The title might appear “blatant” as per the standards and criteria of the “Russian military operation.” This has been the official name for the military confrontations and battles taking place on Ukrainian soil and the neighboring territories of the "Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk," recognized by Moscow only. However, the controversy that raged between the comrades among the official figures speaking on behalf of the Kremlin and between those affiliated in one way or another with the Kremlin and the decision-making circles could suggest imminent changes in Russian media. The outlets seem to be heading towards replacing the vocabulary of this media map with other terms that might align with the changes taking place in the contemporary history of Russia.
The past few days have witnessed a certain degree of indirect "criticism" and "muffled anger" towards the slowness or dragging of military operations on the Ukrainian front. Russian President Vladimir Putin implied this during his statements on the sidelines of his visit to the Vostochny Cosmodrome to launch missiles and spaceships in the Far East. He said then that the “war always has its own logic, which often requires defining the features of military plans.” Putin was more frank when he implicitly referred to his estimates of some steps in terms of developments in combat operations, without delving into details. This stirred quite a debate on talk shows that have always opted for "screaming" as a means of persuasion. If anything, such a method is an “expression” of the inability to find compelling responses or comments in support of one’s views.
The past few weeks revealed that the “special military operation” in Ukraine was, and still is, in dire need of a media tactic and strategy different from the ones adopted in Syria or Crimea. We hasten to say that this is in no way an expression of appreciation of any steps or decisions related to the combat aspect of this military operation. Rather, the aim is to search for the reasons behind the decline of soft power and what many at home and abroad considered a weakness in the face of the massive media mobilization on the part of the United States and Western countries. After all, they continue to be the main and sometimes the only source of information about developments and events in Ukraine and neighboring regions of Eastern Europe.
Observers note that the central figures who control, in terms of supervision and implementation, all official or semi-official media agencies for the most part are the same ones that the Russian authorities have always entrusted with carrying out these same tasks for the past nearly twenty years - since the beginning of this century. Perhaps the apparent shortcomings in confronting the Western media on the part of the targeted Russian channels and radio stations could be the logical result of such administrative patterns and the tactics of calling for prohibition and even for the imposition of censorship and inciting the executive authority against its opponents. This takes place through the reward and punishment mechanisms such outlets possess against all those who oppose their views or policies. Some say that “these” did not bother to search for the appropriate means to confront the rich content of the international websites and social media in terms of producing news, tackling rumors and providing content that addresses the emotions of young people and win them over through materials and topics that these young people look for in the West.
PREOCCUPIED WITH LOCAL ISSUES
It is worth noting that the local media have focused their topics on addressing domestic matters, without breaking a sweat on the international issues. Some say that Moscow has worked on establishing special platforms tasked with addressing the outside such as Russia Today and Sputnik. The reality, however, is that such “platforms” quickly got entangled in the molds of the past, as did the media produced by the previous Soviet agencies with their propaganda and incitement. This had rendered them the targets of prohibitions and bans from Western media.
Amidst such problems, the legitimate issues that Putin always raised within the framework of the visions and orientations he announced, faded away. Take for example of his speech at the European Security Conference in Munich in February 2007 and the subsequent reports in which he spoke of his rejection of the prevailing polarity and his approval for the justice in building a multipolar world. He also spoke of the need to retain Russia’s rightful place on the map of international politics. Then came the Ukrainian crisis, whose real history does not date back to February 2014, the date of the coup that overthrew former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. It neither dates back to 2004, the outbreak of the Orange Revolution in Kyiv and the imposition of Viktor Yushchenko as president after a third round of presidential elections under Western auspices. Our estimates show that the crisis goes back to December 8, 1991, the date of the signing of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha agreements, which were an “official” declaration of the collapse of the Soviet Union. These agreements included “humiliating” Russian concessions and neglected the historical rights of the Russian state, as per the demands of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin wanted these concessions to boost his stance again his rival Mikhail Gorbachev. These concessions also included the recognition of many unconstitutional or legal rights for Ukraine, including the Crimea, of which everyone by now knows its history and the legitimacy of its subordination to the Russian Empire and then to Federal Russia, before the declaration of the Soviet Union in 1922.
