I am writing this text precisely due to the fact that I am not Paul of Muscicki. due to the fact that it's not a defence against attacking him, it's a text about a phenomenon that is stigmatizing people for questioning what's expected to be obvious.
History mostly teaches us that without an attack on “obviousness” nothing changes for the better, while the attackers are usually the ones who are the ones who are the most disbalanced by the beneficiaries status quo. And in this role, “Political Criticism” was set up, publishing a text by Adam Sokołowski under the title The left is not immune to Putin's good narratives. Case of Paul Muscicki.
Forbidden Authors Index
The title itself reveals 2 crucial in the present"debate" of the public phenomenon. Firstly, he assumes in advance that communicative is evil / false / enemy / dangerous if it can be considered “nice Putin”. Yes, it's crucial if you can "recognise" due to the fact that all this rhetoric about "pro-Russian views" is based on conjecture that tries to identify a given view in 1 way or another. Otherwise, we would gotta recognise that experts from the search for "Procremlovian convictions" have access to any secret cognition in the Kremlin about defining the strategical interests of the Russian Federation and thus the narratives requested by Moscow in the world's most crucial Polish Internet. As it is widely known, the Russians from Kamchatka to the Caucasus mainly deal with what people compose on the Vistula River.
And secondly, the title is almost straight a call for ostracism towards Paul Mościcki, for he dares to preach something that Sokolovski considers to be "pro-Russian." There's not even a form of question that would cast doubt. There's just a sentence, and it's only a minute before he's trying to get a reason for it. We will besides look at it, but to a lesser degree than the stigmatisation methodology itself, which – erstwhile analyzing the text – can be exposed.
I do not know whether it is the author or the "political crisis" itself adds the "context", but before the text appears to us, we learn in the form of a decree that "Adam Sokolovski analyses Paul Mościcki's thesis on Russia, sanctions and wars in Ukraine, showing their convergence with the narratives of Russian propaganda". So no substance what happens next. If something doesn't add up, look at the beginning. Why do you even want to read it? We already know.
The Decreed Truth
Sokolovski, "refuting" Mościcki's thesis, tries to convince himself that Mościcki is incorrect to say that Russia earns money and does not lose money in the sanctions of the European Union. We get the full lecture on how resources to the countries of the Global South are sold cheaper than before to the countries of the West. This, of course, bears the mark of the truth, only that the message about "making money" is actually defending itself despite this, due to the fact that the sanction bill besides means that the Russians dispose of the ballast in the form of feeding on trade in the country of western brands. This money, after the ownership changes, just stays in Russia. It gave her an impulse to develop. Like the sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014, thanks to which the country had to invest in agriculture and present it is 1 of the largest cereal exporters in the world. Is the thesis not lawful, then? I'm certain we can argue. Oh, no, you can't, due to the fact that specified a thesis is “advocating to the Kremlin”.
Sokolovski, however, tries to support his thesis with statistics. For example, it was during Putin's regulation that the value of American investments in Russia increased and that this allegedly refutes the thesis that the current Russian president was behind the emancipation of national oligarchy from abroad influences. but this statistic won't tell us much. The problem with Putin's privatisation model was not that, literally, abroad investors entered further areas of the economy, but precisely that the Russians themselves did it, looking for a Comprador model for a Polish model. Of course, it's hard to investigate, but in case Sokolovski tries to subjugate Mościcki so that he doesn't intend to further investigate.
But let's go to war in Ukraine, due to the fact that it's about this broken dream of neoprometeists that goes the most, even if they mask it under different slogans about civilizations and free worlds. The Sokolovian military expert evidently does not gotta be, but he denies himself by trying to refute the threat that NATO could possibly pose to Russia. He first writes about rocket strikes, and then focuses on membership in NATO of individual countries, although he himself notes Russian demands of December 2021. "In December Putin demanded the withdrawal of NATO installations from all over Central Europe", what the Russians have taken precisely as a withdrawal of the "military infrastructure", that is, not so much demanded the withdrawal of Poland from NATO, but the withdrawal of weapons which could endanger Russia. It's about her reach. Besides, it is nonsense that Americans did not make specified attempts, due to the fact that in 2007 we heard about the rocket shield project.
A Constitution long broken
Was nothing truly happening in Ukraine just before February 2022 that the Russians could not take as a threat? So let's just look at the facts Sokolovski sees. Yes, there is simply a coup in Ukraine in 2014. The Ukrainian Constitution does not supply for the appeal procedure of the president then conducted by Parliament, as the author called creation "a parliamentary majority who stated, according to the facts – Yanukovych fled to Russia – that the president had ceased to execute his duties". Wonderful. Why don't we make this mode for another abroad visit? Karol Nawrocki? What if he's not in the Constitution? After all, we're the ones who defend her, so we should be right! Add to this the fact that precisely the day before, the agreement between the president signed by the Polish Ministry of abroad Affairs was concluded Viktor Yanukovych, and opposition to the fresh but parliamentary elections. If the message of this fact is "pro-Russian", then let us at all delegate the facts, due to the fact that they can "advocate Russian narrative".
Another decree entitled ‘who started’, i.e. "Ukrainian parliament withdrew from the position of non-block state only in December 2014, so almost a year after annexation of Crimea and Russian rebellion in Donbasa". This is full manipulation of facts. The referendum in Crimea was a violation of Ukrainian law, yes. But it was preceded by a violation of the law described above, or coup. The name of the uprising in Donbasa "Russian" most likely makes sense only if we mention to the sense of national identity of insurgents pushed out of Ukrainianity by the pomsaidan, illegal authorities of that country. 80% of those fighting at the time in Donbasa were Ukrainian citizens, which even Ukrainian sources acknowledged. In turn, Putina's Russia led to Minsk agreements that refused DRL and LRL separateness, ordered them to return to the borders of Ukraine and, in addition, were signed erstwhile the Ukrainian army commanded by the Puczysts fell into the boiler. Many people in Donbas resent Putin.
