The widespread but false perception that Putin is an anti-Zionist secretly allied with Iran against Israel, which has been pushed for years by putative friends and undeniable foes alike, means that many folks the world over will likely fall for Ukraine’s latest information warfare provocation against Russia.
Given the NRPRs’ interlocking ties with Iranian agents of influence, one must also look into the possibility that Iranian state elements—long displeased at the divergence between Russian interests and theirs in the MENA—are working with Ukrainian counterparts to undermine Russia/EU–Israel–U.S. ties. If so, then this suggests that Iran is eager to relieve pressure on itself by triggering a potential NATO–Russia conflict. Iran is quite capable of and willing to use sophisticated PSYOPs, as it has shown before.
Absolutely, in fact, I've long suspected that Iran uses many of these same NRPRs -- who are less sincerely pro-Russian than they are Leftists, Islamists, and/or "Third Worldists", all ideologies of which are friendly towards Iran nowadays -- as "agents of influence".
It's more than just mere conjecture since some top NRPRs have been guests of the Iranian Government, prominently featured on its domestic and international media, and hosted by Iranian allies like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Most of these same people just promote Russia for clout, to advance an ideology, and/or to solicit donations (or because they're somehow receiving money from Russia) since they lack any characteristic of actual Russophiles.
Almost none of them speak Russian, know Russian history, study its policies, practice Russian culture, read Russian literature, live in Russia, have family in Russia, own property in Russia, and/or have their life savings in rubles. They have no stakes at all in its success.
All that they do is parrot low-IQ talking points (i.e. "Crimea is Russian!", "Zelensky is a Nazi!", etc.) and that's enough to be promoted as an "expert" by Russia and accordingly seen that way by their "peers" in Alt-Media.
From this position of falsely perceived authority and misguided open support from Russia (platformed by public media, invited to conferences here, allowed to meet top experts, officials, diplomats, military leaders, etc.), they can easily twist perceptions about Russia.
To this end, some of the "veterans" have spent the past decade pushing lies about Russian-Israeli and Russian-Iranian/-"Resistance" relations, which they even laundered on publicly financed platforms due to them mostly being run by technocrats, not experts.
At Sputnik, where I worked from 2014-2019, there were surprisingly very few actual credentialed and experienced experts, not anything like what I've heard is the case at other leading non-Western media, let alone leading Western media.
Most of my colleagues were just language experts (as in they could speak and write a foreign language fluently) and/or journalists, but they were not experts on Russian policy or US policy, let alone on any other countries'. In fact, most were bored with their work.
In such an environment, expertise is outsourced to guests, who they naively assume are better informed of these subjects just because they talk about them a lot, but therein lies the risk since their talk is actual propaganda and in some cases foreign-influenced.
It was these factors that resulted in Iranian and possibly even other agents of influence exploiting publicly financed Russian media to insert faux NRPRs who actually operate (even if unpaid and only in solidarity) as agents of influence for Iran and others.
The consequences have been catastrophic for Russian soft power: since October 7th, I've seen so many people online turn against Russia, condemn it in the fiercest ways, etc., all of whom used to be Russian-friendly, if not NRPRs in their own right.
Had they soberly known the truth that Russia isn't "anti-Zionist", they wouldn't have felt "betrayed" as the common accusation goes, but they wrongly thought Russia was "anti-Zionist" and now think that Putin is a Jew (which they consider to be a slur) or worse.
In a nutshell, "Potemkinism" led to unrealistic expectations about Russian policy, which in turn inevitably resulted in deep disappointment once reality slapped them all in the face, and afterwards many NRPRs became susceptible to actual anti-Russian propaganda.
None of this had to happen and I've spent years working through my channels to warn every relevant contact about this lethal threat to Russia's hard-earned soft power only for nothing to happen despite my best efforts. As they say, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Re: Iran, I have long noted that its governance model, ideology, and modus operandi are 180° opposed to those advanced by Russia (certainly Putin). As a result, its alliances and associations are at cross purposes with Russia’s. During Putin’s first term Russia sided with the U.S. and pragmatic EU forces to weaken Iranian priorities, such as the nuclear program, the ‘anti-imperialist’ Palestinian struggle, and so on. Condoleezza Rice’s memoirs, as well as those of other top Bush officials, make this clear. The U.S. and Russia, along with the most important Western states (excepting maybe the U.K.), were largely on the same page then.
There were some differences, of course, notably in Latin America, where Russia used arms and energy ties to leverage its clout in Iranian ally Venezuela, but even there tensions existed. These can largely be tied to opposed agendas, mainly Iran and Co.’s—including ALBA’s—synergy with ‘Third-World’, ‘anti-imperialist’ ethnic/religious nationalism disguised as intersectional, internationalist class struggle. This runs 100% counter to a pragmatic, liberal-conservative worldview that accepts the status quo, the existing civilization-state model, and moral limits on action. There are also fundamental mental differences at work, too.
Problematically, outsiders have trouble understanding these distinctions, especially when dealing with other civilization-states, ethnic groups, races, and so on. I have found that the Arab/Islamic world has excelled in manipulating or otherwise exploiting this, whether on questions of energy, migration, drug policy, foreign affairs, or ‘political correctness‘ (whether regarding Islam or ID politics, insofar as the latter—including ‘liberal-globalist’ social aims—are used selectively as weapons by Islamist forces against rivals). What galls me is that many people, including Russians, simplify the matter to ‘evil Westerners/Zionists’ vs. the ‘Rest’.
This only aids the aforementioned actors, who have done all they can to divide, rule, and blame others for outcomes *they* engineered—and have worked hard at implementing over many decades, in military fashion. Clearly Russians, as well as most Westerners, have had no clue as to the resolve, duplicity, and cunning of Arab/Islamic civilizations. So even their reactions, such as Trump’s ill-planned Iran war, have been straitjacketed beforehand in such a way to ensure their failure, thus benefiting the other side. Information asymmetry plays a big role, but so do wilful ignorance, insularity, and provincialism: the refuge of the lazy and unintelligent.
What is your take on the way in which Arab/Islamic (or at least pan-Islamist) interests have masterfully distorted outsiders’ vision(s), beyond the Russia examples you enumerated?
