Being singled out by an official agency of Kremlin propaganda is flattering in a perverse way. It shows that they worrry about the effect I might have on public opinion. But it is not flattering to be called a liar; so let's look into what I actually said.
Sputnik
complains about my “selective use” of two of three Levada Center questions on
Syria. It seems my “lie” was to not emphasize Levada’s finding on its first
question of strong Russian support for an air campaign in Syria. To quote their
complaint:
“Gregory appears to have selectively used only Levada's
figures from the second question, which asked whether Russians "support
the Federation Council's decision to allow the use of Russian troops
abroad." The wording of the question, and particularly the word 'troops',
helps explain respondents' hesitation in supporting intervention. It also helps
explain fears about involvement turning "into a 'new' Afghanistan
situation for Russia," (with 45% suggesting it is a 'possibility or a
'certainty', and 38% that it is 'unlikely' or 'impossible'), again, presumably
only if Russian ground troops were introduced.”
Sputnik must pardon my confusion. I do not see any “lie.”
They just don’t like my citation of public opinion that suggests the Russian
people question involvement in a conflict in the Middle East that reminds them
of the Afghanistan quagmire. The poll expresses the natural concern that
Russian soldiers will eventually get involved.
Reading further into the Sputnik complaint, my “lie” also
consists of not anticipating that Levada would conduct another poll after I
finished my piece: “With the Russian air campaign now entering its second
month, and Russian ground troops nowhere in sight, Levada found, in polling
conducted last week, that the
numbers of Russians who believe the Syrian campaign could turn into 'a new
Afghanistan' is steadily dropping, with
only 35% now believing that it is possible or likely, and a full 50% confident
that it will not happen.”
Excuse me Sputnik. I
would not emphasize that 35 percent of the Russian people are in disagreement
with a Kremlin policy. Under Putin, more than a third opposition is a huge
number. Who knows what the real number would if the poll were carried out under
less repressive circumstances.
So here we go again. Throughout
the Ukraine war, Putin claimed there were absolutely no regular Russian troops in the
Donbas. There were also no Russian special forces in Crimea until Putin declared there were. The Kremlin will now insist that there are no
ground troops in Syria, although they are being interviewed by foreign media and posting selfies on social media. With
no ground troops in Syria, there can be no combat deaths, the Kremlin will
insist. In fact, the first combat death in Syria has been labeled a suicide
to the dismay of his parents.
Sputnik should be circumspect in its accusations of lying. I presume it has forgotten the defense ministry’s official briefing that proved conclusively that MH17 was downed by a Ukrainian fighter – a result covered by both Sputnik and its sister organization RT.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Sputnik. Their strong reaction to my piece tells us that the Kremlin has deep concerns about the Russian people’s support for the Syria operation – support that can turn on a dime if body bags start flooding in from Syria.
