Stop arguing that it helps Putin
BREAKING: Janet Jackson spouts Kremlin narrative that puppies are cute
Maria Pevchikh of FBK fame decided to enter the NAFO vs Russians online shitshow this past weekend, for whatever reason. I applaud her for taking a stance on this. It’s probably not the most important thing in the world and not too much time or too many words should be devoted to this fight, but it is nice to see Navalny’s team finally see the light of day.
What I want to talk about is not the fight itself, but instead focus on a rather common talking point that is often used when these kinds of fights break out. Basically, both sides try to accuse the other of playing into Kremlin propaganda
Here is Leonid Volkov (also of FBK fame) saying that by spreading bigoted hatred against Russians online, NAFO warriors feed the Kremlin’s propaganda, which tries to convince Russians that the West hates them, wants them to die, wants Russia to collapse, etc.
Here is Aleksandar Djokic saying that, actually, it’s Volkov and Pevchikh who are unwillingly feeding the Kremlin’s propaganda about Russophobia abroad by pointing out NAFO’s bigotry instead of fighting against the Kremlin’s message.
Before I continue; Djokic is wrong. Bigotry is bad (m’kay?), and should be called out in all cases, even if there is another (evil) party that also happens to call out the same bigotry.
The problem with the “you’re feeding into the Kremlin’s narrative” argument is that anything can feed into the Kremlin’s narrative. I can say popsicles are tasty and accidentally agree with Maria Zakharova. I can say that the force of gravity is the reason things fall down and someone could accuse me of working for North Korea. I can say that America’s Jim Crow laws were awful and get accused of parroting Soviet-era Kremlin whataboutism.
It doesn’t matter what I say, someone could always find a way to spin it into me either knowingly and intentionally being supportive of the bad people or unwittingly dancing the bad people’s fiddle.
Just because the Iranian Ayatollah happens to have some critiques of the American state does not mean that I need to never again find any fault in the U.S. lest I accidentally say something along the same lines as he does. If the Ayatollah and I happen to agree that, like, islamophobia is bad, it’s OK. It actually gives me an opportunity to reflect and immediately turn my critique back on the Ayatollah, who probably won’t agree with me when I say that antisemitism is bad.
What we should all be focusing on is finding our moral first principles and honestly judging reality by those standards. If I think it’s bad to bomb civilians, I should criticize civilian-bombing regardless of who is doing it. If I find bigotry disgusting, then I should call it out when I see it. The reason Pevchikh is right about NAFO is because they cross moral boundaries that should not be crossed, not because their Russophobia may be used by the Kremlin as an example in their propaganda efforts.
So what if a Kremlin spokesperson said something that sounds similar to what the FBK folks said? One of those parties is pathologically lying and excusing war crimes while the other is trying its best to change things for the better in their country. It’s not difficult to figure out that the Kremlin is not truly concerned about moral boundaries. Their cynical approach to propaganda is willing to take real examples of Russophobia as well as totally fake, made up ones and use them for their purposes. If someone wants to point at Pevchikh or Volkov or me and claim that we are doing the same thing as the Kremlin, then they are being disingenuous.
I suggest we stop with this argument entirely. Either there is a solid reason why someone is wrong and you can rely exclusively on that, or you’ve got nothing.