The current conflict in Ukraine provides a plethora of examples of the power of doublethink in shaping narratives in order to justify any actions, beliefs, and statements that are either untrue or so grossly distorted as to be entirely unbelievable.
The novelist George Orwell coined the term doublethink in his
classic dystopian novel 1984. He defined doublethink as “The
power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them...To tell deliberate
lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that
has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is
needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the
while to take account of the reality which one denies.”
Although the concept is elucidated in a work of fiction, it has
clear and unmistakable parallels in the real world that, like
Oceania – the supranational state in which the novel takes place
– is in a state of constant war, and seemingly has been from time
immemorial.
For anyone following the situation in eastern Ukraine closely,
and specifically the accusations made by Kiev against both the
anti-government rebels and Russia, it seems that Oscar Wilde’s
quip that “life imitates art” is undoubtedly true. For
it is clear that doublethink is a fundamental part of how the
regime in Kiev sees this conflict, its role in it, and the
narrative it wishes to tell the world.
Double thinking MH17, the rebels, and Russia
As the world’s attention has been focused on eastern Ukraine in
the wake of the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines flight 17,
the rhetoric coming from Kiev (and its patrons in Washington) has
been provocative to say the least. Referring to the eastern
rebels as “terrorists,” the nominal government of
Ukraine has accused the rebels of being responsible for shooting
down MH17. According to their claims, the forces fighting the
Kiev regime shot down MH17 with sophisticated Buk anti-aircraft
missile systems supplied by Russia. Naturally, such accusations
imply that Kiev believes that the rebels have the capability of
carrying out such a highly technical and logistically difficult
attack.
Indeed, Kiev’s assertions are supported by the US, with the State
Department, as well as unnamed intelligence officials speaking
with various western media outlets, echoing the sentiments of its
client government in Ukraine. As the Wall Street Journal reported
on July 19th:
“New US intelligence assessments indicate that Moscow likely
provided pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine with
sophisticated antiaircraft systems in recent days, matching
evidence put forward by Ukraine and bolstering charges that
Russia was the source of the weapon that shot down Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 this week, killing 298... US officials say
they now suspect that Russia supplied the rebels with multiple
SA-11 antiaircraft systems by smuggling them into eastern Ukraine
with other military equipment, including tanks.”
And so, both Ukraine and the US have reached the conclusion that,
not only did the anti-government rebels have the motive and
opportunity, they had the means to down MH17 as well. Despite the
fact that neither Kiev nor Washington has provided hard evidence
to back up their assertions, they have continued to maintain that
only the rebels, with Russian assistance, could have been
responsible for shooting down a commercial airliner flying at
30,000 feet. They maintain that the rebels were armed by Russia
and were entirely capable of carrying out this attack.
OK, so even if we might doubt the claims of Kiev and Washington,
at least they are consistent, right? Well, not exactly.
On Wednesday July 23rd reports out of Donetsk indicated that two
of the Ukrainian military’s ground attack planes had been shot
down near the area where MH17 was downed. While these latest
developments are no surprise given the fact that Kiev’s forces
are still engaging in military operations despite calls for a
ceasefire to allow the MH17 investigation to occur, what is
interesting are the comments from Ukrainian officials.
Asked about the downing of these two jets, Andriy Lysenko, a
spokesman for the Ukrainian National Security Council, stated,
“They were not downed by terrorists [anti-Kiev
rebels]...According to our preliminary information it was done
from across the border.” So, despite having no evidence to
support the claim, the Kiev authorities continue to accuse
Russia, not the rebels, of downing the planes. As Neil Buckley of the Financial Times wrote:
“The Ukrainians alleged Russian forces were involved in
shooting down a Ukrainian An-26 transport plane and another Su-25
last week before the Malaysian aircraft was downed over rebel
controlled territory. In both cases Ukrainian officials said they
did not believe the rebels had the technology to shoot down
planes at the height at which they were flying [emphasis added].
Russia denied any involvement.”
Wait, what? We have been hearing for days that the rebels do in
fact have the capability to shoot down planes at any altitude
thanks to the Buk (SA-11 in NATO speak) provided by the alleged
Russian backers. So, which is it? Either the rebels do, or do
not, have the capability.
It seems that, rather than basing their assertions on facts and
evidence, the regime in Kiev and its patrons in Washington have
been playing fast and loose with facts, fitting them into their
preconceived narrative in which everything bad that happens is
because of Russia and “Russian aggression,” and any
evidence to the contrary is seen as merely “Russian
propaganda.” However, deflecting attention away from the
facts can only get you so far. Eventually, people start asking
questions and becoming skeptical of your credibility. Indeed,
this is precisely the point at which Kiev finds itself today.
The doublethink is self-evident. The anti-government rebels have
the technology and capability to shoot down MH17, and
simultaneously do not have the technology and capability to shoot
down the easier targets of the Ukrainian jets. Obviously, the
statements coming from the Ukrainian authorities are based on
political expediency rather than facts and evidence. Perhaps this
is why, at every opportunity, they proclaim that Russia is behind
everything that happens in eastern Ukraine. Because, as anyone
who has ever lied knows, lies are like the proverbial snowball
rolling down the hill.
Orwell wrote of doublethink:
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete
truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold
simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to
be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic
against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to
believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the
guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to
forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when
it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above
all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was
the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and
then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis
you had just performed.”
While Orwell was describing his fictional dystopia of Oceania
ruled by “the Party,” he might as well have been
describing Kiev’s mentality and public posture today. Of course,
the same could be said for the US State Department and political
establishment throughout this crisis. Indeed, the untruths,
omissions, and distortions have reached new levels. In time
however, their “carefully constructed lies” will all
fall away, leaving their false narrative exposed for the world to
see. For the sake of the people of eastern Ukraine, and those of
us around the world who shudder at the thought of further
US-Russia escalations, let us hope that moment comes sooner
rather than later.
Laissez un commentaire Votre adresse courriel ne sera pas publiée.
Veuillez vous connecter afin de laisser un commentaire.
Aucun commentaire trouvé