Schrödinger’s Invasion

Political scientist Alexander Vedrussov on how the U.S. media are shaping an alternate reality on the information front.*

It has become entirely impossible to read reports by the American media during the last few months. But if it’s your job to read the U.S. press, you might increasingly wonder: Are they all out of their minds, or what?

ABC raised the alarm when it reported, “The U.S. said … Russia is planning to create a video depicting a fake Ukrainian attack … that would include corpses … mourners … to justify invasion.”

The Washington Post spread the same alarmist rhetoric, when it reported, “Russia could seize Kyiv in days and cause 50,000 civilian casualties in Ukraine, U.S. assessments find.”

Bloomberg outsmarted everyone with one headline, publishing this sensational piece of fake news: “Russia Invades Ukraine.”

“We deeply regret the error.” A pathetic babble of excuses followed from the spokesperson for the world-renowned news agency after it became clear that the Russian invasion took place exclusively on Bloomberg’s website. And even there, it was surprisingly short-lived.

However, such unfortunate misunderstandings do not prevent the U.S. media from continuing to massively bombard its audience with reports of the Russian invasion, which, according to the latest reports, is expected to happen before the end of the Beijing Olympics. But this is not certain.*

Lately, Americans have generally not been very good at making predictions. In January, the White House considered the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine to be imminent. And at the beginning of February, it was no longer so. But as the middle of February approaches, the imminence of Russian aggression is again becoming the key message of the Biden administration’s position.

In a variety of contradictory statements from the White House, relayed by most American media without scrutiny, it is difficult to find not only logic and common sense but even basic coherence.

Indeed, sometimes it seems that the U.S. is preparing scenarios for a military solution to the Ukrainian conflict, using the logic from an old Russian anecdote: “What are the odds of you seeing a real dinosaur on the street? They are 50-50 — either you will, or you won’t.”

It is turning out to be some kind of a Schrödinger’s invasion. But, of course, in reality, there is no invasion. Still, upon browsing the U.S. media, you get the impression that it has already begun.

The U.S. and its allies are swiftly evacuating their embassy staff from Kyiv, with 3,000 American soldiers urgently redeployed to Poland. The 14th U.S. military aircraft with 1,200 tons of military cargo is landing in Boryspil. In contrast to the imaginary Russian aggression, all of this is indeed happening and clearly does not contribute to defusing international tensions.

The synchronous way in which the U.S. officials and the mainstream media are fanning the flames around the situation in Ukraine is simply astounding. When U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price openly aimed unsubstantiated accusations at Russia, there was only one reporter in the entire room — Matt Lee of The Associated Press — willing to confront the government official with a direct question: “What evidence do you have?” However, journalists loyal to the Biden administration raced to relay the political agenda of the State Department and the White House, without even bothering to give it minimal scrutiny.

Even worse, many militaristic U.S. media outlets (Who would have thought it!) live off advertising from major arms manufacturers. At some point, even Politico — a very popular publication — did not hesitate to accompany some of its materials with the caption, “Presented by Lockheed Martin.” Is it necessary to explain that this corporation produces the same Javelin anti-tank missiles that the U.S. is definitely moving into Ukraine to deter the mythical Russian invasion?

When Politico’s Feb. 10 cover signals that “In Ukraine, even a peace deal can be a Russian weapon” and on Feb. 11, its alarmist report suggests that “Russia will start a physical assault on Ukraine as soon as Feb. 16,” you cannot help but wonder to what extent such a view is once again “presented by Lockheed Martin” or another interested corporation.

In 1961, in his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th U.S. president and former Army general, prophetically warned: “[We] must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Last year, the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, and it continues to reduce its military presence in the Middle East. Meanwhile, U.S. military spending for the current year is at a record $768 billion. To “develop,” the military-industrial complex urgently needs a war. A real war is desirable, but a virtual war will also do since it can generate good funding and continue to exploit the American political and media establishment.

On Feb. 12, the U.S. and Russian presidents held their first talks of 2022. It was not a conversation between a blind and a deaf person. In fact, the Kremlin described the ongoing U.S.-Russia dialogue as balanced and businesslike. However, there has been no détente. Indeed, escalation scenarios are too favorable for the “Washington swamp” to allow Joe Biden to divert from a confrontational path toward negotiations leading to the creation of a new global security structure.

The author is the head of the StrategPRO think tank. The author’s opinion may not reflect the views of Izvestia’s editorial board.

*Editor’s Note: At the time of publication of this article by Watching America, the situation in Ukraine was changing quickly which may render some or all of this perspective moot.