The battle for the narrative

The publication of The Litvinenko Inquury report, which contains direct accusations to President Putin, will have the most serious consequences

Anatoly Litvinenko, son of Alexander Litvinenko with a copy of the report of Judge Robert Owen during a press conference. In the center of the picture is the widow Marina Litvinenko, London, January 21, 2016

The expression of Marshall Maluen Medium is the Message has been five decades, but his essence gradually becomes clear to every first -grader: each means of communication that you use imperceptibly changes the essence of the message, gives him a different status and weight. Happy birthday sounds differently-depending on whether they are congratulating you with mail, a telephone call or a message on the Facebook wall. Kadyrov’s threats to the opposition would go unnoticed if they were sounded in the news story on the Grozny TV channel - but they make a crushing impression when they appear in a warm cozy Instagram. The surname of the President of the Russian Federation, standing next to the descriptions of planned murders and drug trafficking routes, would not have any effect, being published on the Caucasus Center website, but when such logical ligaments are found in a thick folder of papers with the inscription British High Court (high court of Great Britain), these more than once spoken words cease to be simply words.

The essence of the message changes not only under the influence of means of communication - it all depends on what kind of story, the narrative becomes a message. In the very first hours after the publication of The Litvinenko Inquary, the Russian media began the battle for the narrative: all the same facts look different if the report “Politized Fars” or present it as the next attack of British intelligence, or at least not mention the names of Putin. But these are all tricks for internal use: it is clear that for people who read the materials of the investigation in the original language, they develop in a completely different story. And this is not a story about a kettle with polonium or even the fate of a particular Litvinenko - this is a story about how the Russian government kills its political opponents, including on the territory of a stranger state, at least once - using radioactive materials. And this story cannot be left without consequences: of course, we are used to living in a world where even the most powerful statements of the highest persons can be forgotten or crossed out the next day, but the status of a high court of London does not allow this story to dissolve in the air, as if it were not.

“This is not a story about a kettle with Polonia or even the fate of a particular Litvinenko - this is a story about how the Russian government kills its political opponents, including on the territory of a stranger state”

Speaking about the consequences, we first imagine a brainstorming to Daunning Street or in the vicinity of the oval cabinet-how to respond to the results of the investigation, which can still be limited, prohibited, arrest that this does not look like a final break and divorce (especially against the background of the movement towards the abolition of previous, postcrymous sanctions). But this is the very first and obvious part of the equation: further, as we know in the history of recent years, a snowball of mutual insults is formed, rushing to where. Even if the sanctions are addressed to the immediate superiors of the meadow and Kovtun, the response measures can be any: prohibit El and Staut in Russia, cancel the concert Pi Jay Harvey, begin to bomb Voronezh. Even if Putin’s name disappears from further materials of the case, there is always a personal resentment, which can manifest itself in the most unpredictable way. Even if no judicial verdict is carried out in principle (what is difficult to believe in)-there are Western leaders, a press, public opinion, who should somehow live with this knowledge: and when the time comes to discuss the next joint actions at the next hot point, this knowledge will necessarily emerge.

In this mutual suspicion that overlap on each other grievances, sanctions and counter -sanctions there seems to be nothing new - ok, we will advance two more steps over the front line in the Cold War, but the next ban on entry and arrest of accounts (as well as accusations in an attempt to ruin Russia, on the other hand) will not surprise anyone. And both large stories, in the context of which opponents are considering just published facts, did not appear yesterday. But if you look closely, it turns out that on the Russian side on the subject of the Litvinenko case there is not one, but as many as three stories.

One is official, the name of Maria Zakharova: this is not an investigation, but baseless speculations designed to quarrel Russia and Britain. The other is folk political, the authorship of the sofa publicists from Facebook: yes, you yourself are engaged in secret murders around the world in your Britain, one bond is worth it, than we are worse. And the third is frankly cannibal, from the creators of the rally in Grozny, where the State Duma deputy Adam Delimkhanov said: “For every word spoken to the head of the Chechen Republic, Russian President Vladimir Putin, these people will be responsible! By law they will answer. And not according to the law. They can be located in other countries, we do not adopt their laws. ” And the very fact of the simultaneous existence of these three stories can be considered as another proof of the prosecution in the High London Court.

Photo: AP Photo/Matt Dunham