Who currently puts out 'Pravda' and orientation do they have?
There are currently two distinct publications using the name Pravda, each with different ownership and political orientations:
📰 Pravda (Print Edition – Russia)
Publisher: Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF)
Orientation: Strongly leftist, aligned with Communist and Marxist–Leninist ideologies
Background: This is the continuation of the Soviet-era newspaper that once served as the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. After the USSR dissolved, the CPRF retained control of the print edition.
🌐 Pravda.ru (Online Edition – Russia)
Publisher: Privately owned by Pravda.ru Holding, led by Vadim Gorshenin
Orientation: More nationalist and independent, with international editions in multiple languages
Background: Founded in 1999 by former Pravda journalists who split from the CPRF-controlled print edition. It operates separately and is not affiliated with the Communist Party.
So depending on which Pravda you're referring to, you're either looking at a staunchly communist print newspaper or a more independent, nationalist-leaning online outlet. Want to dive into how their coverage differs on current events?
Tell me about online Pravda. Does it originate from within the Russian Federation?
Yes, Pravda.ru originates from within the Russian Federation. Here's a breakdown of its background and orientation:
🌐 Pravda.ru Overview
Founded: January 27, 1999
Headquarters: Moscow, Russia
Founder: Vadim Gorshenin
Ownership: Privately owned by Pravda.ru Holding, with Gorshenin as the sole legal shareholder
Languages: Russian, English, Portuguese, French
🧭 Political Orientation
Often described as Russian nationalist and neo-Soviet in tone
Known for tabloid-style commentary, sometimes featuring sensational or conspiratorial content
Not affiliated with the Communist Party, despite sharing the name with the Soviet-era publication
🧬 Origin Story
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the original Pravda newspaper split. Some of its former journalists—disagreeing with the Communist Party's direction—launched Pravda Online, which later became Pravda.ru.. A legal dispute over the name ended with both entities being allowed to use it.
Would you like a sample of the kind of stories Pravda.ru publishes today?
Does it present the views of the government, or is it independent?
Pravda.ru presents itself as an independent news outlet, but its relationship with the Russian government is nuanced.
🧭 Independence vs. Alignment
Ownership: Pravda.ru is privately owned by Vadim Gorshenin and not officially affiliated with the Russian government or the Communist Party.
Editorial Tone: While it claims editorial independence, analysts have noted that its content often aligns with Russian nationalist and neo-Soviet perspectives. This includes favorable coverage of Russian government policies and criticism of Western governments and media.
Political Connections: Some reports suggest informal ties to figures close to the Kremlin, such as Konstantin Kostin and Sergey Veremeenko, though official ownership records list Gorshenin as the sole shareholder.
🧩 Bottom Line
Pravda.ru is technically independent, but its editorial stance frequently echoes pro-Kremlin narratives. It’s not a state-run outlet like RT or Sputnik, but it operates in a media environment where alignment with government views can be strategic.
Would you like to compare Pravda.ru’s tone with other Russian media like RT or TASS?
I'm on the other side of the world from Moscow. What can I get from reading Pravda.ru?
If you're on the other side of the world from Moscow, reading Pravda.ru can offer a unique—though sometimes controversial—window into how Russian-aligned media frames global events. Here's what you might get out of it:
🌍 Global Perspective (with a Russian Lens)
Pravda.ru covers international news, including the UK, USA, and EU, but often through a pro-Russian or anti-Western lens.
You’ll see alternative narratives on geopolitics, military conflicts, and diplomacy that differ sharply from Western media outlets.
🧠 Insight into Russian Media Strategy
Pravda.ru is part of a broader disinformation ecosystem, according to research by GLOBSEC. It uses mass content production and automation to amplify pro-Kremlin narratives globally.
It’s useful for understanding how Russian soft power and information warfare operate in the digital age.
📚 Cultural and Ideological Exposure
The site publishes opinion pieces, historical retrospectives, and ideological commentary that reflect neo-Soviet nostalgia, nationalism, and traditionalist values.
It can be a resource for studying Russian political culture, especially if you're interested in media studies or international relations.
