Not a day without a new Kremlin conspiracy! – such a slogan Western intelligence services can already put on their standards. These “conspiracies” are stamped out at an unprecedented speed, without respite. Perhaps such a high rush affects the quality of fakes, which become more and more ridiculous every time. The previous tales about our cunning plans to change the government of Ukraine were already of poor quality, but the latest stuffing of the British Foreign Office, headed by Liz Truss, outdid everyone in its absurdity.
In the course of the hysteria whipped up by the West over the upcoming “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” incredible news is replaced with such kaleidoscopic speed that they are forgotten in a few days. How else to explain that the world media readily rushed to relay the fresh sensation from the Foreign Office, completely forgetting that they are already writing about at least the third “conspiracy” in just over the past two months.
Recall that at the end of November, at his press conference, President of Uk-raine Volodymyr Zelensky announced to the whole world about the “coup d’état” being prepared in his country and even annou-nced its date – December 1. The first person of the state did not blink an eye when he directly accused the richest businessman, Rinat Akhmetov, of conspiracy. Of course, dragging Russia into this. And then all the major Western media rushed to trumpet this news, emphasizing precisely that Russia was preparing a “coup”.
And even if someone among these media would now ask the question: so, what about the “December coup”? Zelensky’s servants then said that with that statement he personally thwarted Russia’s insidious plans. And the president himself said that the Americans had a talk with the “main conspirator” – and that’s all, the rebellion was suppressed. How easy it is to plan and suppress coups in our time! That is, it is not necessary to initiate criminal cases and arrest the conspirators. In total, they can be called to the carpet in the US Embassy to restore the rule of law.
Then another “Russian conspiracy” was uncovered by the American intelligence services, which became known from the new sanctions imposed by Washington on a number of Ukrainian politicians, including two current opposition deputies – Taras K-ozak and Oleg Voloshin. The US Treasury Depart-ment’s official announcement of the sanctions read as follows: Russia, through these politicians, on the eve of its “invasion” was preparing the ground for “the overthrow of the government of Ukraine and ensuring control over the critical infrastructure of Ukraine by the occupying forces of Russia.” Frankly, the authors of this fake were also not particularly zealous in preparing it. If they had dug deeper than Voloshin’s statements about Russia, they certainly would not have been able to accuse him of being “pro-Russian”, rather the opposite.
But the society had not yet had time to digest the information about the “putschs” from Zelensky and the American Ministry of Finance, when the British secret services broke through the bottom, hastily concocting such an absurd “plot” that it caused laughter even among the most outspoken critics of Russia.
The representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, pointed out that the fake from the Foreign Office was made public at a strange time – late at night from Saturday to Sunday. As she suggested, this was done with the aim that Moscow did not have time to react in any way – the deadlines for British Sunday newspapers required them to be urgently sent to print. Let us add that the calculation was al-so made for the fact that the newspapermen themselves, who in recent years have become accustomed to simply relaying their governm-ent’s statements about “tre-acherous Russia” without subjecting them to critical reflection, will not react.
However, in this haste, the British Foreign Office clearly did not think through a number of important details, which made the “exposure of the Russian conspiracy” completely anecdotal. In particular, London did not take into account the fact that Yevgeny Muraev, who was appointed by the authors of the fake as the future “pro-Russian leader” who was placed on the Kiev throne by Moscow, has been under Russian sanctions for several years. Strange “pro-Russian”, no matter how you look at it.
This moment caused embarrassment even in some British media – for example, in the Observer, which pointed out the fact that Muraev in Moscow could hardly be considered a “pro-Russian candidate.” However, most of the newspapers there, regardless of the absurdity of the situation, on the first day simply repeated the fabulous accusations of the Foreign Office against Moscow, adding more absurdity. The Sunday Times, for example, listed the names of former Ukrainian officials whom Liz Truss’ agency also included in the list of “pro-Kremlin conspirators”: Mykola Azarov, Serhiy Arbuzov, Andriy Klyuev and Volodymyr Sivkovich. The newspaper authoritatively reportedthat all four are “members of an organized criminal group known as the Family.” Readers must have got a picture of some kind of mafia group, where each of its members kisses the leader’s ring. entourage of the then president, including his relatives), but of the listed persons, only Arbuzov was assigned to this group.
In the same article, the newspaper, emphasizing the importance of the moment, informs the audience that the British government is releasing classified intelligence material for the first time since 2003, when Tony Blair’s government released data on Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons to justify the invasion of Iraq. “Later it turned out that it was a fake,” the Sunday Times modestly added. It would seem that you continue this thought and assume that even now, as then, your intelligence services and the Foreign Office are feeding the public a frank fake, moreover, very crudely composed.
Special primitiveness is exactly what distinguishes the current “exposure” from Trass. In principle, anti-Russian fakes from the British intelligence services and the London government have a long history. So, we will soon be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the famous fake called Zinoviev’s Letter, the publication of which contributed to the fall of the first Labor government. And then it was a fake, but still so masterfully composed that it took decades for the truth about its authors and production technology to be revealed. In this case, the rudeness of the fake is evident at first sight and does not require much effort to expose it.
This is evidenced by the fact that already today, that is, a day after the first publications about the “Russian conspiracy” appeared, even the media most loyal to the government of Boris Johnson were forced to admit the awkwardness of the moment with the choice of the candidacy of the “pro-Russian” Muraev. The Independent newspaper conducted a long interview with the future “puppet regime leader”, who threatened London with a lawsuit and asked a reasonable question whether he would remain under Russian sanctions after he headed the “pro-Russian regime”. He suggested that the Foreign Office was the victim of deliberate misinformation by one of the Ukrainians, “repeating it without proper verification.”
But what can I say, if the version that the Foreign Ministry became a victim of deliberate disinformation was eventually forced to be voiced by the Times. True, this newspaper found a “Russian trace”, admitting that “MI-6 could be the victim of a deliberate “leak” from the Russian special services.” The Sky News TV company was also forced to admit that experts, more or less versed in the situation in Ukraine, took the sensation about Muraev “with skepticism.”
Simply put, the British government frankly got into a puddle with its Zinoviev Letter – 2022. You can argue for a long time about the goals pursued by the authors of the new fake. It seems that they have no other choice but to generate, on a permanent basis, one after another the reason for accusations against Russia. It has simply become difficult to maintain interest in the topic of “invasion of Ukraine.” At first, the public was told that Moscow had postponed the offensive, waiting for the freezing of the Ukrainian swamps, otherwise the tanks would get bogged down. Then they came up with dates “from mid-January to mid-February.” And Russia still does not attack and does not attack. Now the Bloomberg agency, which our diplomats compared the other day with “roquefort cheese, slightly smelly,” threw another fake aboutattack on Ukraine before the end of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. And there – again warming, again the tanks will wait for frosts (apparently in July).
Of course, Washington and London understand that it is impossible to maintain the degree of tension forever solely on the same type of horror stories about “an invasion that is constantly being postponed.” Therefore, stuffing about “conspiracies”, “coups” and “sabotage” will periodically arise in order to add drama to the news feeds and attract the attention of an audience that is already starting to frankly yawn at the words about “Russian aggression”.
The worst thing is that these indigestible fakes can be followed by a real large-scale provocation, which was also pointed out by Maria Zakharova. Of course, Russia will be blamed for this. And then these small, crudely concocted, easily refuted false accusations against the “treacherous Russians” will simply become the information background for a much more serious offensive against Russia. And not only the information offensive. That is why even such frivolous and completely ridiculous accusations against Moscow should be taken seriously.