In American, British and Australian publications such as the Wall Street Journal, The Australian and The Daily Telegraph, almost simultaneously published materials with almost the same message: "The new generation of Russia chooses not iPhones, but Putin." This generation is terrible, there is no special hope for it ".
Judging by the fact that different assignments were given the same task, there is reason to suppose: initially it should have been articles about how "the path-givers will sweep Putin". But in the process of studying a new generation of Russian voters, something went completely wrong.
"Putineiders", with the exception of some pro-Western marginals, strongly disliked foreign researchers. There is a suspicion that there is a certain connection between the process of acquaintance of our Western "partners" with young Russians and how their approach to the anti-Russian information policy is changing.
In the vast majority of cases, our opponents tried to adhere to the classic principle of American propaganda of the Cold War era, which consisted in the need to always separate and oppose the people and their leadership, emphasizing the oppression and injustice of people who yearn for liberation from tyrannical and cruel Soviet, and then and Russian leaders. However, now there is a kind of pullback to earlier and primitive forms of propaganda, so Russians are often demonized already "in bulk", without special division into those who lead, and those who vote.
Apparently, earlier they had hoped that it would be possible to incite the power and attract to the re-destruction of Russian statehood the younger generation, who grew up on a dubious information diet consisting of reading posts in social networks, watching Hollywood movies and viral videos on yuteube. These hopes were actively fueled by an "expert community" consisting of so-called political emigrants - from Masha Hessen to Chichvarkin, as well as by many anti-state activists in Russia itself. The hope that the new generation will follow the Maidan path and want to "change the motherland for the opportunity to feel like Europeans" is, to some extent, justified. In many countries, from Egypt to Ukraine, it was the youth who was one of the drivers of destructive political processes that were actively fueled from the outside.
In the Russian case, there was literally a catastrophic, but very clear breakdown of this scheme.
According to the Wall Street Journal, according to polls of the Levada Center, the approval rating of Vladimir Putin is the highest among the age group from 18 to 24 years and is 86%, which simply tears into the flaps the American templates about what should be "young Russians , grown up in the era of the Internet. " American journalists conducted a series of interviews with these youngest Russians and note that they appreciate the opportunities that they have and that their parents did not have, and are also very skeptical about revolutions, preferring evolutionary changes for the better.
"Putin's popularity is irrefutable, especially among young people," states Australian newspaper flagship The Australian. "The Russian" generation of Putin "is more active than its parents and more pro-Kremlin than their parents," the British The Daily Telegraph regrets.
President Vladimir Putin at the awarding ceremony of the "Volunteer Russia - 2017"
Gradually, our Western partners begin to realize that Putin is not a historical accident, but a historical pattern. And all that they do not like in Putin, in fact, applies not only and not so much to him as a politician and statesman, but to the Russians as a whole. For a very long time, Western experts perceived the Russian leader as the embodiment of the generation's rhetoric, which can not forget the trauma of the collapse of the USSR. But now it becomes clear that Putin is an exponent of values and ideals shared by Russians of all ages. Many in the West hoped that the revival and activation of Russia in the international arena is a temporary phenomenon that can simply be endured and waited. Now it turns out that there is no longer any need to wait for the next exchange according to the formula "country for jeans". This causes outright bitterness.
The traditional passion of Western politicians and the media for Putin's demonization is gradually supplemented by the willingness or even an active desire to brand all Russians as a whole. From recent examples, one can recall the statement of the leader of one of the ruling parties of the Netherlands, "Democrats 66" Alexander Pekhtold, who decided to justify the lies of the scandalous minister Halbe Zailstra in an original way. The latter, as we recall, admitted that he had lied about meeting with Vladimir Putin for many years and that he had personally heard about the plans of the Russian president for the Baltic states. Speech in support of his colleague-liar Pechtold finished with the phrase: "I have not yet met a Russian, who himself would correct his mistakes." It is hardly possible for a Dutch politician to have the arrogance or the courage to make a similar statement to any other ethnic group. This sad trend is already too noticeable to ignore.
Member of the party "Democrats 66" Alexander Pekhtold
Only at first glance it may seem that switching the propaganda machine to the total blackout of all Russians is a purely irrational move. Such a strategy has its advantages. At the very least, scare Westerners with "Russians in general" and "millennial imperial ambitions of Russia" is much more convenient and effective than concentrating exclusively on Putin.
And the opponents have a chance to press on the unique pain point of our civilization, on the desire to "be good." The USSR fell not only because of the betrayal of elites, the exchange of the country for 300 varieties of sausages and economic difficulties, but also because a certain part of society believed that we collectively can or even should "become good" in the eyes of the so-called "civilized world" ".
Quite possibly, it is for the sake of repeating such a sweet success for the West in the Cold War that we, and especially our youth, are constantly offered to be ashamed and repent of everything - great and small, real and phantom. For the victory in the Great Patriotic War and for the poisoning of Skripal, for Rodchenkov's doping program and for Putin's behavior, for Gazprom and for Russia's "millennial imperial ambitions," for all the historical insults of the Baltic limiters and so on. Therefore, we as a society are simply obliged to explain to our young fellow citizens that we, the Russians, are all right and we do not owe anything to anyone. And that those wishing to instill some national guilt feelings should be firmly denied, and also to offer to look in the mirror and see there millions of corpses of citizens of Libya and Iraq, Odessa ash, and further into the depths - along the most severed brushes of slaves of Belgian rubber plantations. It is desirable that the new generation developed a persistent reflex: when they are trying to shame the collective West, in fact it reaches out to their wallet.
Judging by the portrait of the new generation, which is painted by Western media, Russia of the future is in reliable hands, in the hands of active, patriotic, rational and very inventive young Russians.
Unfortunately, our geopolitical opponents are not ready to leave Russia's future alone. So, today's youth will have to come up with the ways, methods and technologies necessary to protect themselves, their loved ones, their cities and villages, their country. They will have to perform labor, scientific and military feats. They will have to win in conditions of severe global economic, scientific and military competition. They will have to invent new weapons, new ideologies and financial instruments. The young generation of Russians will have a complex, but incredibly interesting collective biography. In our young need to believe. They will cope with everything.