⚠️ Caveats
Be cautious: Pravda.ru is known for sensationalism, conspiratorial content, and editorial bias.
It’s not a neutral news source, so it’s best read alongside other outlets for balance.
Would you like help comparing Pravda.ru’s coverage of a specific issue with Western media? That could be a fascinating exercise.
Hard question: If Pravda.ru was a US daily, which actual daily would it resemble the most??
Great question—and a tough one, as you said. If Pravda.ru were a U.S. daily, it wouldn’t map neatly onto any single American newspaper, but here’s a thoughtful comparison based on tone, editorial style, and political alignment:
🇷🇺 Pravda.ru vs. 🇺🇸 U.S. Dailies
🧭 Why These Comparisons?
New York Post shares Pravda.ru’s tabloid energy and punchy headlines, though it’s more mainstream.
Epoch Times and Daily Caller echo Pravda.ru’s ideological slant and skepticism toward Western liberalism.
Washington Times has historically aligned with conservative and nationalist views, making it another loose parallel.
That said, Pravda.ru is uniquely Russian in its worldview and often serves as a soft-power tool. So while these comparisons help, they’re not perfect mirrors.
Want to explore how Pravda.ru covers a specific U.S. issue compared to one of these outlets? That could be a revealing exercise.
* * *
Pravda.ru:
DeepSeek
https://www.pravda.ru/news/world/2261376-nadeiin/ Russian analysts are still referring to 'denazification' as a root goal of its incursion into Ukraine. Does this apply to Ukraine specifically? Help me make sense of what is being alluded to...
The Russian government's use of the term "denazification" to justify its invasion of Ukraine is a deliberate propaganda narrative, not a factual description of Ukraine's political reality. Here’s what’s really being alluded to:
1. Historical Context & Russian Propaganda
The term "denazification" evokes World War II, where the USSR played a major role in defeating Nazi Germany. By framing Ukraine as a "Nazi state," Russia weaponizes this historical memory to legitimize its aggression.
Ukraine, like any country, has far-right elements (e.g., the Azov Battalion, which was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard), but they do not dominate the government or society. Ukraine is a democracy with a Jewish president (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), whose own family suffered in the Holocaust.
2. Why This Narrative?
Domestic Justification: Russian state media uses "denazification" to rally patriotic support, portraying the war as a continuation of Russia's historic fight against fascism.
Geopolitical Smear: By labeling Ukraine as "Nazi," Russia delegitimizes its government, framing the invasion as a "liberation" rather than an unprovoked war of conquest.
Suppressing Ukrainian Identity: The Kremlin denies Ukraine’s sovereignty, often falsely claiming that modern Ukraine is a Nazi-collaborator state (a distorted reference to WWII-era nationalist factions).
3. Does It Apply to Ukraine?
No. Ukraine is not a Nazi state. Far-right parties in Ukraine have minimal political influence (winning just ~2% of the vote in recent elections). The Azov Battalion, while controversial, was a small part of Ukraine's military and has been reformed since 2014.
Yes, in Russian Propaganda: The Kremlin exaggerates far-right presence to paint Ukraine as illegitimate, justifying its goal of regime change and subjugation.
4. What’s the Real Goal?
Destroying Ukrainian Sovereignty: "Denazification" is a euphemism for eliminating Ukrainian independence and installing a pro-Russian puppet government.
Anti-Western Rhetoric: Russia ties "Nazism" to Western support for Ukraine, framing NATO and the EU as backers of "fascism" (a baseless but effective tactic for Russian audiences).
Conclusion
Russia’s "denazification" claim is a cynical distortion, not a real assessment of Ukraine. It serves to justify invasion, manipulate historical memory, and erase Ukrainian statehood. The term is a political weapon—not a legitimate descriptor of Ukraine’s government or society.
Would you like deeper analysis on how this compares to other Russian disinformation tactics?
I have read that, during the war, some Ukrainian nationalists threw in with Nazi Germany believing it would help Ukrainian Independence. What can you tell me about that? Were Russians hurt because of it? What, in actual fact, happened?
