The Russians don’t make mistakes often, but when they do…

…those mistakes are epic in their stupidity!

There was the “Little Green Men” incident, in which Russian troops, wearing Russian uniforms, wielding Russian weapons, but without unit insignia, occupied the Simferopol airport, Crimean military bases, and other strategically important sites. Putin at first denied that Russian troops were operating in Crimea and claimed that it was Ukrainian militia groups trying to imitate Russians. Oops! Not so much. The weapons used were only issued to Russian troops, and could not have been sold in Ukrainian shops, as Putin claimed, since it’s illegal to sell or carry firearms in Ukraine, other than for hunting. There would have been no place to purchase said weapons – issued only to Russian troops.

Then there was the MH-17 stupidity, in which Russia actually claimed that the West (read: United States), NATO (read: the United States), boogie man (read: the United States) was responsible for the downing of the plane, despite the fact that a known Russian operative bragged on social media that his monkeys downed the plane, before realizing that OOOOPS! it was a civilian aircraft – filled with innocent people, whom they just murdered – and removed the social media post.

Strelkov forgot that the Internet is forever.

Strelkov forgot that the Internet is forever.

The post says that an An-26 aircraft was just shot down in the Torez region, and it’s currently lying somewhere behind a mine shaft. Then it said, “We warned you not to fly in our skies!” and claimed that the craft didn’t affect any populated areas when it crashed and that “peaceful people didn’t suffer. Except for the innocent civilians this Russian turd and his savages murdered, that is. He even posted video of the “downing of the bird.” (Shut up! It’s the best translation into English I could come up with.)

To make matters even worse, the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda published an alleged conversation supposedly intercepted by the Ukrainian security services, recorded between two “western agents” who were allegedly discussing their plans to down the craft prior to the incident. The burning stupid of this was evident in the really bad English of the “western” agents that sounded like a shitty Google Translate transcription, non-western phrasing, and the accents – OH THE ACCENTS!

I wondered then, between snorts and giggles, if someone in the FSB was smoking something laced with something else, because the Russians are generally pretty good at propaganda operations.

And then, I saw this in today’s New York Times. Jesus Christ on a toilet!

So apparently, after the release of the “Panama Papers,” which implicated Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in some… well… unsavory stuff, the NYT got a letter ostensibly from the Ukrainian President himself, wanting to address an editorial the paper ran on March 31, rightfully pointing out Poroshenko’s failure to address prevalent corruption in his country.

“I would like to respectfully request a telephone conference with you personally in order to attempt to convince you that opinions published in the article are without merit,” the letter read, finishing with the neat, curlicued signature of Mr. Poroshenko.

Well, alrighty, then! The NYT set up a phone call with “Poroshenko,” and that’s when things got funky.

The complainer’s comments were so suspect that the Times participants, including some newsroom journalists listening in, declined to publish an article on the matter, but instead began to investigate.

On Wednesday, however, edited audio of the call was mysteriously posted on YouTube, and the Times participants found themselves caught up in an apparent propaganda war between Russia, which is backing separatist forces in Ukraine, and Ukraine’s government.

The call, said Carol Giacomo, an editorial writer, was odd “because the more we got into it, the more we had questions.”

“The guy who was supposedly Poroshenko was in the background, and we couldn’t hear him very clearly, and the translator’s voice was dominant,” she said.

The translator told the journalists that the president, who has been identified as an account holder in the Panama Papers revelations about offshore accounts, had $500 million stashed in them.

The translator also quoted the voice identified as Mr. Poroshenko’s as saying he did not want to return the money to his country, in part because he did not want to pay taxes on it.

Yeah, because the President of Ukraine would speak Russian through his translator, even though he speaks fluent English, and usually conducts press interviews with foreign journalists in that language. *snort*

Because the President of Ukraine would tell American media that he had $500 million in offshore accounts. *more snort*

Because the President of Ukraine would admit to American media that he was hiding money for tax evasion purposes. *YUUUUGE snort*

Funnier yet, according to the article, the alleged Poroshenko “signature” was identical to a Google image result for Mr. Poroshenko’s signature, and the email address for Poroshenko’s alleged “press officer” was a fucking GMAIL account! *SOOO much snort!*

putinWhat in the everloving, grinning fuck, Russia? Are you really that pathetic nowadays? I mean, I realize it’s the Times and all, but still… Really?