Very piercing insight, thanks! To your question, in brief, I believe that Islamist narratives now predominate among the Western Left and among those on the Right who make "anti-Zionist activism" a key part of their political identity.
October 7th changed everything, but it was due to preexisting distrust in the US Government and Mainstream Media (reasonably so due to how much they've lied in the past!) that preconditioned folks to believe crazy conspiracy theories.
The Candace Owens case is exemplary in the sense that she physically embodies a typical "anti-Zionist activist" nowadays who's become a parody of themselves and no longer criticizes the State of Israel but fiercely hates all Jews.
The mainstreaming of bonafide anti-Semitism (not the conflating of anti-Zionist criticisms with Jew-hate) after October 7th is going to have very far-reaching and likely dark implications for the West for years to come.
Anti-systemic members of the Western opposition ("groypers") and even systemic ones (Democrats) have embraced anti-Semitism all while gaslighting that they haven't and this serves Islamist goals.
I think this hints at a wider problem. Many Westerners and non-Westerners alike, not least Russians, have failed to advance a positive agenda of, by, and for themselves. They tend to look out for—and blame—others first, rather than impose a distance (‘I/thou’ distinction) that embodies realism and self-interest. They should rely first and foremost on themselves, keep an open yet critical mindset, and take responsibility for their own fate.
Instead, they fall for unthinking traits, i.e., an uncritically altruistic—yet arrogantly indifferent—attitude toward outsiders, including ‘victimized’ or ‘special’ groups like Jews, ‘nonwhites’, migrants, etc. At the same time they show a distinct lack of regard for these folks’ own motives, interests, and aims. Strangely enough, both xenophobic nationalists and inclusive internationalists share this studied disinterest.
This ties in with the truth you mentioned: the unwillingness of many NRPRs to show a *genuine* interest in Russian or, in some cases, even Iranian and/or Islamic society. They just wish to be someone else’s tool, in order to ingratiate others—likely in order to satisfy their own ulterior motives, i.e., greed, envy, hatred of their own position at home, dislike of their own society, and so on.
A lot of pro-Islamist leftists genuinely seem to have a genuine death-wish, or subconsciously admire ‘exotic’ ideologies and/or nations *because* of their perceived ‘brutality’. Their protests notwithstanding, they deeply *admire* Machiavellian, patriarchal elites, and gravitate toward ‘nonwhites’, especially Muslims, because their societies are the *least* ‘effeminate’ or ‘politically correct’ (unlike the West).
Of course, the effeminacy of the West was by and large brought about by these leftists to begin with, which raises the question as to why they adore non-Western ‘fascism’ (including chauvinistic, ethnocentric, ‘phallocentric’ Muslim theocracies), but not their own. Protesting perceived Western ‘racism’ or ‘Nazism’ makes no sense if one admires a ‘nonwhite‘ equivalent, especially if one is a principled leftist or ‘anti-fascist’.
One should be able to do both, rather than side with one or the other. But given the Western left’s systemic inability to do this, not least consistently, I have been forced to look at deeper structural roots, such as a hidden power or foreign impulse, notwithstanding my aversion to typical conspiracy theories (however much I distrust official narratives, Western or otherwise, in general).
After all, it is no secret that the Western left historically owed its inspiration and logistics to the USSR, whose Comintern hid behind a variety of fronts to promote various movements that, à la Gramsci, would supposedly foster Marxism, or Soviet aims, by undermining the organic foundations of Western society, such as its basis in the family, the nation-state, and the (established) Church.
The USSR, moreover, was the chief supporter of anti-colonial militancy, not least the Arab/Islamic revolts. Only the Soviets supported anti-Zionism (and, where convenient, antisemitism) wholeheartedly, and was willing to recruit or use *anyone* against Western interests, such as pro-DDR Neo-Nazis (who resented the ‘pro-Zionist’ West Germans), Baader-Meinhof, the anti-Shah Shia Islamists under Khomeini, etc.
This brings me full circle to my assertion.
If one’s professed statements, as well as actions, overlap 100% with the ideological, strategic, geopolitical, ethnic/racial, and/or religious aims of another entity—without even the slightest mistake or deviation—one must posit a hidden motive rather than stupidity, naïveté, or inconsistency, especially if, to paraphrase James Forrestal, one sees no mistakes “in our favor”.
It is, perhaps, no coincidence that the ‘Maidan’ in ‘EuroMaidan’ is Arabic, and that the coup-uprising was likened to the pro-Islamist Arab Spring, which, too, was spearheaded by ostensibly ‘liberal-globalist’ actors but ended up exclusively benefiting hardline Islamist forces, both Sunni (hence the Muslim Brothers, al-Qaida/HTS, and ISIS) and Shia (hence the pro-Iranian ‘Axis of Resistance’).
But enough of this digression.
Sadly, non-Westerners, too, have showed more interest in demonizing rivals’ (informed) patriotism than in defending it on principle. Russia, in particular, has shown a distinct lack of interest in discriminating between Western elites and/or their people(s), as well as in understanding their neighbors’ *legitimate* historical and other qualms about Russia. Ukraine, for instance, is much more than just its current ruling clique.
After all, the ‘pro-Russian’ Ukraine has always constituted a mere portion of the Ukraine itself, which has been heavily influenced by Hungarian, Ottoman, Polish–Lithuanian, and Romanian factors (even before EuroMaidan there was a clear distinction—electorally, politically, economically, and culturally—between the various regions of Ukraine). Yet this reality is too complex for both sides of the Ukraine divide to consider.
This goes not just for ‘pro-Western’ factions, but also for ‘pro-Russian’ ones there. It certainly seems to have played a role in the disastrous miscalculations both sides made leading up to EuroMaidan (and certainly before, as well as after, the SMO). Had they looked at the situation more attentively, they would almost certainly have acted somewhat differently, at least in certain areas.