Yes, during World War II, some Ukrainian nationalist factions collaborated with Nazi Germany in the hope of gaining independence from the Soviet Union. This complex and painful history has been heavily exploited by Russian propaganda to justify its current war against Ukraine. Here’s what actually happened and why it matters today:
1. Ukrainian Nationalists & Nazi Germany: A Troubled Alliance
The Context: Soviet Oppression & the Quest for Independence
Ukraine had suffered immensely under Soviet rule, particularly during the Holodomor (1932–33), a man-made famine that killed millions of Ukrainians. Many saw Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion of the USSR as a chance to break free from Moscow.
The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera, and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), initially saw Germany as a potential ally against Stalin.
Collaboration & Its Limits
Some Ukrainian nationalists (like factions within OUN-B) welcomed the Nazis at first, hoping for an independent Ukraine.
However, the Nazis had no intention of granting independence—they viewed Slavs, including Ukrainians, as racially inferior and planned to enslave or exterminate them to make Lebensraum ("living space") for Germans.
When it became clear that the Nazis were just another oppressive force, many Ukrainian nationalists turned against them, fighting both the Nazis and the Soviets in a brutal guerrilla war (1942–1950s).
2. Did Ukrainians Harm Russians (or Others) During This Period?
Ethnic Violence & WWII Atrocities
The UPA did commit atrocities against Polish civilians (1943–44) in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, part of a bloody ethnic conflict between Ukrainians and Poles. Estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 Polish deaths.
There were also clashes with Soviet forces (including ethnic Russians), but the primary targets of Ukrainian nationalists were Poles and, later, Soviet partisans/authorities.
Jewish Victims: Some Ukrainian auxiliaries (not necessarily OUN/UPA) assisted Nazis in the Holocaust, particularly in the Einsatzgruppen massacres (e.g., Babyn Yar). However, thousands of Ukrainians also risked their lives to save Jews (recognized as Righteous Among the Nations).
Soviet Retaliation
The USSR portrayed all Ukrainian nationalists as "Nazi collaborators" and used this to justify brutal repression, including mass deportations and executions.
After the war, Soviet propaganda exaggerated Ukrainian nationalist ties to Nazism to delegitimize Ukrainian identity—a tactic still used today.
3. How Russia Exploits This History Today
"Denazification" Myth: Putin weaponizes this history to falsely claim modern Ukraine is a "Nazi state," despite Ukraine having a Jewish president (Zelenskyy) and far-right parties holding almost no political power.
Historical Distortion: Russia conflates WWII-era nationalists (who fought both Nazis and Soviets) with today’s Ukrainian government, ignoring that most Ukrainians resisted Nazi rule (e.g., 4.5 million Ukrainians fought in the Soviet Army).
Justifying Invasion: By framing Ukrainian nationalism as inherently "fascist," Russia justifies its war as a fight against "Nazis"—even though Ukraine is a pluralistic democracy.
4. Key Takeaways
✅ Some Ukrainian nationalists did collaborate with Nazis—but so did many Soviet citizens (e.g., Russian Vlasovites, Baltic collaborators).
✅ The OUN/UPA’s primary goal was independence, not Nazism—they fought against both Hitler and Stalin when neither granted freedom.
✅ Modern Ukraine is not a Nazi state—its government is democratic, and far-right parties are marginal.
✅ Russia manipulates this history to erase Ukrainian sovereignty and justify imperialism.
Why Does This Matter Now?
Putin’s regime uses WWII-era grievances to fuel its revanchist wars, just as Stalin used "fascist collaborator" labels to crush dissent. Understanding this history helps see through Russian propaganda—the past is being twisted to serve modern aggression.
Would you like deeper sources on OUN/UPA or Soviet-Nazi collaboration comparisons?
But Joseph Stalin was not Russian but Georgian; and independent states are part of his legacy!!??
You're absolutely right to point out this contradiction—it’s one of the great ironies (and hypocrisies) of Russian imperialism. Let’s break it down:
1. Stalin’s Georgian Origins vs. Russian Imperialism
Stalin was ethnically Georgian (born Ioseb Jughashvili in Gori, Georgia) but became the enforcer of Russian-dominated Soviet rule.
