. But it still isn't clear if they didn't give a shit about what the world thought or just failed miserably. Either way, it was bad news for the Kremlin. Despite a military victory, they are going to have a heard time getting the world to go along with their plans for post-war Georgia. All because they failed to win over the hearts and minds of the world community. The Georgians knew the importance of a well-defined information war strategy. That's because Georgia has had ample training by the masters of this art: America and Israel. Both have provided military strategy assistance, not to mention weapons training. The Americans were just in Georgia giving them a month-long military refresher course called "Immediate Response 2008" (tab picked up by U.S. taxpayers). Israeli advisers were spotted in Georgia during the first few days of the war and had been training the country for years. In fact, Georgia's Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli himself.
So how did things go so wrong for Russia and so right for Georgia? Borrowing a few talking points from a document on Military Information Operations prepared by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'm going to try to evaluate their performance. What did they do wrong? How can they improve?
For anyone who thinks I'm incapable of/unwilling to say anything negative about Russia or the people running that country, let me tell you, I could not agree more with this. Horrible PR has been Russia's number one problem impacting it's foreign relations and place in the world community for the last 8 years. I think they just don't get it. They overestimate the power of local journalists and underestimate the power of of those in the rest of the world. It is incredibly myopic and a little schizophrenic. It's also eerily sane, but therein lies the problem: they world is not sane. It's also amazingly ignorant. Russia seems to be blissfully unaware of this. I mean, if you can recognize the need to have Vitaly Churkin (if we could just clone that man!...) giving an interview on Charlie Rose in the middle of the night when there is not a war, you should recognize the need to have Vitaly Churkin on Prime Time US national broadcasts when there is a war! They also weren't letting journalists into S. Ossetia. They had little choice but to report from Georgia, regardless their agenda. Brilliant...
Normally, I get the "go tell it to someone who actually cares" attitude of the Russian leadership toward global popular opinion. However, now that war seems to be on the table, having the most psychotic, ignorant and generally deranged country, lead by people who make up reasons to invade countries and start wars, like some kinda national past-time, hate loathe and despise you and your nation just seems, I don't know, UNHELPFUL. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
But the US and assorted clients are not the world. What does China say? India? Mercosur? Asean? Iran? Africa?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Confused, indifferent?
We have trouble identifying a European public sphere, which means a European public opinion might not exist, but globally? A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
That sentence makes absolutely no sense to me because in the case of international affairs their skills are only as good as they are effective vis-à-vis the way in which Western(TM) press operates. These do not exists in respective vacuums when we're speaking of foreign relations (domestic affairs is of course a different matter, but we're talking about foreign relations here.) It would be the equivalent of saying "it has less to do with Russian military defense skills than the way in which NATO operates." In a conflict between the two, the effectiveness of one is measured by the ineffectiveness of the other.
Very good question. But as much as I would love for Mercosur media to strongly influence the attitudes of Americans toward Russia, I don't think they do. It's not fair, but it is true. Let me be clear I could not agree more with the following
If I wanted to hear guidance and opinion on the Russia-Georgia debacle, I'd fish a mongrel cat out of the trash-bin and listen to its theories before I'd listen to these two. What does the President of the Republic of Burundi think about this situation? His opinion ought to matter more. -Natalia Antonova
As to "But the US and assorted clients are not the world," I've certainly never claimed it is (and am frankly peeved about how everyone has taken my comment and turned it on its head, taken it to imply things no rational person would ever think). Russia hasn't illustrated a concern for the opinions of those in most countries, but it is the US and assorted clients which it's at odds with at the moment, so that's why we're talking about them. If Georgia were armed by and an ally of India, we'd be talking about India's opinion of Russia. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
That sentence makes absolutely no sense to me because in the case of international affairs their skills are only as good as they are effective vis-à-vis the way in which Western(TM) press operates.
Assuming that Russia is playing to the Western(TM) crowd. Which is not at all clear. Frankly I don't know whose crowd the Russians are playing to other than their own.
Anyway, sorry if I misconstrued your comment.
That was PRECISELY the point of my original comment. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Seen from here (though it's true it's impossible to define a "European" opinion, and views differ depending on where in Europe you are), I don't get the impression Georgia succeeded in fully persuading people of the rightness of its cause and its victim status. When you see the generally Atlanticist Spiegel print this from its correspondent in Tbilisi:
Fragile Cease-fire : Russian Army Clears Out Georgian Army Bases - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
Liars don't tend to be believed. That is why news agencies and foreign correspondents reacted calmly to the announcement from the Georgian National Security Council on Wednesday morning that 50 Russian tanks had just rolled into the Georgian town of Gori. Unfortunately, Gerorgia's security council has lost its credibility. Georgia has made official announcements before about attacks that didn't happen -- as have the Russians.
Unfortunately, Gerorgia's security council has lost its credibility. Georgia has made official announcements before about attacks that didn't happen -- as have the Russians.
outright calling the Georgians liars, it seems clear the communications plan hasn't worked too well for Saakashvili. This is not isolated, there's been a certain breeze of scepticism blowing through a significant part of the European media (that I've seen) regarding Georgia's claims.
However, it seems the rolling fire of unverifiable-for-the-moment claims went over more successfully in the American media. Better orchestrated for those media? Planned in advance for them? The Nation piece about Randy Scheuneman, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser (cited in Frank's diary here), is intriguing. Even if this is not a Wag The Dog play intended to sharpen the contours of the New Cold War and bring McCain on, "Georgian" PR certainly seems to have been conceived of with the American media in mind. Or is reality more nuanced?
Russia Not Being Imperialistic!
Putin Is Not Hitler
Putin for US president - more than ever
A CZAR IS BORN: BAD VLAD WINS WAR, DUPES WEST & PROVES HE'S GENIUS
LOL. Sorry. How can I resist? "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Sorry I wasted your time.
As to the American media treatment of Georgia's PR, there has not been much if any - everything from Georgia was taken as fact. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Very nice. The Fates are kind.
They are not all following the neo-con line. The Fates are kind.
There is another side apart from the propoganda operations of western media. Take time out to sit down and chat with ordinary people and guage things for yourself. I persoanlly live, work and travel SE Asia. The perspective I get is that Putin has always been admired as a leader who sticks up for his own countries intersts and doesnt bend over for the USA. Even now many out here see the Georgia conflict very different from how the western media play it. Then again when you have repeatedly seen how the western media lie about things you know better about you become a bit more discerning of what you are presented with than the average westerner or at Least Amrerican who is far more likely to buy into the crap peddled by the free media. The intense unpopularity of America even in SE Asia (it is worse in many other places) should also not be underestimated in forming a global opinion that is not the one that western media, PR companies, analysts, pollsters and other such propoganda outlets will have you believe is actually reality. In this day and age the propoganda war is of such importance that you really dont know who you can trust in terms or sources. In short what is described as global opinion is just another creation of a propoganda machine. True global opinion is not something that is ever reallyu measured and is somethign I would hazard a guess that nobody in Washington would actually want anyone knowing.
However: The "Western" media always will slag Russia no matter what Russia does, when it quits co-operating with neo-con policy goals. And lying outrageously is no problem, as we have again seen. The Fates are kind.