Take Russia and its ‘friends’’ overuse of ‘Nazi’, ‘fascist’, and ‘racist’ charges—a motif they bizarrely share, for very different reasons, with *both* their ‘liberal-globalist’ imperial foes *and* their ostensible conservative-nationalist ‘allies’. All sides interpret events through the hermeneutics of World War II, Nuremberg, and/or the Holocaust, as though history were one-dimensional and exclusively intrinsic to Jewry (however real its own sufferings).
All this presupposes both a liberal-globalist aversion to alleged ‘discrimination’ and a preference for either civic nationalism or atomized globalism, as though man were merely a contractual being with no ties other than the mercantile. It also implies that ‘Nazism’ or ‘fascism’ was solely negative and that no reasonable person would admire any part of it. This overlooks history.
Until 1941 the Axis Powers conquered much of Europe, mostly bloodlessly (aside from Poland and the Balkan area). They could only have taken much of Scandinavia, the Low Countries, France, and Mitteleuropa—not to say North Africa—and avoided large-scale uprisings with the passive or active support of a substantial segment of their subjects. Revolts mainly took off with active Allied aid or instigation around the time of BARBAROSSA.
The fact is that much of the Western public, even in ‘neutral’ states, shared certain aims with, and admiration for, the Axis, above all antipathy toward Soviet-inspired, Comintern-aided subversion (a factor that would reemerge with the nascent Cold War in 1945). Moreover, Hitler, Mussolini, and their hangers-on *did* succeed, to some extent, in taming the Depression and revitalizing their societies more than the ‘democracies’ did.
Yet contemporary Russia not only ignores this, but also demonizes anyone—at home and abroad—whose sense of the ‘national interest’ does not 100% conform with the Russian leadership’s. This leads to mutual misunderstandings and potentially devastating outcomes that could have been avoided by a frank acknowledgment of, or even a limited empathy with, well-founded differences.
This even spills over into history. You have already mentioned Poland–Russia relations as an example, but the same can be said of Russia’s links to the rest of its neighbors, whether in Central Asia, the Far East, or northwestern Europe. For example, to this day many Russians refuse to admit that the ‘Winter War’ (1939–40) with Finland was sparked by a Soviet false flag at Maynil’/Mainila, rather than a Finnish ‘attack’.
Russian behavior at times only reinforces its neighbors’ justified suspicions, allowing the Western elite to draw benefits from the situation. When Russia began the SMO, for instance, it did so without declaring war on Ukraine or renouncing its prior agreements that respected Ukrainian sovereignty. This made its behavior look like a simple territorial grab and was duly treated as such by the collective West.
As always, however, the power of narrative trumps actual evidence, i.e., facts. So does opportunism, rather than a principled stance. The Epstein case is guilt by association at its finest, notwithstanding the paucity of proof (i.e., documentation that could verify the essence of the charges). But the same can be said for so many other things that various players employ for varied objectives. We are seeing this tragedy of human nature unfold in real time.
Thank you, Daniel, this was very interesting to read through. It's a bit too detailed to respond point-by-point but I more or less agree with what you wrote, especially your diagnosis of why so many people allow themselves to be used as tools of someone else (I personally posit that deep psychological factors are involved that have worsened since the Internet era) as well as your constructive critiques of Russia's soft power strategies.
Each feeds off of the other -- there are only so many potential people across the world willing to put their reputations (and possibly freedom in some cases!) on the line by openly supporting Russia to the point of traveling here, going on its media, etc., and Russia likewise therefore has almost zero standards over who it promotes as long as they parrot low-IQ talking points -- and this worsens their respective predicaments.
The "tool" for lack of a better word gets an egotrip like no other and their deep psychological problems (not the case with all top NRPRs but with many it certainly seems!) are worsened at the expense of their overall, especially long-term stability and close relationships, while Russia's image is stained by the "tool's" antics and already broken feedback loops further tainted by recycling their hogwash into this process as is now the trend.
Interesting insights that reinforce my feeling about how things might play out.
I can't post or comment on this myself because the Russia/Iran relationship is one of the biggest blind spots in my long-standing interest in geopolitics.
I'm only certain of one thing: TRIPP is aimed almost exclusively at disrupting this relationship through infrastructure.
That the Jerusalem Post is no more reputable than Kyiv's fake news factory is, in my view, standard practice.
One interesting factor is that neither Turkey nor Pakistan—both of which are linked to TRIPP through their multifaceted ties—has cooperated with the U.S. on Iran so far. Both also support Ukraine: Turkey directly and Pakistan through defense ties to Poland via the 3SI (though direct arms transfers are rumored). Interestingly, Iran has largely refrained from attacking Qatar thus far, and the latter is playing a key role in the “Islamic NATO” through its ties to the KSA, Turkey–Pakistan, and even Iran (diplomatically).
The important thing is that several of these actors, as well as ‘liberal-globalist’ deep-state factions in the EU (not to mention the divider-and-ruler UK), have more of an interest in disrupting U.S.–Israel–BRICS ties than in promoting genuine cooperation or regional stability. Support for Ukraine is but one way to prevent these. Also, Brzezinski’s imperial strategy relied on using one or more Islamic blocs to counter rival powers, among them the USSR/Russia, in the Eurasian ‘Heartland’ (to paraphrase British strategist Mackinder).
None of this is new to anyone here, of course, but a ‘black swan’ in all this is how the demographic reengineering of several core Western states via ‘weapons of mass migration’ (mainly Muslim), as well as ‘liberal-globalist’ affirmative-action policies (such as hiring migrants in sensitive positions of influence), affects the Western elite’s policy agenda, not least in foreign affairs—especially now that the Sunni “Islamic NATO” and the Shia “Axis of Resistance” hold the economic cards (petrodollar, Red Sea, Hormuz).
Mr. Korybko, maybe you should do a piece that integrates the last bit. It would make for an interesting analysis.
Mr. Korybko, you have noted the role of Iranian state factions in influencing and/or controlling NRPR elements (certainly narratives). Do you have any thoughts to share re: the above possibility?
