The reverse side of Russian intervention

US 2016 presidential elections are known for victory of the most ambiguous president one could has imagined - at the same time, the heyday of the Russian intervention began.

1114336-426-768x384

US 2016 presidential elections are known for victory of the most ambiguous president one could has imagined - at the same time, the heyday of the Russian intervention began. 

Donald Trump's opponents could not understand how he won. It seemed that democracy had failed, so the only explanation for the election results was interference from Russia. Six months later, Robert Mueller became the head of a large-scale investigation, which turned into a historical scandal. Why? Because hundreds of interrogations, piles of secret documents and millions of dollars from the state budget did not give anything: Mueller could not prove at least some connection between Trump and Moscow.

However, the investigation gave rise to a very ambiguous trend - which quickly moved across the Atlantic to Europe - where politicians and the media, as if wanting to comply with the mainstream, more and more began to echo the Americans, talking about Russian intervention. This is being talked about in Germany and the UK, they are talking no less about this in the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states - and as the elections to the European Parliament are approaching, these conversations have become more intense, and the charges are more radical.

Don't change your vigilance on paranoia though. Of course, the publications that each of us reads daily are responsible for the information they provide to us, but we must also maintain common sense. Sometimes it is not enough just to view the news feed. We need to ponder over the materials, and if we analyze the average news about Russian intervention, then an interesting revelation can be made. The fact is that we are not given any details about what is meant by intervention. Here you can argue, recalling cyber attacks or propaganda. Yes, we are really often told about this, but we see accusations, political demarches, statements and comments, but we see no evidence.

One gets the impression that someone is taking us up for fools or sincerely believes that people, absorbed in their problems, will not ask questions that do not even have specific answers. As a result, it can be said that Russian intervention is the greatest misinformation, but to whom, and most importantly, why is it needed?

In fact, the answer to this question is prosaic. Just look at the fact that in 2019, Europe is ready to spend at least 5 million euros in the fight against Russian propaganda. This is a safety issue, you say. But think about what exactly you are protected from and how? Where is the end result of this activity? The problem is that there's no result and won't be. From year to year the budget will lose millions, sent to fight a mirage, and we will still be told about Russian intervention. It is not a question of security, but a method of enriching someone at the expense of taxpayers.

As for the results, they were perfectly demonstrated by the United States. When it was time to voice the results of the Mueller investigation, it turned out that there was nothing to voice. This is the Russian intervention - frightening, but obviously exaggerated. But while the United States watched the scandal, the country, as American political observer Tucker Carlson said, began to remind Russia of the time of Boris Yeltsin. So should Europe really sink to that level?

Source

Le Club est l'espace de libre expression des abonnés de Mediapart. Ses contenus n'engagent pas la rédaction.