Silence is a sign of agreement: A striking reaction from the West to Putin’s article

Resentment, criticism, statements by politicians about the attempt to “whitewash the aggressor”, condemning publications in the media. It was not difficult to imagine the reaction of Western countries to an article by Vladimir Putin, which appeared not elsewhere, but in the American edition of National Interest. However, everything turned out a little differently …

Silence is a sign of agreement: A striking reaction from the West to Putin’s article

Recently, the history of World War II has been turned into a political tool aimed at discrediting the Soviet Union and, as a result, Russia. Last fall, the European Parliament approved a scandalous resolution on the impact of historical memory on the future of Europe. The document was remembered for equating the USSR with Nazi Germany, arguing that Moscow was responsible for starting a war. He was powerful, but only part of the campaign. And her goal is not only the desire to blame Russia. It is equally important to blur the events of the first half of the 20th century that brought Adolf Hitler to power. Events in which Western elites and their fabulous capital are directly involved.

Putin’s article is a fair and logical response to the campaign of the West. However, this answer has a feature that distinguishes the publication of the President of the Russian Federation from provocative accusations against the USSR. Putin speaks openly and objectively. When it comes to Stalin, he bluntly says that his actions “deserve many fair accusations.” When he speaks of the Soviet legacy, of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which people love to condemn in the West, he admits that Russia is the successor of the USSR “with all its triumphs and tragedies.” At the same time, he draws attention to the fact that Western countries persistently ignore their own deals with the Nazis, including the Munich agreement.

The article is not one-sided. As a result, the reaction of the West was very mixed. More precisely, it seems that the publication was not noticed. Only some media went through it.

For example, it was hypocritically declared at CNN that Putin “rewrote history” by drawing extremely controversial parallels between the article and how monuments to Confederate figures are demolished in the United States. They are controversial because the president of Russia defends the history of the country. He does not tear out pages that he considers objectionable. In the USA, they are doing just that in order to whitewash their own past, which does not correspond to the appearance of the “land of freedom”.

Retold the publication in the “right” manner and the BBC reporters. They briefly mentioned Putin’s call for other countries to declassify the archives, but quickly left the topic.

“But there are new allegations: the Russian leader writes that secret documents about negotiations with Hitler before the start of the war are allegedly in the archives in Britain and protects the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states,” the BBC says.

Where is that violent journalistic activity? Why no one to call the press service of Boris Johnson in order to find out the truth? Such a scandal disappears, but we all understand why. The article by Vladimir Putin really touches on topics that Western governments would not want to deal with. Therefore, if a few media outlets neatly and dryly mentioned it, then politicians generally chose to ignore it. Both in the USA and in Europe they pretended that nothing had happened. Even Polish Russophobes are silent! Tactics are understandable and even logical, speaking impartially. If statesmen launch a machine of criticism, then the replication of the article itself will increase significantly. But they don’t want to attract too much attention to the publication of the Russian president there, so that the society does not get to objectionable theses. But, as they say, silence is a sign of consent.

Comments:

Loading ...