Protests in Russia: A response to pro-Putin commentator Mark Adomanis

True/Slant contributor Mark Adomanis left a comment today on my recent post regarding Vladimir Putin’s obvious complicity in the FSB’s 1999 false flag attacks against several Russian cities, as well as the U.S. media’s wholesale failure to bring this to the attention of the American citizenry along with the failure of such outlets as CNN.com to cover last weekend’s nationwide Russian protests at all. As Adomanis has taken the time to reply to my post at some length, I will respond here point-by-point.

You seem to be laboring under the very curious misapprehension that the “protests” in Russia are even vaguely newsworthy.

I’ll address the newsworthiness of this topic below; at this point, though, I would like to ask you why it is that you have chosen to put the term protests in quotation marks. Do you not believe that the phenomena in question were actually protests?

A few thousand (even the most optimistic reports had the total number of protestors [sic] across the whole territory of Russia at less than 10,000) people in a country of 142 million is not exactly a mass-movement.

I did not describe the protests as a “mass-movement,” but simply noted that they were of unusually large size relative to previous protests. Still, it is worth noting that a poll conducted this month indicated that almost 30 percent of Russians are inclined to engage in protests of this sort, and that this percentage is higher than it was just a month ago. I am heartened, however, that you seem to have decided that the participants were indeed protesters, even if you do not seem to acknowledge that these protesters were engaged in protests.

We had several times the number of people march in DC last week for immigration reform to virtually no media coverage whatsoever, is that also explained by the nefariousness and evil of the mainstream media?

Apparently, “virtually no media coverage whatsoever” can entail over 1,000 results on Google News, at least when one is trying to make the claim that the media is biased against one’s cause. I never described the media as possessed of “nefariousness” or “evil,” but rather of negligence and misplaced priorities, as was made clear to most of my readers by way of my first paragraph in particular, in which I rather plainly suggest that our media as a whole is more interested in fires and missing girls than in more important matters with significant implications.

The US media are ignoring these little gatherings of disaffected Russians not because of any nefarious desire to shield Vladimir Putin from criticism (a truly ludicrous suggestion that I can’t imagine you actually believe) but because they are utterly meaningless and will lead nowhere.

I would love for you to show where it is that I wrote or even implied that the U.S. media’s failure to cover “these little gatherings” is due to “any nefarious desire to shield Vladimir Putin from criticism.” I would also love a magical genie to appear before me and bring me a big pipe filled with opium and to play for me songs of heartbreaking beauty plucked from the deepest depths of Near East antiquity, and to do so on a harp made of stardust and dreams. Unfortunately, both of these things are impossible, both for you and for the genie. You are perhaps right that the Russian protests will lead nowhere in the sense that they will not topple the Kremlin, but I would suggest that they have, to some small extent, provided an occasion for some Russians to reevaluate their perceptions regarding their own country and the direction it has taken over the last decade or so.

These “protests” have no leadership, no message (there were as many demands for increased government subsidies as for anything else), and no coherence whatsoever.

The protests were attended and organized by a coalition of groups and leaders with varying agendas and messages, which is to say that they did indeed have leadership and a message, with that message being dissatisfaction with Putin, his puppets, and the Russian government overall. You would be correct in saying that it they had no central leadership possessing complete control over the proceedings or some particular message to which adherence was required of all participants; this was the work of a coalition of protesters, after all, and not of Putin.

If you knew anything at all about Russia you would know that these marches for “freedom” have larger numbers of communists and outright fascists than liberal democrats, and these groups can agree on nothing at all except “Putin=bad!”

If you knew anything at all about my readership, you would know that they expect anyone who puts forward such an important assertion to be prepared to back it up with references. I am prepared to back up everything I’ve put forth regarding Russia; are you prepared to tell us all where you obtained this information regarding the composition of these protests? You certainly know quite a bit about these protests for someone who considers them to be not even “vaguely newsworthy.”

Since Putin is still overwhelmingly popular among most Russians, the “opposition” has to resort to farcical acts of political theatre and utterly meaningless acts of protests.

It would appear that you have moved your scare quotes from the term protests to the term opposition. We are not facing any shortages of scare quotes, you know. You may use them twice in a single sentence if you feel the need to imply the illegitimacy or non-existence of two different legitimate and clearly existent things within the space of a few words, as you clearly do.

Putin isn’t leaving…

Lol, I know.

… and his system won’t collapse: you can think this is bad, good, or somewhere in between but if you put your faith in Nemtsov, Kasparov, and the merry band of mediocre hacks that is Russia’s liberal opposition I guarantee that you will be nothing but disappointed.

I am used to being disappointed in Russia, as are most individuals who value individual liberty, so this does not bother me.

Finally, these marches are significantly smaller than the marches which accompanied the “monetization of benefits” a few years back, disturbances which, of course, petered out with no visible impact on political/state structures. They are thus not “some of the largest protests Russia has seen since the 1990’s” but a much smaller and more geographically dispersed set which is overwhelmingly focused on local/regional economic problems.

You should look up what the word “some” means or have a trusted friend (perhaps an FSB agent) explain it to you.

I will conclude by pointing out that you have not said a word to refute my irrefutable assertions to the effect that the FSB carried out the 1999 bombings and that Putin would have of course been at the very least aware of these criminal operations, if not entirely complicit in them. This is wise of you.