He promoted Russification, suppressed non-Russian cultures (including Georgian), and centralized power in Moscow.
Yet today, Putin invokes Stalin’s Soviet legacy while ignoring that Stalin himself was not Russian—showing how Russian imperialism transcends ethnicity.
2. Stalin’s Legacy: Independent States?
Yes, Stalin helped create the USSR’s republics (including Ukraine)—but as puppet states under Moscow’s control, not true independents.
He drew arbitrary borders (e.g., giving Crimea to Ukraine in 1954) for administrative ease, not to empower nations.
Brutal irony: Many post-Soviet states (Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) now reject Russian domination—despite Stalin’s role in subjugating them.
3. Putin’s Contradiction
He glorifies Stalin’s USSR but denies republics’ right to leave (e.g., invading Ukraine for fleeing Russia’s orbit).
He claims to "denazify" Ukraine—yet Stalin allied with Hitler (1939–41) to carve up Eastern Europe (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).
He calls Ukraine "artificial"—but its Soviet borders were set by… Stalin’s regime.
4. Key Takeaway
Putin’s regime cherry-picks history:
Invokes Stalin’s "greatness" (Russian imperialism) but ignores his Georgian roots (inconvenient for ethno-nationalism).
Demands loyalty from ex-USSR states while denying their sovereignty.
Uses "fascism" as a smear—despite Stalin’s own pact with Hitler.
This isn’t about logic—it’s about power.
Would you like parallels to other empires (e.g., British, Ottoman) suppressing their own minorities while ruling others?
* * *
I was asked:
World War II; why did Ukrainians have it in for Poles, to the point of comitting massacres?
The massacres of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists during World War II—especially the Volhynia and Eastern Galicia massacres of 1943–1945—were driven by a volatile mix of nationalism, historical grievances, and geopolitical chaos. Here's a breakdown of the key factors behind this tragic chapter:
🔥 Historical Context & Motivations
Ethnic Tensions: Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were multiethnic regions with long-standing friction between Ukrainians and Poles. Ukrainians often felt marginalized under Polish rule in the interwar period (1918–1939), when Poland controlled these territories.
Ukrainian Nationalism: The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), sought to establish an independent Ukrainian state. They viewed the Polish population as an obstacle to this goal.
Anti-Polish Sentiment: The OUN-B faction, led by Stepan Bandera, adopted radical methods. In 1943, UPA commander Dmytro Klyachkivsky ordered the "general physical liquidation of the entire Polish population" in Volhynia.
Ethnic Cleansing Strategy: The massacres were part of a deliberate campaign to remove Poles from Ukrainian-majority areas to prevent post-war Polish claims to the territory. This included killing civilians and destroying Polish villages.
🩸 The Volhynia Massacre (1943–1944)
Scale of Violence: Tens of thousands of Poles—estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000—were killed in brutal attacks. Victims included women, children, and the elderly.
Methods: The killings were exceptionally cruel. Farming tools like axes and pitchforks were used to make the violence appear spontaneous. Entire villages were wiped out, and atrocities were committed with shocking brutality.
Retaliation: Polish underground forces responded with reprisals, killing thousands of Ukrainians. The violence spiraled into mutual ethnic cleansing.
🧨 Aftermath & Legacy
Operation Vistula (1947): In response to continued violence and nationalist insurgency, Poland forcibly resettled over 140,000 Ukrainians from southeastern Poland to the west, aiming to eliminate Ukrainian communities.
Modern Tensions: The legacy of these massacres remains sensitive. Poland officially recognizes the events as genocide, while Ukraine often frames them as part of a broader struggle for independence.
Historical Reconciliation: Despite shared opposition to Russian aggression today, unresolved historical grievances—especially surrounding the Volhynia massacre—continue to strain Polish-Ukrainian relations.
If you're curious, I can show you how these events are remembered today in both countries—or explore how they shaped post-war borders and identities.
A tough read:
No comments:
Post a Comment