Moreover, Ukrainian nationalism derives ideology, tactics, and cadres from its synergy with Islamism. Islamist mercenaries inspired Ukrainian ‘suicide’ attacks, use of human shields, and so on. Ukrainian intelligence trains and arms the drug cartels allied to Islamist (or ‘Red–Green’) forces, i.e., Cuban proxy Venezuela. Qatari client Turkey continues to aid Ukraine, and Iran has no interest in allowing Israel-friendly Russia to gain at its expense. After all, Zelensky himself has repeatedly criticized the ‘war on terrorism’ and the Iran conflict as diversions from the NATO–Russia affair.
No doubt you are correct. No doubt Putin, the genius player of zero dimensional chess, is too much of a cold fish to form an entente cordial with China and Iran to restrain America from destroying the whole basis of civilized life. We, like you, should congratulate Putin the genius. #sarcasm
This is your third obnoxious remark to me after the two posted under separate Substack Notes. You're totally mistaken to conflate my explanation of Russian policy with endorsement.
Sometimes, not necessarily this one (nor do I have any obligation to clarify which ones), I disagree with the policies that I analyze but condemning them changes nothing in the real world.
Speaking of which, I suggest that you return to it because you seem to be pretty divorced from reality to have misinterpreted my motives in writing about this, let alone to respond with sarcasm when my readers know that I don't like it.
I sense that you're not just a misguided reader, but likely a troll, in which case you'll be blocked if you continue behaving like this. You can express a contrarian view without disrespecting me such as attributing speculative (and in this case false) motives to me.
For instance, you could have posted something like "I wish this was true, but it isn't, because Putin is too scared of Israeli and US political retaliation. What a disappointment." That's it, easy, right? Well, not for delusional folks like yourself. Do better next time.
If you randomly stumbled upon my Substack and expect me to behave like other "Non-Russian Pro-Russians", the vast majority of which have no credentials, experience, or track record of analytical accuracy, and just obnoxiously condemn everything that the low-IQ masses (which I refer to as toxic sludge) dislike instead of analyze Russian policy and occasionally critique it, then you're at the wrong place.
In the typical fashion of Russophobic agitators and Putin-haters, this unimaginative and unsubstantiated attempt at provocation will surely garner you a range of reactions, from scale 1 (silent nodding) to scale 10 (loud applause).
Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with commentary on the topic of analysis or any comprehensible logic in your statements.
Perhaps you should take a page out of Eliot Ness's book. Even then, though, you wouldn't be among your own kind.
Please troll somewhere else. It's disturbing the other serious readers.
In this particular case, it is not any NRPR or an Iranian source that has alleged that Russia is providing Iran targeting info on Israeli energy infrastructure, but an Israeli publication itself.
Likewise, one of the earliest prounders of the theory that Putin was the mastermind behind the October 7 Hamas incursion into Israel and the abductions of Israeli nationals, was Mossab Hassan Youseff, who is Israel's most loyal mouthpiece whose every statement is vetted by Tel Aviv. By the way, no NRPR or even Hamas itself for that matter has ever made an allegation anywhere close as this one made by a defacto Tel Aviv spokesperson till date. Also, an Israelite Rabbi, Pinchass, had alleged that Putin is a staunch anti-Semite because he had taken exception to curbs imposed by Jews in the Ukrainian establishment on Orthodox Christians' right to practice their religion. Under the circumstances wherein Israelis do not tire themselves from calling Russia their enemy number one, Russia might have just as well thought it best to let the Israeli allegations play along.
It's admitted in the text that it's from a "source close to Ukrainian intelligence" who laundered this fake news through an Israeli publication, but if it wasn't for the NRPRs' "Poteminkinism" -- which is to a large degree, I've suspected for years, influenced by Iran through many of these top figures' trips there and support from it over the years -- then the story would be unbelievable to most.
As for Yousseff's fake news, again, it would be unbelievable had the global public not been preconditioned to accept it by years of aggressively promoted "Potemkinist" propaganda. Anyone can say anything crazy and it won't be believed unless the target audience has been preconditioned to believe it.
And you're wrong about NRPRs not talking about Russia helping Iran against Israel, it's a very popular narrative on X and denying it gets one slurred as a "Zionist", harassed in other ways, and then blocked (which reduces your reach per Elon's tweak to the algorithm that he admitted to some time ago). All of this is the fault of NRPR "Potemkinists", they're singlehandedly responsible for why the world believes such fake news about Russia.
I don't know why you don't see it, but that's your choice: I've been here for 12.5 years working from inside of the system from 2014-2019 with contacts all across the board from diplomats to fellow experts to journalists. What I'm telling you is how everything actually works. You don't have to believe it, but it's arrogant to deny and push back against it.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, there are two relevant schools of foreign policy thought in the Israeli Establishment: those who want to follow the US' lead and those who want Israel to follow its own interests.
In terms of policy formulation, the latter have been dominant since 2015 as enshrined in the (in)famous Putin-Bibi "deconfliction mechanism" that was agreed to that September right before Russia's Syrian Operation.
Since then, bilateral ties have more or less remained cordial, even strong, though with several serious interludes of sharp tensions, mostly rhetorical, that always nevertheless were resolved with a return back to normalcy.
At the same time, the school that wants to follow the US' lead has been lambasting Russia and trying to subvert Bibi's Russian-friendly (for the most part) policies, though to little success.
The examples that you cited align with that school. Israel isn't homogenous in terms of foreign policy preferences, nor are Jews for that matter, yet it's a common trait of "anti-Zionist activists" to imagine that they're always on the same page.
All evidence to the contrary is casually dismissed as "psyching out the goyim" or whatever, but that's an insult to the intelligence of everyone with a normal IQ. It only appeals to the low-IQ toxic sludge on social media.
Think about if: if the ruling Israeli Establishment REALLY believed everything that you cited, don't you think that Israel would have cut ties with Russia, armed Ukraine to the hilt, and Mossad would be wreaking havoc inside of Russia?
Of course, most "anti-Zionist activists" think that's all already happening, that's how divorced they are from reality and they're frankly irredeemable at this point bar a miraculous awakening. None of that is true, but I suspect you think it is.
So much of todays conflicts relate to Israel & Jews. Isreal & Jews count for little. What is most important is that the USA & Russia bcome friends. These are the 2 SUPER POWERS that own 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons. They MUST become friends for the GOOD of the WORKD.