Russian media has also not paid the necessary attention to the need of drawing the world’s attention to the violations of legitimate rights, which later propelled the extremist nationalist forces to recover much of their past legacy, including the emergence of neo-Nazis under Western auspices in the first term years of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko. Observers recall all the battles and military confrontations that erupted in the wake of the unilateral declaration of the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces of their secession from Ukraine after the coup against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukrainian government forces, backed by factions such as the Azov Battalion and the Right Sector representing the neo-Nazis, sought to recover large parts of nearly half the area of the two provinces whose independence was recognized by Moscow on February 23, after nearly eight years.
Some people inside and outside Moscow and almost the entire world have steered away from the problems raging in these regions, and the abuses that were being committed in them that are closer to crimes, according to estimates provided by Russian sources, despite the “Minsk Agreements.” These agreements were reached in 2015 under the auspices of the Normandy Group with the participation of Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former French President Francois Hollande, Putin and former Ukrainian President Peter Poroshenko. Despite Ukraine's recognition of these agreements, of which the current Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky announced his approval, its terms remained far from implementation. Moscow has long objected to such a stance and demanded its adherence to the agreements, after it succeeded in legalizing their legitimacy through a decision by the UN Security Council.
These are all preliminaries that did not reach the international community at the time, with all their details and subtleties. The US, meanwhile, was working on aggravating the tragedy through its project that was revealed in the early nineties of the last century. The US then announced its ambitions and orientations about a NATO expansion in the east, whose features were determined in 1997. That year marked the date of the first wave of these five expansion waves. It had “tactically” waived its acceptance of Ukraine and Georgia’s request to join NATO as per the will of Russian President Putin in 2008. Nonetheless, it resumed work to intensify its activity in the same direction. This was at the forefront of the reasons for Putin’s security demands for his country in November last year. Many people today are not aware of this at all levels. They need to be reminded, however, as a prelude to providing the appropriate atmosphere for a ceasefire and the transition to “serious” discussions to secure all the necessary guarantees for the main parties to the crisis, without the pressures of external parties, who in fact have become influential parties and effective to the maximum.
MIKHALKOV ATTEMPTS TO EXORCISE EVIL SPIRITS
Some today say that the Russian media did not work over the past years at the required level in order to prepare the domestic arena to confront the Western agenda, with all its soft power and e-tools. Channels and media websites succeeded in trapping the youth of Russia and other former Soviet countries and directing their orientation at the expense of Russian culture with all its vocabulary and spectrums which have always brought Russia many glories and laurel wreaths. They witnessed some of the results and repercussions of such a phenomenon in Belarus in the summer of 2020, and in Kazakhstan at the beginning of this year.
Nikita Mikhalkov, the world-renowned Russian film director and actor, has worked on this in his program “The Exorcist” which he began presenting on the official news channel Rossi-24 nearly 20 years ago. The last episode of this program, which was rerun last Saturday for the first time since it was broadcast, caused a great deal of clamor in the media scene at an unprecedented degree for this channel. The controversy has raged over a number of its segments, especially those related to differences of opinion and the estimates between Nikita Mikhalkov and Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin's official spokesman, on many stances regarding the current situation and the developments and repercussions of the “Russian military operation.”
Perhaps the climax of controversy in this segment may lie in Nikita Mikhalkov’s keenness to quote from Putin, and his comments about some of the statements of Peskov, as well as his citation of Andrei Turchak, first deputy speaker of the Federation Council and secretary general of United Russia party. Turchak had criticized what Peskov said in his interview with the British “Sky News” channel about the “major losses” suffered by Russia in the battles with Ukraine, describing them as “the great tragedy.”
What did Putin say? And where did Peskov go wrong – if it is possible to say so?
To begin with, we will examine what Turchak said. A number of Russian newspapers and websites had tackled the criticism directed at Peskov, including what Turchak revealed. He had made his statements on the occasion of the eighth anniversary of the declaration of independence of the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in the presence of the presidents of the two republics. Turchak had criticized what Peskov said about Russia's “major losses” in the military confrontation with Ukraine and those supporting Moscow at the logistical, military and media levels. He was joined by Petr Tolstoy, deputy speaker of the State Duma and one of the grandchildren of the renowned Russian writer Lev Tolstoy.
