In an interesting development of my entry yesterday, I just came across this story in the huffington post. It reports how a Russia today anchor spoke out against what was going on, saying that she didn’t agree with what was happening in the crimea. At face value, of course, that is to be applauded: it would seem that contrary views are permitted on the Russian media after al. As the article itself asks, did we see anything similar from the American media during the Iraq war? And yet, given the amount of criticism RT has been getting for it’s pro-Putin bias, one must wonder whether this is just a bluff: Putin wants his press to seem free, so he stages this show of angst. If that is the case, though, Putin has allowed this woman to say things which contradict his own narrative, a very cunning, devious move. Would he go so far as to semi-admit the west’s version of events in order to give his media mouthpiece the veneer of credibility? I think so, as in the long run Putin knows that RT is one of his most powerful weapons. That implies, however, that despite what he says in his own statements, the west’s version of events it indeed valid, and he knows what he is saying is untrue. Would he be that deceitful? If that is the case, it is clear that we are dealing here with a master of subterfuge and puppetry.