Given the NRPRs’ interlocking ties with Iranian agents of influence, one must also look into the possibility that Iranian state elements—long displeased at the divergence between Russian interests and theirs in the MENA—are working with Ukrainian counterparts to undermine Russia/EU–Israel–U.S. ties. If so, then this suggests that Iran is eager to relieve pressure on itself by triggering a potential NATO–Russia conflict. Iran is quite capable of and willing to use sophisticated PSYOPs, as it has shown before.
Absolutely, in fact, I've long suspected that Iran uses many of these same NRPRs -- who are less sincerely pro-Russian than they are Leftists, Islamists, and/or "Third Worldists", all ideologies of which are friendly towards Iran nowadays -- as "agents of influence".
It's more than just mere conjecture since some top NRPRs have been guests of the Iranian Government, prominently featured on its domestic and international media, and hosted by Iranian allies like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Most of these same people just promote Russia for clout, to advance an ideology, and/or to solicit donations (or because they're somehow receiving money from Russia) since they lack any characteristic of actual Russophiles.
Almost none of them speak Russian, know Russian history, study its policies, practice Russian culture, read Russian literature, live in Russia, have family in Russia, own property in Russia, and/or have their life savings in rubles. They have no stakes at all in its success.
All that they do is parrot low-IQ talking points (i.e. "Crimea is Russian!", "Zelensky is a Nazi!", etc.) and that's enough to be promoted as an "expert" by Russia and accordingly seen that way by their "peers" in Alt-Media.
From this position of falsely perceived authority and misguided open support from Russia (platformed by public media, invited to conferences here, allowed to meet top experts, officials, diplomats, military leaders, etc.), they can easily twist perceptions about Russia.
To this end, some of the "veterans" have spent the past decade pushing lies about Russian-Israeli and Russian-Iranian/-"Resistance" relations, which they even laundered on publicly financed platforms due to them mostly being run by technocrats, not experts.
At Sputnik, where I worked from 2014-2019, there were surprisingly very few actual credentialed and experienced experts, not anything like what I've heard is the case at other leading non-Western media, let alone leading Western media.
Most of my colleagues were just language experts (as in they could speak and write a foreign language fluently) and/or journalists, but they were not experts on Russian policy or US policy, let alone on any other countries'. In fact, most were bored with their work.
In such an environment, expertise is outsourced to guests, who they naively assume are better informed of these subjects just because they talk about them a lot, but therein lies the risk since their talk is actual propaganda and in some cases foreign-influenced.
It was these factors that resulted in Iranian and possibly even other agents of influence exploiting publicly financed Russian media to insert faux NRPRs who actually operate (even if unpaid and only in solidarity) as agents of influence for Iran and others.
The consequences have been catastrophic for Russian soft power: since October 7th, I've seen so many people online turn against Russia, condemn it in the fiercest ways, etc., all of whom used to be Russian-friendly, if not NRPRs in their own right.
Had they soberly known the truth that Russia isn't "anti-Zionist", they wouldn't have felt "betrayed" as the common accusation goes, but they wrongly thought Russia was "anti-Zionist" and now think that Putin is a Jew (which they consider to be a slur) or worse.
In a nutshell, "Potemkinism" led to unrealistic expectations about Russian policy, which in turn inevitably resulted in deep disappointment once reality slapped them all in the face, and afterwards many NRPRs became susceptible to actual anti-Russian propaganda.
None of this had to happen and I've spent years working through my channels to warn every relevant contact about this lethal threat to Russia's hard-earned soft power only for nothing to happen despite my best efforts. As they say, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Your response, as usual, is very thoughtful.
Re: Iran, I have long noted that its governance model, ideology, and modus operandi are 180° opposed to those advanced by Russia (certainly Putin). As a result, its alliances and associations are at cross purposes with Russia’s. During Putin’s first term Russia sided with the U.S. and pragmatic EU forces to weaken Iranian priorities, such as the nuclear program, the ‘anti-imperialist’ Palestinian struggle, and so on. Condoleezza Rice’s memoirs, as well as those of other top Bush officials, make this clear. The U.S. and Russia, along with the most important Western states (excepting maybe the U.K.), were largely on the same page then.
There were some differences, of course, notably in Latin America, where Russia used arms and energy ties to leverage its clout in Iranian ally Venezuela, but even there tensions existed. These can largely be tied to opposed agendas, mainly Iran and Co.’s—including ALBA’s—synergy with ‘Third-World’, ‘anti-imperialist’ ethnic/religious nationalism disguised as intersectional, internationalist class struggle. This runs 100% counter to a pragmatic, liberal-conservative worldview that accepts the status quo, the existing civilization-state model, and moral limits on action. There are also fundamental mental differences at work, too.
Problematically, outsiders have trouble understanding these distinctions, especially when dealing with other civilization-states, ethnic groups, races, and so on. I have found that the Arab/Islamic world has excelled in manipulating or otherwise exploiting this, whether on questions of energy, migration, drug policy, foreign affairs, or ‘political correctness‘ (whether regarding Islam or ID politics, insofar as the latter—including ‘liberal-globalist’ social aims—are used selectively as weapons by Islamist forces against rivals). What galls me is that many people, including Russians, simplify the matter to ‘evil Westerners/Zionists’ vs. the ‘Rest’.
This only aids the aforementioned actors, who have done all they can to divide, rule, and blame others for outcomes *they* engineered—and have worked hard at implementing over many decades, in military fashion. Clearly Russians, as well as most Westerners, have had no clue as to the resolve, duplicity, and cunning of Arab/Islamic civilizations. So even their reactions, such as Trump’s ill-planned Iran war, have been straitjacketed beforehand in such a way to ensure their failure, thus benefiting the other side. Information asymmetry plays a big role, but so do wilful ignorance, insularity, and provincialism: the refuge of the lazy and unintelligent.
What is your take on the way in which Arab/Islamic (or at least pan-Islamist) interests have masterfully distorted outsiders’ vision(s), beyond the Russia examples you enumerated?
Very piercing insight, thanks! To your question, in brief, I believe that Islamist narratives now predominate among the Western Left and among those on the Right who make "anti-Zionist activism" a key part of their political identity.