Mikhalkov had also criticized Peskov over his stance on the emigration of Russian celebrities abroad following the outbreak of "combat battles" on February 24. Peskov spoke of the incorrect assessment of the motives behind the haste of these celebrities to leave Russia. His justification was that fear was behind their speedy departure from Russia. Mikhalkov wondered about the reality of these fears, and what was being said about the inadmissibility of a strict judgment against these stars. He said that the fear that these stars and artists had was related in the first place to the fear of losing what they have in money, real estate and privileges. However, Mikhalkov soon said he agreed with what Peskov said that these stars did not have to ponder on understanding politics and the ensuing issues, and the complexities of NATO and its expansions. However, he admitted that he could not accept what Peskov said about the fear that these stars had, stressing that no one has undermined their security and safety, knowing that Moscow had witnessed no events that could cause fear. Mikhalkov questioned the reasons behind this fear: “What are you afraid of? Is the enemy at the gates of Moscow? Was the capital bombed?” He recalled what happened to Moscow on the day that Hitler's forces raided it in October 1941, during the Second World War. The forces were few kilometers from the Kremlin in the heart of the capital, Moscow. He said that the Russian citizens were leaving Moscow to the east towards Kazakhstan and Siberia. Today’s stars, however, fear having their accounts frozen and losing their privileges. They also fear the probability of imposing sanctions on representatives of the opposition, and do not share the woes that people endured during World War II.
Mikhalkov relayed Putin’s comments on the statement of his sometime-spokesman Peskov, from an interview that the President gave to the US NBC channel in 2018:
• “Here’s Peskov sitting across from me. He sometimes blurts out a “terrible blizzard” (meaning “a great deal of astonishment and confusion”). Just like I am looking at this TV, I look at him and ask him what he is talking about, and who authorized him to do so!”
Mikhalkov then went on to address issues related to patriotism, and he disagreed about some of them with Peskov. He retrieved excerpts from the biography of TV presenter Olga Skabeyeva, the presenter of the main talk show “60 Minutes” on the official channel "Russia-1," regarding the foundations and principles of civic education. Skabeyeva had revealed that she had attended a US-Russian private school in her hometown Volzhsk, a small Russian city, where they used to force them at the age of 6-7 to stand in respect to salute the US flag. Vladimir Medinsky, adviser to President Putin and former Minister of Culture, and head of the Russian delegation to the peace talks with Ukraine cited this fact as he underlined the need to emulate such a tradition to consolidate national values and ideals among young people. Mikhalkov added that Peskov rushed the next day to object to Medinsky's statements, stressing, “What (Medinsky) said expresses his own opinion as one of the leaders of the Russian Military Historical Society that hosted that meeting, and is definitely not linked to the official position of the state.”
Mikhalkov returned to the question whether the principles of civic education are a matter that could be a personal opinion. He also expressed his astonishment at the reasons some might give, in an attempt to justify the prohibition of the application of such principles. He condemned such attempts, including what the composer and singer Andrei Makarevich said as a justification for the emigration of celebrities: “Russia departed these people, not the opposite.” Mikhalkov chose Andrei Koryaev’s song “Do not live in a country that you hate,” to conclude this “controversial” episode.
To exacerbate the drama, the world-famous director chose to conclude his controversial episode using the lyrics of this song with its sad melody and several underlying meanings. In the background, he showed photos of the “escaping” stars such as Alla Pugacheva, Zemfira, Andrei Makarevich, Renata Litvinova, Valery Leontiev, and Chulpan Khamatova, among other celebrities who were quick to leave Russia at the onset of the Russian military operation.
IS PESKOV A PEACE DOVE?
“Rtvi.com.news” used this headline for an article it published, in which it polled politics experts on an Israeli TV channel that described the attacks against Peskov as “a split among the representatives of the elite in Russia.” The experts estimated that this would unlikely lead to the resignation of the Kremlin's spokesman.
