Politico headlined a piece earlier this week about how “European governments criticize IMF trip to Russia as ‘propaganda win’ for Putin”, which follows the resumption of those two’s relations that was recently analyzed here. This is driven by Russia’s belief in gradually reforming the global economic-financial system instead of radically reshaping it in order to not inadvertently destabilize its Chinese, Indian, and other Global South partners who have direct complex interdependencies with the West.
From Moscow’s perspective, the IMF accordingly has an integral role to play in this process, ergo the need to resume their relations with a view towards that end, which the IMF is also interested in advancing since it accepts that reforms are inevitable lest it become irrelevant in the new world order. This logic is sound, but it’s little-known outside of policy wonk circles, with the more popular but factually false narrative of Russia wanting to “crash the Western economy” predominating instead.
Despite supposedly being each other’s rivals, the Alt-Media Community (AMC) and the Mainstream Media (MSM) both push this claim since it meets each of their interests, albeit from opposite perspectives. The AMC sees this as something good and worth celebrating, while the MSM considers it something bad and worth condemning. The abovementioned mundane truth doesn’t rally either of their targeted audiences and is therefore suppressed by each’s gatekeepers since it goes against their agenda.
That’s why those Central and Northern European governments who protested the resumption of Russian-IMF relations are overreacting since neither media camp should want to draw attention to this development. Many in the AMC consider this a “betrayal” of Russia’s interests since they’re convinced that the IMF is an irredeemable evil, while many in the MSM consider this a “betrayal’ of the West’s interests since they’re convinced that this lends Russia legitimacy on the international stage.
Neither of them can keep up the façade that Russia wants to “crash the Western economy” after what just happened, but it’s only that handful of EU governments that’s lashing out about it, not the AMC. They’re behaving this way since they overexaggerate the impact that the MSM’s narrative in which they’ve so heavily invested has on popular perceptions. In their mind, a sea change in public opinion might soon follow, but that’s very unlikely since most Westerners are indifferent to this.
The average person who dislikes Russia doesn’t hold that opinion because they really thought that Putin was going to “crash the Western economy”, but because they think he’s a “dictator” or a “war criminal”. In fact, many of them think that it’s the Russian economy that’s collapsing and needs IMF support, which is why some of them are angry at their own side for not stopping them from resuming relations. Even so, their anger won’t translate into any moderation of their anti-Russian sentiments.
The situation is altogether different with the AMC, many of whose members like Russia so much because they truly thought that Putin would “crash the Western economy” as a form of “historical justice”. They’re the ones whose anger should be managed since some are now prone to thinking that Russia “sold out” after their unrealistic expectations of its policies inevitably led to this deep disappointment. The problem is that few in the AMC are able to articulate Russia’s policy on this as it objectively exists.
The usual cope that this is part of a “5D chess master plan” to “psyche out” the West has been employed so often in the face of “politically inconvenient” developments as to lose its effect, become a meme of sorts, and thus be seen as intellectually insulting whenever someone references that explanation. What’s needed is a “Great Media/Perception Reset” about Russian policy in all regards, from Israel–Hamas to the special operation and its grand strategy among other subjects, to comprehensively re-educate the AMC.
Unless that happens, the resumption of Russian-IMF relations – which objectively exists, is voluntarily being undertaken by both sides, and is sincerely considered to be mutually beneficial by their decisionmakers – risks being weaponized as a “propaganda loss” for the Kremlin, not a win. The MSM is just so out of touch with the AMC that it doesn’t realize how many members of the latter strongly dislike what just happened and are thus now susceptible to hostile narratives alleging that Russia “sold out”.
Instead of capitalizing on this, those earlier mentioned EU governments are trying to pressure the IMF into reconsidering the resumption of relations with Rusia, all because they overexaggerate the impact that their false narrative has on their targeted audience. The AMC’s top influencers keenly understand the impact on theirs, however, which why they’re circling the wagons to gatekeep any discussion about this since they know that it makes Russia “look bad” due to their audience’s unrealistic expectations.
Both media camps are making a mistake though. What they should do is use this opportunity to clarify the reality of Russian policy no matter how disappointed it makes their audience, not overreact like the MSM is doing or cover it up like many in the AMC are. Only the AMC has the political motive to do so, but it’s unclear whether it will. In any case, readers should reflect on the insight from this analysis, and they’re advised to reconsider a lot of the other alleged Russian policies that they took for granted.
As was already written, the truth is usually mundane, not dramatic. The New Cold War at its most basic is a systemic competition between the US-led West and the rest of the world over the former’s desire to retain unipolarity as much as is realistically possible and the latter’s desire to accelerate multipolarity. While the first has a track record of resorting to radical measures, that’s only because of its starting position in this competition, which endows it with systemic advantages for doing so.
The same can’t be said for the rest of the world, whose complex interdependence with the West has historically been lopsided in their counterpart’s favor, thus restraining them from catalyzing any sudden systemic shocks that would prove counterproductive to their own interests. Even so-called “rogue states” like Iran and North Korea, which have the least direct degree of complex interdependence with the West, are loath to do this since they know it’ll blow back after harming their close non-Western partners.
This insight is relevant when reconsidering a lot of the other Russian policies that members of the AMC took for granted such as its interest in attacking NATO or helping the Houthis blockade the Red Sea, the first of which trigger World War III while the second would harm China and India. Rhetoric from leading AMC influencers and hawkish Russian officials aside, the reality is that direct and indirect complex interdependencies with the non-West and the West respectively place limits on Russian policy.
There’s indeed interest in and tangible movement towards greater self-sufficiency so as to hedge against these risks, which could also be manipulated by its adversaries, but Russia hasn’t yet made enough progress on this to feel comfortable provoking sudden systemic shocks and won’t for a while. Every “goodwill gesture” for perceived de-escalation purposes and the policy of continuing to sell resources to officially “unfriendly countries” in the West derive from these “politically inconvenient” calculations.
The sooner that the AMC recognizes this, the sooner it can correct its members’ perceptions and consequently reduce the chances that they’ll become susceptible to hostile narratives alleging that Russia “sold out” whenever something that would otherwise be seen as “politically inconvenient” occurs. COVID and the Ukrainian Conflict have shed light on the shadowy ties between friends and foes alike, and while the AMC has wised up to the first, they’ve yet to fully open their eyes to the second.