October 7th changed everything, but it was due to preexisting distrust in the US Government and Mainstream Media (reasonably so due to how much they've lied in the past!) that preconditioned folks to believe crazy conspiracy theories.
The Candace Owens case is exemplary in the sense that she physically embodies a typical "anti-Zionist activist" nowadays who's become a parody of themselves and no longer criticizes the State of Israel but fiercely hates all Jews.
The mainstreaming of bonafide anti-Semitism (not the conflating of anti-Zionist criticisms with Jew-hate) after October 7th is going to have very far-reaching and likely dark implications for the West for years to come.
Anti-systemic members of the Western opposition ("groypers") and even systemic ones (Democrats) have embraced anti-Semitism all while gaslighting that they haven't and this serves Islamist goals.
I think this hints at a wider problem. Many Westerners and non-Westerners alike, not least Russians, have failed to advance a positive agenda of, by, and for themselves. They tend to look out for—and blame—others first, rather than impose a distance (‘I/thou’ distinction) that embodies realism and self-interest. They should rely first and foremost on themselves, keep an open yet critical mindset, and take responsibility for their own fate.
Instead, they fall for unthinking traits, i.e., an uncritically altruistic—yet arrogantly indifferent—attitude toward outsiders, including ‘victimized’ or ‘special’ groups like Jews, ‘nonwhites’, migrants, etc. At the same time they show a distinct lack of regard for these folks’ own motives, interests, and aims. Strangely enough, both xenophobic nationalists and inclusive internationalists share this studied disinterest.
This ties in with the truth you mentioned: the unwillingness of many NRPRs to show a *genuine* interest in Russian or, in some cases, even Iranian and/or Islamic society. They just wish to be someone else’s tool, in order to ingratiate others—likely in order to satisfy their own ulterior motives, i.e., greed, envy, hatred of their own position at home, dislike of their own society, and so on.
A lot of pro-Islamist leftists genuinely seem to have a genuine death-wish, or subconsciously admire ‘exotic’ ideologies and/or nations *because* of their perceived ‘brutality’. Their protests notwithstanding, they deeply *admire* Machiavellian, patriarchal elites, and gravitate toward ‘nonwhites’, especially Muslims, because their societies are the *least* ‘effeminate’ or ‘politically correct’ (unlike the West).
Of course, the effeminacy of the West was by and large brought about by these leftists to begin with, which raises the question as to why they adore non-Western ‘fascism’ (including chauvinistic, ethnocentric, ‘phallocentric’ Muslim theocracies), but not their own. Protesting perceived Western ‘racism’ or ‘Nazism’ makes no sense if one admires a ‘nonwhite‘ equivalent, especially if one is a principled leftist or ‘anti-fascist’.
One should be able to do both, rather than side with one or the other. But given the Western left’s systemic inability to do this, not least consistently, I have been forced to look at deeper structural roots, such as a hidden power or foreign impulse, notwithstanding my aversion to typical conspiracy theories (however much I distrust official narratives, Western or otherwise, in general).
After all, it is no secret that the Western left historically owed its inspiration and logistics to the USSR, whose Comintern hid behind a variety of fronts to promote various movements that, à la Gramsci, would supposedly foster Marxism, or Soviet aims, by undermining the organic foundations of Western society, such as its basis in the family, the nation-state, and the (established) Church.
The USSR, moreover, was the chief supporter of anti-colonial militancy, not least the Arab/Islamic revolts. Only the Soviets supported anti-Zionism (and, where convenient, antisemitism) wholeheartedly, and was willing to recruit or use *anyone* against Western interests, such as pro-DDR Neo-Nazis (who resented the ‘pro-Zionist’ West Germans), Baader-Meinhof, the anti-Shah Shia Islamists under Khomeini, etc.
This brings me full circle to my assertion.
If one’s professed statements, as well as actions, overlap 100% with the ideological, strategic, geopolitical, ethnic/racial, and/or religious aims of another entity—without even the slightest mistake or deviation—one must posit a hidden motive rather than stupidity, naïveté, or inconsistency, especially if, to paraphrase James Forrestal, one sees no mistakes “in our favor”.
It is, perhaps, no coincidence that the ‘Maidan’ in ‘EuroMaidan’ is Arabic, and that the coup-uprising was likened to the pro-Islamist Arab Spring, which, too, was spearheaded by ostensibly ‘liberal-globalist’ actors but ended up exclusively benefiting hardline Islamist forces, both Sunni (hence the Muslim Brothers, al-Qaida/HTS, and ISIS) and Shia (hence the pro-Iranian ‘Axis of Resistance’).
But enough of this digression.
Sadly, non-Westerners, too, have showed more interest in demonizing rivals’ (informed) patriotism than in defending it on principle. Russia, in particular, has shown a distinct lack of interest in discriminating between Western elites and/or their people(s), as well as in understanding their neighbors’ *legitimate* historical and other qualms about Russia. Ukraine, for instance, is much more than just its current ruling clique.
After all, the ‘pro-Russian’ Ukraine has always constituted a mere portion of the Ukraine itself, which has been heavily influenced by Hungarian, Ottoman, Polish–Lithuanian, and Romanian factors (even before EuroMaidan there was a clear distinction—electorally, politically, economically, and culturally—between the various regions of Ukraine). Yet this reality is too complex for both sides of the Ukraine divide to consider.
This goes not just for ‘pro-Western’ factions, but also for ‘pro-Russian’ ones there. It certainly seems to have played a role in the disastrous miscalculations both sides made leading up to EuroMaidan (and certainly before, as well as after, the SMO). Had they looked at the situation more attentively, they would almost certainly have acted somewhat differently, at least in certain areas.
Take Russia and its ‘friends’’ overuse of ‘Nazi’, ‘fascist’, and ‘racist’ charges—a motif they bizarrely share, for very different reasons, with *both* their ‘liberal-globalist’ imperial foes *and* their ostensible conservative-nationalist ‘allies’. All sides interpret events through the hermeneutics of World War II, Nuremberg, and/or the Holocaust, as though history were one-dimensional and exclusively intrinsic to Jewry (however real its own sufferings).