Peskov had spoken on April 7 with Sky News about the “major losses” suffered by Russian forces in Ukraine (which he described as a “great tragedy”) and about the prospect of an imminent end to the “Russian special military operation.” The statements of the Kremlin spokesman were met with criticism from social media users, some media and prominent political figures, including Chechnya President Ramzan Kadyrov and Andrei Turchak, secretary general of United Russia party. RTVI also quoted a number of political experts on the criticism against Peskov, describing it as a form of “elite war.” They added that this would be unlikely to result in the resignation of the Kremlin's spokesperson.
In this regard, RTVI also quoted Gleb Pavlovsky, former advisor to the former Kremlin chief of staff, and now an expert on political affairs, as saying that “Peskov supports Putin's line in the peace negotiations while simultaneously exerting military pressure on Kyiv.” Meanwhile, “he faces opposition from those who want to delay the ‘special military operation’ for various reasons.” Pavlovsky added that it was “unreasonable to assume that the president's spokesperson could speak, expressing his personal views, because his position does not permit him to do so.” Pavlovsky went on to say, “Some see a more favorable, more radical, and more hostile political climate within the country. There is a part of the military lobby that wants to continue the ‘special military operation,’ although I think it is highly unlikely that this lobby is representative of the masses of forces.” There is little competition among the entities within the entire Kremlin media group, which is one of the branches of power. There is a fierce fight over positions. Therefore, of course, there are ideological moments, for what might be called a “war party.”
RUSSIA TODAY’S EDITOR-IN-CHIEF CALLS FOR CENSORSHIP
Margarita Simonyan. Remember the name? The Kremlin chose her in the beginning of this century to head the then-newly-born “Russia Today” network when she was only a little over 25 years old. Simonyan, who was granted almost absolute freedom by the Russian authorities, backed by a bucketload of “high-quality” funding, announced at the beginning of the “Russian military operation” her decision to register her marriage contract, after a civil marriage for more than ten years, in celebration of the commencement of the “combat battles,” as she put it.
Margarita Simonyan surprised her followers and subordinates once again to announce her support for imposing censorship on the media, newspapers and publications, on the grounds that “major countries cannot live without censorship,” as per her estimates!
Simonyan said that the time had come to amend the article in the Russian Constitution that stipulates “the prohibition of censorship.” She gave an example of the restrictions in China, which she said contribute to the development of the country. During her interview on “Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov,” Russia Today’s Editor-in-Chief elaborated on parts of the history of the Russian state and the freedom of the media and press it witnessed during the period between 1905-1917 (the date of the outbreak of the October Bolshevik Socialist Revolution led by Vladimir Lenin), and the post-perestroika in the mid-eighties of the last century and the subsequent unlimited freedoms in the nineties of the same century. She noted that everyone remembers that the Russian state collapsed in the wake of both periods. Perhaps it is strange that Simonyan is trying to suggest to her viewers and followers at home and abroad that she does not exercise such censorship on the multi-lingual “Russia Today” channels, since the Russian government authorities entrusted her with supervising the network since its establishment in the beginning of this century.
It is worth noting that Simonyan’s statement on the need to enforce censorship came in line with the “Full House” media campaign that called for toughening and escalating the military operations against Ukraine. It also called for a retaliation to the bombing of civilians and incursions beyond the Russian borders, by bombing the Ukrainian railways and their five main axes that play a fundamental role in the flow of arms and military equipment from NATO countries to Ukraine. In recent years, Vladimir Solovyov, the most famous journalist in Russia, discussed the decision to send large numbers of German Leopard tanks to Ukraine to confront Russian forces for the first time since the end of World War II, which embraces multiple underlying deep meanings. This seems to be in sync with the tendencies of the majority inside Russia and in line with the ABCs of the logic and necessities of the moment, in response to the “crimes” committed by the extremist nationalist and neo-Nazi factions against Russian civilians and prisoners. Many observers in Moscow believe that such media material should be accessible abroad before disseminating them internally.
