Enquête sur la folie de Poutine

Enquête sur la folie de Poutine

A partir d’une communication téléphonique de Merkel avec Obama, il avait été rapporté, selon le New York Times du 2 mars 2014, que Poutine montrait manifestement des signes d’instabilité, voire de folie schizophrénique puisqu’il aurait semblé faire partie d’un autre monde que le nôtre (celui du bloc BAO et de ses dirigeants) : «Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. That makes for a crisis significantly different from others on Mr. Obama’s watch.»

Nous faisions une allusion à ce “détail” qui a une importance considérable pour les psychologies les plus avides d’explications sommaires, à partir d’une citation de DEBKAFiles, le 4 mars 2014 : «...Au passage [DEBKAFiles] montre un scepticisme appuyé quant à la phrase que Merkel aurait dite à Obama à propos de Poutine et qui a été largement répandue dans la presse-Système, et goûtée longuement comme une friandise apaisante par le parti des salonards à Paris (même de Caunes, du Grand Journal, était au courant, c’est dire), – tant cette phrase paraîtrait si rassurante pour la psychologie-Système, – de croire, au moins un instant avant de passer aux sujets plus fun, que Poutine est non seulement monstrueux mais en plus qu’il est fou et qu’il vit dans une narrative tandis qu’à Paris on est sérieux... (Quoique, nous fait remarquer un ami, la phrase “[Putin] lives in another world” pourrait se comprendre à l’inverse : Poutine ne vit pas dans notre monde de narrative, il vit, lui, dans la vérité du monde...)»

Il est vite apparu que la citation n’était peut-être pas exacte. Le journal Die Welt écrivait dans ce sens le 4 mars et le site Moon of Alabama, qui avait exprimé quelques doutes à l’égard de la citation, reprenait la citation traduite en anglais, le 4 mars 2014 : «This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said that the way the “people briefed on the call” told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with Russia outside of U.S. control.

»The German government, through the conservative, Merkel supporting daily Die Welt, denied the correctness of that quote. Die Welt writes (my translation): “The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].”»

Il semble qu’on puisse dire que McClatchy.News ait mis un point final à ce canard, du moins pour l’esprit de la chose, avec un article publié le 6 mars 2014. McClatchy reprend les différents éléments signalés plus haut, y compris la citation de Die Welt et introduit les éléments de sa propre enquête qui permettent d'éclairer décisivement l’affaire selon son point de vue.

«Government spokesman Jens Alberts told Claudia Himmelreich, a McClatchy special correspondent, exactly what the government said on Monday: no comment on the contents of the chancellor's confidential phone conversations – with either Putin or Obama. In defining the German view, Alberts said he would “not dwell on reports and rumors of someone claiming she possibly said this or that. However, what is undisputed is that President Putin has a completely different view of the situation and the events on Crimea than the German government and our western allies.” A different view. Obviously. But unhinged?»

McClatchy conclut en décrivant le modus operandi de cette opération et en tirant les conclusions qui importent. McClatchy a choisi, selon le bon sens et l’évidence, l’explication d’une manœuvre d’intoxication par mésinformation de la part des officiels de l’équipe Obama.

«So if Merkel didn't portray Putin as unhinged, why would the unknown Obama aide tell the New York Times she did? Because in the world of propaganda, successfully portraying your adversary as being crazy, without any rational backing to his actions, makes it unnecessary to try to understand the complexities or sensitivities of the issues. If Putin is crazy, then that's enough. We needn't think any further about what he has to say. And if the New York Times says he's crazy, that's good enough for the dozens of reporters who've come along since, repeating the comment to their millions of viewers and readers as if it was a confirmed statement.

»Good work.

»But there's ample reason to suspect that Merkel's assessment was more in keeping with her government's portrayal of it – he's got a different view – than the unnamed aide's portrayal – he's nuts. For one, Merkel reportedly has a very close relationship with Putin – they chat back and forth in German, which Putin apparently learned for his KGB cover as an interpreter when he was stationed in East Germany. It seems unlikely she'd offer so dismissive an assessment of someone she's worked closely with. For another, Obama spent 90 minutes on the phone with Putin on Saturday. If Putin was unhinged, Obama wouldn't have needed Merkel to tell him so.

»It's been clear for a long time that Putin's world view is different from Obama's or Merkel's – on many things. He laments the collapse of the Soviet Union, just like those who wish the confederacy had survived or that the sun still never set on the British Empire. Syria, too – where we talk of the fight for democracy and Putin talks of terrorism. As events have unfolded, that doesn't mean he's crazy.»

Mis en ligne le 7 mars 2014 à 11H48