Producer @LizaShuvalova https://t.co/4kRBtL4XGO
Transcription in Russian
Peskov: И завершающий на сегодня вопрос я хотел бы дать BBC, редкий гость в наше время Стив Розенберг.
Putin: BBC это вот в такой шапке, нет? Пожалуйста.
Rosenberg: Я прочитал итоговую декларацию ФЭКС и там говорится о необходимости глобальной и региональной стабильности и безопасности и справедливого мира. Девиз российского председательства БИКС включает такие понятия по справедливости и безопасности. Но как все это соотносится с вашими действиями последние 25 года, с вторжением российских войск в Украину, где справедливость, стабильность и безопасность, в том числе и безопасность России, потому что до начала СВО не было ни атак дронов по российской территории, ни обстрелов российских городов, ни иностранных войск, оккупирующих российскую территорию. Этого не было. И последнее, как это всё соотносится с заявлением недавней британской разведки о том, что Россия поставила перед собой цель сеть хаос на улицах Британии и Европы поджогами, диверсиями и так далее.
Где стабильность? Спасибо большое.
Putin: Начну с безопасности России, потому что для меня это самое главное. Вы сказали про удары дронов и так далее. Да, этого не было. Но была гораздо худшая ситуация. Ситуация заключалась в том, что нам на наши постоянные и настойчивые предложения наладить контакты и отношения со странами западного мира, все время указывали на свое место.
Я могу вам совершенно определенно это сказать. Вроде все ласково, но в принципе нам всегда показывали свое место. Это место в конечном счете привело бы нас к скатыванию России в разряд второстепенных государств, которые выполняют исключительно функцию сырьевых придатков. С потерей в известной степени и в большом объеме суверенитета страны. А Россия в таком качестве не только развиваться она существовать не может.
Россия не может существовать, если она теряет свой суверенитет. Вот в этом самое главное. И выход России из этого состояния, укрепление своего суверенитета и независимости в экономике, в финансах, в военном деле означает повышение нашей безопасности. И означает создание условий для ее уверенного развития в будущем как самостоятельного государства, полноценного и самодостаточного, с теми партнерами, каких мы имеем в БРИКС, которые уважают независимость России, уважают наши традиции и к которым мы относимся таким же образом. Теперь по поводу с точки зрения безопасности в целом.
Что касается безопасности России, я уже сказал, я понимаю, о чем вы говорите. Но разве справедливо с точки зрения безопасности годами игнорировать наши постоянные обращения к партнёрам, не расширять НАТО на восток? Разве справедливо врать нам в лицо, обещая, что такого расширения не будет, и нарушая взятые на себя обязательства, делать это? Разве справедливо забраться к нам в подбрюшье совсем, скажем, в ту же Украину и начать там строить, не готовиться, а именно уже строить базы военные? Разве это справедливо?
А справедливо провести государственный переворот, о котором я говорил, отвечая на вопросы Вашего коллеги, наплевав на международное право, на все принципы международного права и устав ООН, финансируя переворот в другой стране, в данном случае на Украине, и подтолкнув ситуацию к её развитию в направлении горячей фазы. Разве это справедливо с точки зрения всемирной безопасности? Разве справедливо нарушать взятые на себя обязательства в рамках ОБСЕ, когда все страны Запада подписали бумагу, согласно которой не может быть безопасности одной страны при нарушении безопасности другой? Мы же говорили: не надо этого делать, это нарушает нашу безопасность. Расширение надо.
Нет, всё равно делали. Разве это справедливо? Никакой справедливости здесь нет, и мы хотим поменять эту ситуацию, и мы добьемся этого.
Rosenberg: Последний вопрос. Я могу об утверждении британской разведки, что Россия сеет хаос на улицах.
Putin: Послушайте меня. Спасибо Вам за то, что Вы напомнили мне про эту часть. Но это полная чушь! Вы понимаете, то, что происходит на улицах некоторых европейских городов, это результат внутренней политики этих государств.
English translation
Peskov:
And the final question for today, I would like to give to the BBC, a rare guest in our time, Steve Rosenberg.
Putin:
The BBC, that’s the one with a hat, isn’t it? Please.