All this presupposes both a liberal-globalist aversion to alleged ‘discrimination’ and a preference for either civic nationalism or atomized globalism, as though man were merely a contractual being with no ties other than the mercantile. It also implies that ‘Nazism’ or ‘fascism’ was solely negative and that no reasonable person would admire any part of it. This overlooks history.
Until 1941 the Axis Powers conquered much of Europe, mostly bloodlessly (aside from Poland and the Balkan area). They could only have taken much of Scandinavia, the Low Countries, France, and Mitteleuropa—not to say North Africa—and avoided large-scale uprisings with the passive or active support of a substantial segment of their subjects. Revolts mainly took off with active Allied aid or instigation around the time of BARBAROSSA.
The fact is that much of the Western public, even in ‘neutral’ states, shared certain aims with, and admiration for, the Axis, above all antipathy toward Soviet-inspired, Comintern-aided subversion (a factor that would reemerge with the nascent Cold War in 1945). Moreover, Hitler, Mussolini, and their hangers-on *did* succeed, to some extent, in taming the Depression and revitalizing their societies more than the ‘democracies’ did.
Yet contemporary Russia not only ignores this, but also demonizes anyone—at home and abroad—whose sense of the ‘national interest’ does not 100% conform with the Russian leadership’s. This leads to mutual misunderstandings and potentially devastating outcomes that could have been avoided by a frank acknowledgment of, or even a limited empathy with, well-founded differences.
This even spills over into history. You have already mentioned Poland–Russia relations as an example, but the same can be said of Russia’s links to the rest of its neighbors, whether in Central Asia, the Far East, or northwestern Europe. For example, to this day many Russians refuse to admit that the ‘Winter War’ (1939–40) with Finland was sparked by a Soviet false flag at Maynil’/Mainila, rather than a Finnish ‘attack’.
Russian behavior at times only reinforces its neighbors’ justified suspicions, allowing the Western elite to draw benefits from the situation. When Russia began the SMO, for instance, it did so without declaring war on Ukraine or renouncing its prior agreements that respected Ukrainian sovereignty. This made its behavior look like a simple territorial grab and was duly treated as such by the collective West.
As always, however, the power of narrative trumps actual evidence, i.e., facts. So does opportunism, rather than a principled stance. The Epstein case is guilt by association at its finest, notwithstanding the paucity of proof (i.e., documentation that could verify the essence of the charges). But the same can be said for so many other things that various players employ for varied objectives. We are seeing this tragedy of human nature unfold in real time.
Thank you, Daniel, this was very interesting to read through. It's a bit too detailed to respond point-by-point but I more or less agree with what you wrote, especially your diagnosis of why so many people allow themselves to be used as tools of someone else (I personally posit that deep psychological factors are involved that have worsened since the Internet era) as well as your constructive critiques of Russia's soft power strategies.
Each feeds off of the other -- there are only so many potential people across the world willing to put their reputations (and possibly freedom in some cases!) on the line by openly supporting Russia to the point of traveling here, going on its media, etc., and Russia likewise therefore has almost zero standards over who it promotes as long as they parrot low-IQ talking points -- and this worsens their respective predicaments.
The "tool" for lack of a better word gets an egotrip like no other and their deep psychological problems (not the case with all top NRPRs but with many it certainly seems!) are worsened at the expense of their overall, especially long-term stability and close relationships, while Russia's image is stained by the "tool's" antics and already broken feedback loops further tainted by recycling their hogwash into this process as is now the trend.
A very nuanced and well-informed, qualified analysis. I'm happy to follow you on Substack.
Interesting insights that reinforce my feeling about how things might play out.
I can't post or comment on this myself because the Russia/Iran relationship is one of the biggest blind spots in my long-standing interest in geopolitics.
I'm only certain of one thing: TRIPP is aimed almost exclusively at disrupting this relationship through infrastructure.
That the Jerusalem Post is no more reputable than Kyiv's fake news factory is, in my view, standard practice.
One interesting factor is that neither Turkey nor Pakistan—both of which are linked to TRIPP through their multifaceted ties—has cooperated with the U.S. on Iran so far. Both also support Ukraine: Turkey directly and Pakistan through defense ties to Poland via the 3SI (though direct arms transfers are rumored). Interestingly, Iran has largely refrained from attacking Qatar thus far, and the latter is playing a key role in the “Islamic NATO” through its ties to the KSA, Turkey–Pakistan, and even Iran (diplomatically).
The important thing is that several of these actors, as well as ‘liberal-globalist’ deep-state factions in the EU (not to mention the divider-and-ruler UK), have more of an interest in disrupting U.S.–Israel–BRICS ties than in promoting genuine cooperation or regional stability. Support for Ukraine is but one way to prevent these. Also, Brzezinski’s imperial strategy relied on using one or more Islamic blocs to counter rival powers, among them the USSR/Russia, in the Eurasian ‘Heartland’ (to paraphrase British strategist Mackinder).
None of this is new to anyone here, of course, but a ‘black swan’ in all this is how the demographic reengineering of several core Western states via ‘weapons of mass migration’ (mainly Muslim), as well as ‘liberal-globalist’ affirmative-action policies (such as hiring migrants in sensitive positions of influence), affects the Western elite’s policy agenda, not least in foreign affairs—especially now that the Sunni “Islamic NATO” and the Shia “Axis of Resistance” hold the economic cards (petrodollar, Red Sea, Hormuz).
Mr. Korybko, maybe you should do a piece that integrates the last bit. It would make for an interesting analysis.
Mr. Korybko, you have noted the role of Iranian state factions in influencing and/or controlling NRPR elements (certainly narratives). Do you have any thoughts to share re: the above possibility?
Moreover, Ukrainian nationalism derives ideology, tactics, and cadres from its synergy with Islamism. Islamist mercenaries inspired Ukrainian ‘suicide’ attacks, use of human shields, and so on. Ukrainian intelligence trains and arms the drug cartels allied to Islamist (or ‘Red–Green’) forces, i.e., Cuban proxy Venezuela. Qatari client Turkey continues to aid Ukraine, and Iran has no interest in allowing Israel-friendly Russia to gain at its expense. After all, Zelensky himself has repeatedly criticized the ‘war on terrorism’ and the Iran conflict as diversions from the NATO–Russia affair.
