So naturally I asked google what grievance narrative Victoria Nuland could have meant

23. Februar 2024

I inclu­ded a 10 days mar­gin befo­re the actu­al attack on the 24th of febru­a­ry, becau­se by then appar­ent­ly ever­yo­ne important in the US secu­ri­ty sce­ne alrea­dy knew the attack was underway - 

Search results for

russia’s grie­van­ce nar­ra­ti­ve before:2022-02-14

Befo­re image

search results for

russia’s grie­van­ce nar­ra­ti­ve after:2022-02-14

After image

So, it turns out, that the results are STARKLY different.

Which is a good indi­ca­tor, that Vic­to­ria Nuland pro­bab­ly meant the grie­van­ce nar­ra­ti­ve, that rus­sia came up with - after the attack. Or the collec­ti­ve west, thats not so clear.

Someo­ne ask a web based ngram data­set for web news.

Also, it turns out this arti­cle on Febru­a­ry the 18h 2022 actual­ly war­ned ever­yo­ne in the collec­ti­ve West not to be duped by Putin’s Grie­ven­ces against Nato:

Don’t be Duped by Putin’s Grie­van­ces against NATO
FSI Stanford

Free­man Spo­g­li Insti­tu­te for Inter­na­tio­nal Studies
FSI Stanford

src: click

In the­re its alrea­dy per­so­na­li­zed, so “Putin’s grievances”

So, lets now head over to Lin­ked in for the Aut­hors cur­rent employer…

Yas­min Sam­rai - United Sta­tes | Pro­fes­sio­nal Profile

70+ Fol­lower
Yas­min Samrai.

Deploy­ment: Stra­te­gist at Palan­tir Tech­no­lo­gies. United States

src: click

Neat! Direct­ly from a Desk edi­tors job at the Stand­ford Dai­ly?

Someo­ne check if thats the same per­son, I didnt. Age bra­cket fits.

Now, lets look at the actu­al argu­ment in the arti­cle, right?!

The idea that the West is goa­ding Rus­sia into a war with Ukrai­ne is not only popu­lar in Rus­sia, whe­re 50% of the popu­la­ti­on belie­ves the West is respon­si­ble for rising ten­si­ons, but also here in the United Sta­tes. The New York Times ran a front-page sto­ry with the head­line “Is Biden’s Stra­te­gy with Putin Working, or Goa­ding Moscow to War?” Har­vard pro­fes­sor Ste­phen Walt bla­med the mili­ta­ry buil­dup at the Ukrai­ni­an bor­der on the “hub­ris, wish­ful thin­king, and libe­ra­lism” of the U.S. and its Euro­pean allies. Mean­while, Repu­bli­cans drop­ped their his­to­ric hard line on Rus­sia and accu­sed Pre­si­dent Joe Biden of fomen­ting the cri­sis; Sena­tor Josh Haw­ley even cal­led for aban­do­ning America’s long­stan­ding com­mit­ment to Ukrai­ni­an mem­bers­hip in NATO. Taking the argu­ment several steps fur­ther, Fox News host Tucker Carl­son descri­bed the brewing con­flict as a “manu­fac­tu­red cri­sis” devi­sed by “rest­less, power-hungry neo­cons in Washing­ton” and mused, “Why is it dis­loy­al to side with Rus­sia but loy­al to side with Ukraine?”

It is deeply con­cer­ning that influ­en­ti­al voices in the West are faul­ting the U.S. for the esca­la­ti­on of ten­si­ons in Ukrai­ne. The­se com­men­ta­tors igno­re Russia’s agen­cy in fomen­ting the cri­sis and lend credence to Putin’s jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on for war. Putin — it is worth remem­be­ring — anne­xed Cri­mea in 2014 and backed a vio­lent rebel­li­on in the Don­bas regi­on that has led to over 13,000 deaths. Putin (not Biden) has amas­sed over 100,000 tro­ops on the Ukrai­ni­an bor­der and drawn up ela­bo­ra­te plans to fab­ri­ca­te a Ukrai­ni­an attack on Rus­sia. The­se are incon­ve­ni­ent truths for Krem­lin lea­ders who pre­fer to per­pe­tua­te the myth of Rus­si­an innocence.

The grie­van­ce nar­ra­ti­ve is a trap and not to be used in the west, like wes­tern scho­l­ars regu­lar­ly did befo­re Febru­a­ry the 18th 2022, because -

- It would lend credence to Putin’s jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on for war
- it is worth remem­be­ring — [Rus­sia] anne­xed Cri­mea in 2014 and backed a vio­lent rebel­li­on in the Don­bas regi­on that has led to over 13,000 deaths.
- Putin (not Biden) has amas­sed over 100,000 tro­ops on the Ukrai­ni­an bor­der and drawn up ela­bo­ra­te plans to fab­ri­ca­te a Ukrai­ni­an attack on Russia.

So natu­ral­ly, wes­tern scho­l­ars should not use that argu­ment anymore.

And tho­se who did, sub­se­quent­ly lost their jobs as the most publis­hed aut­hors on Pro­ject Syn­di­ca­te.

Gre­at.

So - this cant be used as an argu­ment any­mo­re, becau­se it would help Putin, becau­se the reta­king of Cri­mea wasnt an act of grie­van­ce [WHAT?], and becau­se it was Putin not Biden, who amas­sed 100.000 tro­ops at the bor­der - and drew up ela­bo­ra­ted plans of the Ukrai­ne having atta­cked Rus­sia - which both arent direct­ly rela­ted to rus­si­as grie­van­ce nar­ra­ti­ve against the collec­ti­ve west.

Any more obvious rea­sons we shouldnt use the nar­ra­ti­ve any­mo­re? You know like wes­tern scho­lors did even a week befo­re this arti­cle was published?

Sure:

The idea that the West is goa­ding Rus­sia into a war with Ukrai­ne is not only popu­lar in Rus­sia, whe­re 50% of the popu­la­ti­on belie­ves the West is respon­si­ble for rising ten­si­ons, but also here in the United States.

Atten­ti­on, this is also popu­lar in Rus­sia! Could be used as a war nar­ra­ti­ve, bet­ter call it fake from now on. (Feb 18, 2022)

And thanks for that Palan­tir job offer!









Hinterlasse eine Antwort