1. Russia's myth-making in Syria served as a template for its actions in Ukraine.
2. The Kremlin erases individuality and focuses on ideology, distorting the truth and wrecking critical thinking.
3. In Russian myth, cruelty is a badge of honor, an end in itself, with leaders framing the war in religious terms to justify their actions.
The Financial Times article titled "Russia’s myth-making in Syria was a template for the horrors in Ukraine" provides a critical analysis of Russia's involvement in both the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts. The author argues that Russia's strategy in Syria, which involved creating a foundational myth to justify its brutal military campaign, served as a template for its actions in Ukraine. The article highlights how Russia erases individual agency and focuses on ideology, distorts the truth, and promotes cruelty as a badge of honor.
The article is well-researched and provides valuable insights into Russia's propaganda tactics. However, it is not without biases. For example, the author does not explore the role of Western powers in fueling the conflict in Syria or Ukraine. The article also presents a one-sided view of the conflict by focusing solely on Russian propaganda tactics while ignoring similar tactics used by other actors.
Furthermore, some claims made in the article are unsupported or lack evidence. For instance, the author claims that Moscow's air power saved Bashar al-Assad without providing any evidence to support this claim. Similarly, the article suggests that Russian myths pose a threat beyond Syria and Ukraine but does not provide any evidence to support this assertion.
The article also fails to explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on Russia's involvement in these conflicts. For example, it does not consider why Russia might view Western intervention in Syria or Ukraine as an existential threat or how Western policies may have contributed to these conflicts.
Overall, while the Financial Times article provides valuable insights into Russia's propaganda tactics, it is important to approach it critically and consider alternative perspectives on these complex conflicts.