The US-led Western Mainstream Media’s (MSM) fake news allegation that Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines is counterproductive to their own side’s narrative interests. By spinning the tall tale that this newly restored world power attacked the infrastructure of NATO-ally Germany in the same waters that the bloc itself controls then got away with it scot-free, those perception managers are discrediting this anti-Russian alliance’s mutual defense guarantees as enshrined in Article 5.
The reality is that “The Anglo-American Axis Benefits From The Ecological Terrorist Attack In The Baltic Sea” for the reasons explained in the preceding hyperlinked analysis that was shared last week. It severed the last remaining chance, however dim it always was, of an eventual Russian-German rapprochement while simultaneously accelerating Poland’s rise as a regional Great Power for that same axis to exploit for further dividing and ruling Continental Europe. Moreover, it’s also obvious that the US economically and strategically profits by having now become the EU’s largest LNG supplier.
Returning to the disinformation that their side is spewing, however, going with that false flow raises the question of why Article 5 wasn’t invoked to symmetrically or asymmetrically respond to what those propagandists persistently claim was a so-called “Russian terrorist attack”. The twisted version of events implied by that weaponized narrative suggests that the Kremlin can destroy partially NATO-owned infrastructure with impunity, which exposes the bloc as a paper tiger.
Furthermore, it also prompts doubts about whether Russia is truly being beaten “only” by Ukraine like the MSM has also claimed and not by what’s really a wholly NATO-backed force since it doesn’t make sense that this would be the case if the first-mentioned is also so powerful as to blow up a pipeline in NATO-controlled waters without being caught red-handed in the act. The targeted audience that fell for these two false claims might therefore understandably experience cognitive dissonance.
It’s unlikely that they’ll realize that they’re being lied to, though, but the least naïve among them might eventually come to suspect that something foul is afoot and that trusting everything that the MSM tells them only leads to more confusion instead of the clarity that they’re seeking. It could also inadvertently strike fear in their hearts if they come to the conclusion that all Western officials consistently lied when they promised to trigger Article 5 if anything connected to any of them was ever attacked by Russia.
There are several lessons to be learned by this sloppy practice of information warfare. First, those weaponized narratives that are artificially manufactured for short-term convenience shouldn’t contradict those that are artificially manufactured for long-term strategic ends. Second, the very fact that this happened in the examined case study proves that the MSM’s perception managers aren’t as professional as some might have previously assumed.
Third, the lack of a course correction (however gradual) after nearly a week shows that even those professional ones among them at the top of the information warfare hierarchy either haven’t realized how counterproductive their underlings’ latest tactics were to their cause, can’t effectively force them to switch gears on demand, or simply don’t care. Fourth, the last possibility is probably the most likely since those in the West who wage information warfare assume that their targeted audience is stupid.
And fifth, President Putin extended credence to precisely that point when declaring on Friday during his historic speech that “The truth has been drowned in an ocean of myths, illusions and fakes, using extremely aggressive propaganda, lying like Goebbels. The more unbelievable the lie, the quicker people will believe it – that is how they operate, according to this principle.” The lie about Russia blowing up Nord Stream is likewise equally unbelievable, yet falling for it actually counteracts NATO’s interests.
Source: One World