OPINION:
Russian President Vladimir Putin and this country’s progressives share a deep appreciation of the importance of free speech and independent media to the functioning of a free society. That’s why they oppose both. They understand that silencing opponents and controlling what others can access, hear, see allows them to shape a narrative that controls public thought and belief. Tyrants have always understood this but the Putin regime and the relentless efforts of our progressive left to silence their opposition provide modern case studies in the effectiveness of such control.
Mr. Putin’s narrative up to and since the Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine has been simple. Ukraine, according to Mr. Putin, is controlled by Nazis or neo-Nazis working in collaboration with the West to threaten or undermine Russian security. In the process, the United States controls the Ukrainian government as part of a scheme to encircle Russia to destroy her. Ukraine posed a growing existential threat that had to be stopped sooner rather than later.
Thus, Mr. Putin had no choice; the invasion or “special military action” was defensive rather than offensive with Russia as a victim fighting for her very survival.
This narrative reeks of fantasy to anyone with access to what’s going on in Ukraine but makes sense to millions of Russians. Sergey Karaganov, honorary chair of the Moscow-based Council for Foreign and Defense Policy and a close associate of Mr. Putin, resorted to this argument in an interview with The New Statesman last week. He said, “There was also a strong belief that war with Ukraine was inevitable — maybe three or four years from now — which could well have taken place on Russian territory itself. So probably the Kremlin decided that if you have to fight, let’s fight on somebody else’s territory.”
Doubters within Russia were brutally silenced. Shortly after the invasion demonstrations against the war were quashed in dozens of Russian cities. A law was enacted making it illegal to spread so-called “false information,” like calling the invasion an invasion, with prison sentences of up to 15 years. Quasi-independent news organizations were quickly closed and luminaries within Russia were told to proclaim support for the “defensive” action or else. Threats to foreign news organizations and journalists led many to withdraw from Russia and the regime is taking steps to make it impossible for Russians to gain unapproved access to information via the internet.
Mr. Putin’s initial decision to invade Ukraine was popular because the public bought his narrative and were hearing little else. When President Biden called for Mr. Putin’s ouster, Mr. Putin was essentially able to tell Russians, “I told you so.” Mr. Putin already polled at 69% approval in January before the invasion and saw his approval soar in the wake of Mr. Biden’s comment to 83% today.
That the Putin narrative is nonsensical is irrelevant as it is unchallenged in Russia and thus believed by millions of ordinary Russians. Reality may intrude on fantasy at some point but hasn’t threatened to do so yet.
Russia is not unique. Americans who control the narrative, regardless of the reality, can affect public opinion and political outcomes. The Democratic Party and our media convincingly demonstrated that by labeling former President Donald Trump a “Russian Agent” during and after the 2016 presidential campaign using fabricated evidence to construct a damning and widely accepted narrative while condemning and demonizing anyone who disagreed.
During the 2020 presidential campaign, the New York Post broke the story, now widely accepted as credible, that then-presidential candidate Biden’s son was in bed with Chinese intelligence agents, Russian oligarchs and Ukrainian grifters to make a buck. U.S. elites in conjunction with Democratic leaders discredited the allegations and silenced other media outlets to keep the public until after the election. Fully 17% of those who voted for Mr. Biden in a close election later told pollsters that had they known these facts before the election might have changed their vote and quite possibly the outcome of the election.
But they didn’t. They made up their minds and judged the world around them based on what they knew or were allowed to know by those in control of the nation’s media. Just like the Russians who are today applauding Mr. Putin for what the rest of the world sees as outrageous and unprovoked aggression because they are making up their minds with only the facts they see or, like America’s voters, are allowed to see.
The difference between the enemies of free speech in this country and in Russia is that there the government can on its own dictate what people are allowed to see, hear and say. In this country, ideological conformity and control of the media are largely still in private hands, but the results of silencing one’s opponents are the same.
• David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.