Selectivity
By arguing with Muscicki's thesis (i.e., "disclosure of the pro-Russian thesis"), that NATO entered Ukraine, while Sokolovski already uses only his own opinion, based on what. "It is about joint exercises, limited supplies of equipment and various military integration programmes of the Ukrainian army with those NATO-wish. This has indeed happened, but on a very limited scale" - We read. But who and what kind of spooler would that be? After all, even the personnel of the current Ukrainian army were trained by the Americans, headed by the head of the GUR, i.e. Kirill Budanov. At the time of the launch of the peculiar Military Operations, the Ukrainian army already has a full scope of weapons produced by NATO countries, especially the US, which, by the way, began to convey – attention – the first Donald Trump.
And so on, and so on. In the text we besides have any another curses. That Russia has “committed” something in Budapest. Sokołowski evidently does not know that the "memorandum" is not a contract, but a expression of will. Or that before the decision to launch peculiar Military Operations “nothing happened”. Well, it happened, which is beautiful well described... Anna Mierzyńska on.press, of course, adding all this "Russian influence" song to it, but noting that the Kiev authorities even delegalize opposition media (at the silence of Europe) erstwhile the "pro-Russian" opposition leads in the polls. There are besides statements of reluctance to implement Minsk agreements and NATO declarations that it does not intend to exclude Ukraine as an alliance candidate. Is all this someway justify Putin's decision? It doesn't substance due to the fact that we're not talking about morality. Mościcki is not delighted with Putin anywhere, he just notices whether he is trying to analyse what has led to the current situation.
Don't think, reasoning is Putin's domain
But that is what Sokolovski and another "controllers of public debate" are all about; not even this. Russia is simply expected to be synonymous with evil. He can't be right. He must be an enemy of Poland, civilization, free world. It can't be rational. He is on the 1 hand fallen under sanctions by a colossus on clay legs, and on the another hand a rich man who funds comments on the Internet. It is precisely due to the fact that the communicative of propaganda is stupid – the more you cannot announcement it. What if you notice? Well, you're “friendly of Russia”, so we're going to stigmatize you and exclude you from a group of people worthy of discussion.
The author of this article is besides known for a akin kind of perception of reality through his blog “Reports from Putinian Poland”, which is written more or little in kind Tomasz Piąk. With a general communicative that actually everything that slips distant from liberal status quo is to 1 degree or another ‘favour Putin’. rather obsessive, but as I mentioned above: that is why this must be decreed. It's a brutal fact about propaganda that the dumber it is, the more you gotta defend it. Actually, it's even logical.
But Mościcki besides sinned in Sokolovski's conviction that he did not agree to this mandatory ostracism towards people whom the author regards as “pro-Russian”, including my humble person. The sin of Muscicki is so double. Not only that it undermines something that "should" be the key for the Polish quarter-smart, but it intends to exchange its thoughts with those who have long been considered unworthy of giving their hand.
Braun is not about Braun.
In the end – and possibly the most crucial – Mościcki is almost straight baptized as the “Braun of the Left”. For Russian onuc seekers, this is, of course, the biggest insult, but it should be even creatively revalued. ♪ 'Cause it's popular ♪ Grzegorz Braun It's kind of because, as a individual with so much recognition, he started to ignore all these stupid narratives. Do your thing. You don't take a high-pitched cripple. Act like he's surviving in a... average world. He stopped adapting his activities to this subject "war with Russia". And that's fundamentally what Braun and Muscicki have in common. Only that this "back" became a key thing as a consequence of Sokolovski and Mierzyński activities. Not for Braun, Muscicki, Sokolovski, Mierzyńska and Jankowski, but for a rather average Pole who – whenever he starts to ask whether authoritative versions of subsequent events are actual – is stigmatized from time to time as “Russian onuca”. And for that, there is no request to love Russia or hatred Ukraine. Just ask if it was a Russian drone that hit the house. Just ask if spending on the military causes collapse in another areas. There is more and more of this “enough enough”, or at least so they would like self-appointed censors calling for the criminalisation of another views on the matter.
So Mościcki truly fits this “Left Gate” in the sense that he took a fire extinguisher, or possibly even a fire truck and flooded with facts all this propaganda about which most Poles already have a truly negative attitude. Attempts to sweep under the carpet of this fact and make theories about trolls, disinformation and cognitive wars – whatever this would mean in the authors' imagination – are not able to change either this fact or the general tendency which the censors are disbalanced. That's why these attacks.
And it's not pink. Since the Political Crisis decides to print this text and defend it fiercely on its own fanpageIt means she feels very involved. due to the fact that in fact, it is besides an environment of beneficiaries of the 3rd Republic of Poland, who may know under the skin that the collapse of Western story through the war in Ukraine is simply a smaller stream of grants from the “free world” and little income for controlling the debate. And if in addition this control is ineffective (because it is) then sponsors can yet wave their hand and Mierzyńska will gotta go to average work alternatively of surviving with abroad grants. So they don't want to talk, and they're asking everyone not to talk. The government said so. And that it excludes each other? Well, that's what Putin would like to hear. From which the simple conclusion is that it appears that Putin is writing government messages to exclude each other.
Tomasz Jankowski