And when caught in the hoax, this douche who identified himself as “Sergei Panfilov,” buckled and admitted to the lie, but tried to spin the story and claim that Poroshenko’s office was so upset with the editorial, that they hired him to stage the hoax.

Because, of course, admitting to keeping $500 million in offshore accounts in order to evade taxes is exactly what a Ukrainian president accused of not addressing corruption in his country would do to mitigate the situation!

I would never underestimate Russia. Really, I wouldn’t. But this monumental stupid isn’t the first time they’ve epically fucked up their propaganda efforts, and I keep wondering how anyone at the Kremlin thought this was in any way a good idea, and whether they’re now floating somewhere at the bottom of the Moscow River sporting some fashionable cement shoes and a gag.

20 responses

  1. So, how do we characterize this stunt by the Russians? Is it a mistake, or a distraction of their mistakes?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I honestly think the jet thing is a return to Cold War provocations. There are some who actually characterize the current relations with Russia as Cold War 2.0

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Everything old is new again, I guess.


        1. History always has a way of repeating itself with slight variations.


      2. Second that. It’s definitely along the lines of, “we’re going to go right up to the line and see if you flinch” without _quite_ crossing over so as to annoy potential allies/those not yet involved.


    2. “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”


      1. I’m a bit more optimistic!


        1. Sorry ’bout that. I have MustQuoteHuntForRedOctoberItis, which isn’t in the DSM, but will be, someday. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

  2. I like “downing of the bird”–it works better than “bird fall” which is what came immediately to my Russian as a foreign language mind. What about “crashing the birdie,” which sort of fits with his tone?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. So… I don’t get the “mistake” part. A mistake is where when you make one, bad things happen to you. Sounds to me like, so far at least, he’s impervious to the consequences of the alleged mistake.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, the Russians count on their propaganda efforts as a soft power strategy. This weakens said strategy quite a bit.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Whiskey on the rocks? (Okay, quite long time ago, but still cracks me up)


  5. “…somewhere at the bottom of the Moscow River sporting some fashionable cement shoes and a gag.”

    The executives and bureaucrats of the VA, IRS, TSA, ATFE et al. can count their lucky stars they’re not subject to that degree of accountability. (Not that they are subject to any accountability anyway.)


    1. The executives and bureaucrats of the VA, IRS, TSA, ATFE et al. can count their lucky stars they’re not subject to that degree of accountability.

      You’re assuming the people holding them to account are dissatisfied with their performance somehow. (Note, WE aren’t holding them to account, instead a bunch of lefists and dickless Republican congressfucks are doing so.)

      Liked by 1 person

  6. The Russian government was never as good at propanganda as they seemed to think. Back in the ’80s,I loved the weekly science and technology report on Radio Moscow’s English service. Between bouts of laughter, I’d ponder: Are they really so clueless to believe that is advanced, or are they trying to get the West to underestimate them by making us think they are so far behind that they think this is advanced?


  7. Hey Miss Nicki, I would like to hear your thoughts on blockading the Pregolya River when Putin attempt territorial gains. Russia has vey few year round ports in their west. The way I understand it, their global trade is dependent on warm weather ports; hence The Crimea. Why can’t NATO at least threaten to blockade Kaliningrad when Putin acts the ass?

    Appreciate your perspective.


    1. Well, the majority of their exports are energy, and they have a lot of pipelines to export that. I don’t see how we can blockade anything in their territorial waters. Kaliningrad Oblast is theirs. NATO going into their territory is an act of war. As much as we’d kick their ass, I doubt any NATO nation wants an armed conflict. It could escalate rather quickly.


      1. I don’t know of any situation where two nuclear powers ever fought each other directly. I’m sure most of Europe doesn’t want to run the experiment.


        1. Yep. During the Cold War we fought proxy wars to avoid that very scenario.


%d bloggers like this: