The German TV network ZDF has a new three-part, 1 1/2-hour special on a German video blogger named Aline Lipp who is almost a caricature of a pro-Russian propagandist. It provides a useful look at a crass example of the genre. But it doesn’t provide much help in evaluating claims from New Cold Warriors who all too often want to dismiss critical evaluation of the official NATO position.
And while not many people have to desire to spend hours a week wonking out over news about the Russia-Ukraine War, citizens do have a right and responsibility to try to exercise some serious critical judgment about what their governments are doing.
The report’s title, “The Princess of Disinformation - Alina Lipp und Putins Krieg [war],” gives a non-subtle hint of its perspective. The title isn’t just a cheap shot. The left-leaning factchecking site Der Volskverpetzer was criticizing her hack, unreliable reporting soon after the current war began.1
On the other hand, Aline Lipp’s crass cheerleading for the Russian side as shown by ZDF is so transparent that it’s not particularly helpful in showing viewers how to parse dubious claims that are not presented in the blunderbuss manner that she uses. It’s also worth noting that there is a long tradition of elevating female villains who are accused of being insufficiently faithful to Our Side’s narrative - whichever side “ours” happens to be.2
With large government budgets for “information operations” on all sides, keeping some kind of honest critical perspective on high-stakes events is a challenge. I’ll just mention here some relevant considerations.
First, my main guiding principle in evaluating official claims about wars: "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." (I.F. Stone; my emphasis)3
Second, pretty much all of foreign policy involves picking sides among other countries’ positions to some degree. To take a so-obvious-it’s-silly example, Russia recognizes the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan as an independent nation. We could say that is a “pro-Russian” position. But it’s pretty meaningless in that context, since the US and the UN and 182 other countries plus the Holy See recognize it, too.
Since China is officially the number one foreign policy priority for the United States, it would make conventional balance-of-power sense for the US to develop positions of cooperation with Russia against China, aka, “pro-Russian” positions, just as the US for decades pursued “pro-China” positions to balance against Russia. Making conscious propaganda in favor of Russia in conducting what is clearly an illegal war of aggression in Ukraine is radically different than, say, arguing that the now-expired Ukraine-Russia grain agreement was a good idea. Both are “pro-’Russia,” but in very different ways.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last week suggested the Western nations (here mainly meaning the US) should consider offering Russia some relief from financial sanctions in exchange for a revival of the grain deal.4 Pro-Russian? A stooge for pro-Putin disinformation? Or just normal diplomacy?
Third, Note to New Cold Warriors: The American Constitutional system makes treaties just as much a part of the “law of the land” as provisions of the Constitution itself. Including recognizing wars of aggression and torture as criminal. So, when all good neocons, virtually every Republican, and (very shamefully) most Democrats in Congress including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry supported the illegal invasion of Iraq on what they knew were false pretenses, that was certainly pro-Dick-Cheney militarism. But was it “pro-American” if being “American” means supporting the actual law of the land? Were Barack Obama and Eric Holder being “pro-American” in granting de facto immunity for officials of the Bush Administration implicated in the torture crimes? Does supporting criminal acts in American foreign policy make people “pro-American” or just supporters of criminality?
Fourth, facts are facts. But they all come to us in some kind of context. It would be convenient if we all received our facts the way Moses is reported in the Torah to have done by God writing out his commandments on stone tablets. But unless you are a Trumpista or other kind of cultist, evaluating facts requires some actual parsing of sources and a minimum of critical thinking.
Fifth, accurately described facts can make the best propaganda. Though we understandably take “propaganda” to mean deception, actual facts can make excellent propaganda. The Cambridge Dictionary defines prop0aganda as “information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions.”5 (my emphasis) Generally, the term is associated with government “information operations” or the advocacy of political parties and groups and has negative connotations. A public service announcement about an approaching tornado could be counted as propaganda, seeking to persuade people to take appropriate safety precautions but not necessarily including every nuance of meteorological considerations that one might expect in an academic journal.
In theory, we could consider all commercial advertising forms of propaganda, though in practice the word is rarely used that way. A somewhat cynical-minded person might suggest that any announcement emanating from a corporate human-resources department should be regarded as propaganda. Especially if the subject is opposing a unionization drive.
Lies, of course, can be and are used in propaganda. At least 99% of anti-vax claims presumably fit into that category.
On the other hand, facts don’t cease to be facts because they are used in a propaganda argument by one side or the other.
Sixth, there is no substitute for genuine critical thinking. Just swallowing undocumented assertions on social media or from a favorite politician or religious figures or some crackpot on YouTube or TikTok doesn’t count. And since deliberate disinformation can and is spread in a variety of ways, it is important to keep some track of evolving methods and content, as this report from Deutsche Welle does.6
That report focuses on Russian disinformation and information operations. But it would be foolish to assume that Russia is the only country who employs such techniques. Yes, including countries on Our Side.
Alina Lipp: Der grösste deutsche pro-Putin-Propaganda-Kanal auf Telegram. ZDF.de 24.03.2022. <https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/alina-lipp/> (Accessed (2023-09-09).
See: Lembcke, Jerry (1998): The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. New York & London: New York University Press.
I. F. Stone. Wikipedia 06-March-2022. <https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=I._F._Stone&action=history> (Accessed: 2023-11-02).
Nichols, Michelle (2023): UN working on guarantees for Russia to restore grain deal, Moscow skeptical. Reuters 09/07/2023. <https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/un-working-guarantees-russia-restore-grain-deal-moscow-skeptical-2023-09-07/> (Accessed: 2023-12-09).
"propaganda". Cambridge Dictionary. <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propaganda> (Accessed (2023-09-09).
Fact check: How deepfakes spread disinformation in Russia's war against Ukraine. DW News YouTube channel 07/18/2023.