Moscow changes strategy: Here’s how "warns" the West

Moscow changes strategy: Here’s how "warns" the West

Like, and more than, any other contemporary conflict, that between Russia and Ukraine is a propaganda war. The tone of the words and accusations has not always been the same over the past six months, often following a schizophrenic streak. After the energetic and bold tones of the opening bars, Moscow seemed to have changed strategy, especially in the face of unexpected Ukrainian resistance. The lines of communication overlapped too often, with the mixed voices of Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov and the sphinxes Shoigu and Gerasimov. Then the announcement of “restructuring” in Donbass, which was followed by more moderate communication due to the uncertain results on the field.

Medvedev plays falcon

In the midst of that storm he had reappeared Dmitry Medvedevthe man who likes the West who forgets the burgers with Barack Obama, began speaking out to the tones of “bastards and clumsies” with surprising aplomb earlier this summer, affirming that “as long as I live, I’ll be anything do to make them disappear”, criticized the anti-Russia sanctions, defining them as “illegitimate” against the politicians’ families, comparing them to mafia methods and citing the “Ndrangheta and Cosa Nostra. I put on my falcon harness, to perhaps secure a decent future.

In the last few days there has been a new attack on the Gun Cotton, penetrating the with a straight leg election campaigns Calling on Europeans to “punish” their “idiot governments” in the elections. It’s certainly not the first release of its kind, given that he’s already gloated over the government crises in the UK and Italy with Johnson and Draghi dropping out in the past. This time the hawk goes even further, addressing European voters directly: “We would like European citizens not only to express their dissatisfaction with the actions of their governments, but also to say something more coherent. For example, holding them accountable, punishing them in the elections for their blatant stupidity.” And he does it, unsurprisingly, on Telegram, his favorite channel, but mostly invented by a Russian. And as the father of the nation of the last century, he suspended electoral councils in anticipation of winter: “So act, European neighbors! Don’t be silent. Hold your idiots accountable. And we will listen to you. The benefit is obvious: winters are much warmer and more pleasant in the company of Russia than in glorious seclusion with the stoves turned off.” “Voting papers for gas,” it used to be said.

Lavrov’s move

The same applies to the gun cotton Sergey Lavrov, another who, after all, never displeased his western counterpart and who more than anyone regarded as Putin’s calmer. But Lavrov is and remains a Putin man, and so an aggressive turnaround was more than natural. The cancellation of the meeting G20 on July 8, after telling his counterparts that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not responsible for a global crisis and that sanctions to isolate Russia were tantamount to a declaration of war, this was the christening of this new means of communication. About a month ago it was Lavrov’s turn to announce on RIA Novosti and RT that the geography of the conflict had changed and that Moscow wanted to expand its military objectives in Ukraine and control 16 entire southern regions.

To further increase the dose, take style of speech of his boss: Response to the need for a change at the top in Kyiv, the accusations against the West of wanting to “starve” the whole world by triggering a global food crisis, the metahistorical obsession with the dream that “Russians and Ukrainians will carry on together live” in the name of the ongoing use and abuse of history that Moscow feeds on. In addition, shortly thereafter came the burden of Africa trip to propose, or rather to propose again, the myth of Third World Russia prepared with the imperialist portrait of the West. It all seemed almost a new diplomatic baptism for what many thought was a “new Gromyko” with his Italian attire and obsessive “niet.”

Patrushev and the “Russian backyard”

Another stiller awakened from oblivion Nikolai Patrushevsince 2008 Secretary of the Security Council of Russia. In addition to the proliferation of Russian vulgar facts, according to which “Western countries do not stop preparing for a full-blown armed conflict with Russia”, the steely siloviko is on the rise again, a very sensitive issue, that of Russia’s backyard.” On the occasion of the 17th annual meeting of the Secretaries of the security councils of the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Patrushev in Tashkent takes up what happened in 2020 in Belarusin january in Kazakhstan and in July in Karakalpakstan, in Uzbekistan, events branded as “the result of Western attempts to organize ‘color revolutions’ in Central Asia”. Eight countries are part of the SCO: China, Russia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Belarus, Iran, Afghanistan and Mongolia are observers, while Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey are “dialogue partners”. In Patrushev’s statements, reported by TASS, we read that an unprecedented number of countries are asking to join the SCO, a sign of a “significant contribution to building a new just and multipolar world order.”

Finally, the most enigmatic communication of all: that of Wladimir Putin. While he has remained consistent (and in tone) in his fight for Russia, in recent weeks the Kremlin leader has opted to shift the balance entirely toward the United States: For Moscow, it is and will be only the United States that matters bring war to the USA edge of the abyss. But as always, six tones remain bitter, the Russian government had declared its willingness to work on a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Turkey’s CNN reports, citing Ankara government sources, that Moscow has changed its position on the negotiations between the two leaders and softened its terms. Why now? Why triangulate the news about Ankara? Again, this is a very specific communication choice. And diplomatic? Maybe.