No doubt you are correct. No doubt Putin, the genius player of zero dimensional chess, is too much of a cold fish to form an entente cordial with China and Iran to restrain America from destroying the whole basis of civilized life. We, like you, should congratulate Putin the genius. #sarcasm
This is your third obnoxious remark to me after the two posted under separate Substack Notes. You're totally mistaken to conflate my explanation of Russian policy with endorsement.
Sometimes, not necessarily this one (nor do I have any obligation to clarify which ones), I disagree with the policies that I analyze but condemning them changes nothing in the real world.
Speaking of which, I suggest that you return to it because you seem to be pretty divorced from reality to have misinterpreted my motives in writing about this, let alone to respond with sarcasm when my readers know that I don't like it.
I sense that you're not just a misguided reader, but likely a troll, in which case you'll be blocked if you continue behaving like this. You can express a contrarian view without disrespecting me such as attributing speculative (and in this case false) motives to me.
For instance, you could have posted something like "I wish this was true, but it isn't, because Putin is too scared of Israeli and US political retaliation. What a disappointment." That's it, easy, right? Well, not for delusional folks like yourself. Do better next time.
If you randomly stumbled upon my Substack and expect me to behave like other "Non-Russian Pro-Russians", the vast majority of which have no credentials, experience, or track record of analytical accuracy, and just obnoxiously condemn everything that the low-IQ masses (which I refer to as toxic sludge) dislike instead of analyze Russian policy and occasionally critique it, then you're at the wrong place.
Best to leave quietly and never come back.
In the typical fashion of Russophobic agitators and Putin-haters, this unimaginative and unsubstantiated attempt at provocation will surely garner you a range of reactions, from scale 1 (silent nodding) to scale 10 (loud applause).
Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with commentary on the topic of analysis or any comprehensible logic in your statements.
Perhaps you should take a page out of Eliot Ness's book. Even then, though, you wouldn't be among your own kind.
Please troll somewhere else. It's disturbing the other serious readers.
In this particular case, it is not any NRPR or an Iranian source that has alleged that Russia is providing Iran targeting info on Israeli energy infrastructure, but an Israeli publication itself.
Likewise, one of the earliest prounders of the theory that Putin was the mastermind behind the October 7 Hamas incursion into Israel and the abductions of Israeli nationals, was Mossab Hassan Youseff, who is Israel's most loyal mouthpiece whose every statement is vetted by Tel Aviv. By the way, no NRPR or even Hamas itself for that matter has ever made an allegation anywhere close as this one made by a defacto Tel Aviv spokesperson till date. Also, an Israelite Rabbi, Pinchass, had alleged that Putin is a staunch anti-Semite because he had taken exception to curbs imposed by Jews in the Ukrainian establishment on Orthodox Christians' right to practice their religion. Under the circumstances wherein Israelis do not tire themselves from calling Russia their enemy number one, Russia might have just as well thought it best to let the Israeli allegations play along.
It's admitted in the text that it's from a "source close to Ukrainian intelligence" who laundered this fake news through an Israeli publication, but if it wasn't for the NRPRs' "Poteminkinism" -- which is to a large degree, I've suspected for years, influenced by Iran through many of these top figures' trips there and support from it over the years -- then the story would be unbelievable to most.
As for Yousseff's fake news, again, it would be unbelievable had the global public not been preconditioned to accept it by years of aggressively promoted "Potemkinist" propaganda. Anyone can say anything crazy and it won't be believed unless the target audience has been preconditioned to believe it.
And you're wrong about NRPRs not talking about Russia helping Iran against Israel, it's a very popular narrative on X and denying it gets one slurred as a "Zionist", harassed in other ways, and then blocked (which reduces your reach per Elon's tweak to the algorithm that he admitted to some time ago). All of this is the fault of NRPR "Potemkinists", they're singlehandedly responsible for why the world believes such fake news about Russia.
I don't know why you don't see it, but that's your choice: I've been here for 12.5 years working from inside of the system from 2014-2019 with contacts all across the board from diplomats to fellow experts to journalists. What I'm telling you is how everything actually works. You don't have to believe it, but it's arrogant to deny and push back against it.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, there are two relevant schools of foreign policy thought in the Israeli Establishment: those who want to follow the US' lead and those who want Israel to follow its own interests.
In terms of policy formulation, the latter have been dominant since 2015 as enshrined in the (in)famous Putin-Bibi "deconfliction mechanism" that was agreed to that September right before Russia's Syrian Operation.
Since then, bilateral ties have more or less remained cordial, even strong, though with several serious interludes of sharp tensions, mostly rhetorical, that always nevertheless were resolved with a return back to normalcy.
At the same time, the school that wants to follow the US' lead has been lambasting Russia and trying to subvert Bibi's Russian-friendly (for the most part) policies, though to little success.
The examples that you cited align with that school. Israel isn't homogenous in terms of foreign policy preferences, nor are Jews for that matter, yet it's a common trait of "anti-Zionist activists" to imagine that they're always on the same page.
All evidence to the contrary is casually dismissed as "psyching out the goyim" or whatever, but that's an insult to the intelligence of everyone with a normal IQ. It only appeals to the low-IQ toxic sludge on social media.
Think about if: if the ruling Israeli Establishment REALLY believed everything that you cited, don't you think that Israel would have cut ties with Russia, armed Ukraine to the hilt, and Mossad would be wreaking havoc inside of Russia?
Of course, most "anti-Zionist activists" think that's all already happening, that's how divorced they are from reality and they're frankly irredeemable at this point bar a miraculous awakening. None of that is true, but I suspect you think it is.
Thanks for the valuable information.
So much of todays conflicts relate to Israel & Jews. Isreal & Jews count for little. What is most important is that the USA & Russia bcome friends. These are the 2 SUPER POWERS that own 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons. They MUST become friends for the GOOD of the WORKD.