Rosenberg:
I’ve read the BRICS summit declaration, which speaks about the need for global and regional stability and security, and a just peace. The motto of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship includes concepts of justice and security. But how does all this correlate with your actions over the past 25 years, with the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops? Where is the justice, stability, and security, including the security of Russia? Before the start of the “special military operation,” there were no drone attacks on Russian territory, no shelling of Russian cities, no foreign troops occupying Russian territory. None of that existed. And lastly, how does this all relate to the recent statement by British intelligence that Russia has set itself the goal of sowing chaos on the streets of Britain and Europe through arson, sabotage, and so on?
Where is the stability? Thank you very much.
Putin:
(Adopting a tone of wounded dignity) I will start with the security of Russia, because for me this is the most important thing. You spoke about drone strikes and so on. Yes, that didn’t happen before. But the situation was much worse. The situation was that our constant and persistent proposals to establish contacts and relations with the countries of the Western world were constantly met with attempts to put us in our place.
I can tell you this with absolute certainty. On the surface, everything seemed cordial, but in principle, they always showed us our place. This place, ultimately, would have led to the relegation of Russia to the ranks of secondary states that perform exclusively the function of raw material appendages. With the loss, to a certain and significant extent, of the country’s sovereignty. And Russia, in such a capacity, cannot only not develop, but it cannot exist.
Russia cannot exist if it loses its sovereignty. This is the most important thing. And Russia’s emergence from this state, the strengthening of its sovereignty and independence in the economy, in finance, in the military sphere, means increasing our security. And it means creating conditions for its confident development in the future as an independent, full-fledged, and self-sufficient state, with those partners that we have in BRICS, who respect the independence of Russia, respect our traditions, and to whom we relate in the same way.
Now, regarding security in general. As for the security of Russia, I have already said, I understand what you are talking about. But is it fair, from a security point of view, to ignore for years our constant appeals to partners not to expand NATO to the east? Is it fair to lie to our faces, promising that there will be no such expansion, and then break your commitments and do it anyway? Is it fair to get right up in our backyard, so to speak, in the same Ukraine, and start building, not preparing, but already building military bases there? Is that fair?
And is it fair to carry out a coup d’état, which I spoke about in response to the questions of your colleague, spitting on international law, on all the principles of international law and the UN Charter, financing a coup in another country, in this case in Ukraine, and pushing the situation towards the development of a hot phase? Is this fair from the point of view of global security? Is it fair to violate commitments made within the framework of the OSCE, when all Western countries signed a document according to which there cannot be security for one country while violating the security of another? We said: don’t do this, it violates our security. Expansion is necessary. No, they did it anyway. Is that fair? There is no justice here, and we want to change this situation, and we will achieve this.
Rosenberg:
One last question. Can I ask about the British intelligence assessment that Russia is sowing chaos on the streets…?
Putin:
Listen to me. Thank you for reminding me about this. But this is complete nonsense! You understand, what is happening on the streets of some European cities is the result of the internal policies of these states.
Putin, the architect of unimaginable suffering in Ukraine, has the audacity to speak of “provocations” and “security concerns” as if he were the aggrieved party. This is the man who, with a straight face, denied the presence of Russian troops in Crimea. This is the man who dismisses evidence of Russian involvement in the downing of MH17 and countless other atrocities as mere “fabrications” of the West.
How many times must we endure this charade? How many more cities must be reduced to rubble? How many more innocent lives extinguished before the world wakes up to the terrifying reality: We are dealing with a tyrant who understands only force.
He decries NATO expansion while conveniently ignoring the terror he has inflicted upon his neighbors, the very terror that drove them to seek protection. He speaks of sovereignty while trampling upon Ukraine’s right to exist.
And what are we to make of his casual dismissal of British intelligence assessments of Russia’s attempts to destabilize Europe as “complete nonsense”? This, from the man who has built his regime on a foundation of lies and disinformation.
Don’t we remember the same discredits, branded as “complete nonsense,” leveled at the poisonings of Skripal and Litvinenko, the explosions of ammunition depots in the Czech Republic, the assassination of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Berlin? Let’s not forget the litany of other crimes against his own people: the victims of the Nord-Ost siege, the Beslan school massacre, the Kursk submarine disaster – all met with denials, obfuscation, and a callous disregard for human life.
This is a pattern of behavior that stretches back decades. In 2014, he went from “little green men” in Crimea to a full-blown annexation, later boasting, “We never tried to hide it!” He continues to peddle demonstrably false narratives about MH17, claiming that the meticulous investigation involving five countries and countless international experts is nothing more than a “Western fabrications”.
The international community can no longer tolerate the uncritical dissemination of Putin’s disinformation. Presenting his falsehoods as legitimate political discourse normalizes his rhetoric and contributes to the obfuscation of his regime’s atrocities.
It allows a historical revisionism that minimizes the severity of these crimes against humanity. Media organizations have a moral imperative to cease providing him with platforms to propagate these narratives without rigorous fact-checking and contextualization. All broadcasts of his pronouncements, including interviews, statements, and press conferences, should be prefaced with a clear and unambiguous warning:
“Warning: The following content contains demonstrably false information and propaganda used to distort the historical record of war crimes.“
The era of appeasement has ended. Putin must be recognized for what he is: a tyrannical leader impervious to reason and diplomatic efforts.
The world deserves better. Ukraine deserves better.
Propaganda influence in the comments section
Approximately 60% of the comments show characteristics consistent with Russian propaganda influence or coordinated disinformation efforts.
After analyzing all 843 comments (captured on GMT Oct. 30 at 5:33 am), a significant portion display characteristics consistent with pro-Russian sentiment or appear to be influenced by Russian state narratives.
Breakdown of Common Propaganda Themes
- Praise for Putin: Approximately 215 comments (25.5%)
These comments express admiration for Putin’s leadership, communication style, or responses. - Anti-Western Sentiment: Around 180 comments (21.4%)
These comments criticize Western media, governments, or values. - Whataboutism: Approximately 95 comments (11.3%)
These comments deflect criticism of Russia by pointing to alleged Western misdeeds. - Delegitimization of Critics: About 130 comments (15.4%)
These comments attack the credibility of the BBC, Rosenberg or Western media in general. - Conspiracy Theories: Roughly 60 comments (7.1%)
These comments promote conspiracy theories about Western intentions or actions.
Detailed Report on Indicators of Coordinated Activity
- Similar Messaging and Talking Points:
- Over 100 comments repeat the narrative of Putin “destroying” or “roasting” the journalist.
- At least 70 comments question why part of Putin’s answer was cut, suggesting a coordinated attempt to discredit the reporting.
- Non-English Comments:
- Approximately 50 comments are in languages other than English, including Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, and others.
- This indicates a potential global effort to influence the conversation.
- Emotional Manipulation:
- At least 150 comments use emotional language or personal attacks to sway readers’ opinions.
- Examples include calling the journalist “disrespectful,” “self-satisfied,” or suggesting he might face harm.
- Use of Specific Terminology:
- Over 60 comments use similar terms like “Ukronazis” or “Putler,” indicating potential shared talking points.
- Deflection and Whataboutism:
- Approximately 95 comments engage in whataboutism, a common tactic in coordinated propaganda efforts.
- Response to Criticism:
- Around 80 comments aggressively respond to any criticism of Putin or Russia, potentially indicating a coordinated defense strategy.
- Use of Humor and Sarcasm:
- Over 100 comments use similar sarcastic tones or jokes, which can be an indicator of coordinated messaging strategies.
- Repetitive Phrases:
- Certain phrases like “NATO expansion” or “Western hypocrisy” appear in over 120 comments, suggesting potential talking points.
- Cross-Platform References:
- Approximately 40 comments reference other media or platforms, suggesting a broader coordinated narrative across multiple channels.
Conclusion
Based on this analysis of 843 comments:
- Approximately 55-60% of the comments (460-505) show characteristics consistent with Russian propaganda influence or coordinated disinformation efforts.
- The high percentage of pro-Russian comments and the consistency in messaging across multiple indicators suggest a significant impact of Russian propaganda in this comment section.
- The presence of multi-lingual comments and cross-platform references indicates a potentially global and coordinated effort to shape public opinion.
This analysis reveals a substantial presence of pro-Russian sentiment and potential propaganda influence in the comments section, highlighting the need for increased awareness and media literacy to combat misinformation in online spaces.
Leave a Reply