Here's a joke for you Penguin:Moksha wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:49 pmYes, but... Russian disinformation is a friend to MAGA.honorentheos wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:09 pmABSTRACT: Russia will dominate information warfare if the United States does not treat disinformation as central to Russian strategy.
What were the terms of that deal?Dr. E wrote: They really should have taken the peace deal
One more statistic: Ensign Peak now has $56.8 Billion in the stock market.
You already know the answer to the question. However, these articles spell out what Russia wanted - Ukraine neutrality in exchange for security guaranties:
Thanks for the demonstration.Dr Exiled wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 7:03 pmAnything against the approved narrative is conveniently branded as Russian disinformation. Save us Joint Force. We aren't smart enough to see through the masturbation meme from 2016 and the like. He was too dismissive of the birds into Russia plan outlined above. Everywhere is RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION conveniently disguised as mere disagreement with the preferred narrative. Heeeeeellllllp!!!!!honorentheos wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:09 pmIf someone is spreading Russian propaganda points known to be originating from the Russian strategy of global hybrid warfare against western liberal democracy, what you suggest is trying to swat at hornets while ignoring the nest.
You probably won't care for the source but that's to be expected.
https://publications.armywarcollege.edu ... ddress-it/
Following the 2022 Ukraine invasion, BBC reporters launched a yearlong investigation into Yala News after it posted a story alleging an American plot to conduct biological warfare against Russia by releasing infected birds that would fly into Russian territory. The investigation was prompted by a remarkably similar story broadcast by Russian state media two hours earlier. The investigation revealed that Yala’s most popular stories mirrored sources owned by or affiliated with the Russian government, including false accounts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky giving a drunken speech and Ukrainian soldiers fleeing the front lines, both of which appeared on Yala shortly after originating from official Russian sources. Belén Carrasco Rodríguez, one of the BBC’s contacts, coined the term “information laundering” to describe the phenomenon of false narratives gaining credibility through repetition by multiple sources. In the United States, most observers likely dismiss stories about bio-weaponized birds. Can the same be said about information consumers outside the West?1
Alongside traditional national power elements like military and economic operations, Russia generally controls perceptions among targeted audiences to shape the environment to its benefit. While every country controls narratives to some extent, few emphasize information operations on par with Russia. The United States could have taken advantage of this knowledge when Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election surfaced. Instead, partisan squabbling about which side Russia preferred to win muted those reactions. Subsequent fighting over “fake news” in media, political parties, and across American kitchen tables has provided Russian disinformation practitioners with cover as they ply their craft.
by the way, here is the fact sheet put out by the DOD regarding the labs it helps through the BTRP: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/11/2 ... KRAINE.PDF
It seems the DOD has invested $200,000,000.00 in 46 labs since 2005. However, they say it's peaceful and only has good intentions for good, not unlike those evil Russians that are always doing evil and lying all the time. Nothing to see there. Whew!
Yeah, Putin's strategy of rule is partly based on lies and disinformation, but we find plenty of Americans who are willing to believe him.
The articles note the Russians were using the leverage of having invaded to seek a promise of neutrality in March 2022, after the invasion which turned out to not be the cake walk they thought it would be. They also noted Ukraine rejected the idea due to believing Russia would just regroup and attack again with a better plan this time.
The Scheerpost quotes Fiona Hill, of all people:
A lot of faith is put into Russia's motives being pure, right after their botched initial invasion. After becoming the laughing stock of the entire world, Putin would have just rolled up and gone home, and left Ukraine to prosper so long as they signed a paper saying they wouldn't join NATO? We can never know for sure, right? So what might have been can always be a card played with the most unrealistic bright-eyed optimism and nobody can say for sure otherwise.“According to multiple former senior US officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement.”
You're just guessing, but sure, let's not trust Russia and let's not trust Ukraine either and let's not blindly trust our own government that will sell us down the river if the elites see it as in their benefit. A healthy bit of skepticism is always in order. Even so, we have to factor our constant push east, and our elites' coveting Russian assets, as a factor in where we are today. Why do you think we needed to meddle in the Ukrainian elections in 2014? Was that necessary? If they voted for a pro-Russia government, why did we care? Why do we need to meddle in almost every country that we can? I know this goes on deaf ears seemingly, but, if Russia and China meddled in our neck of the woods wouldn't we shout Monroe and take action? Whatever we say isn't gospel and this is the attitude that has infected our foreign policy since at least WWII. We should be looking for peace and not more provocation. I hope everyone here is against using our weapons and personnel to bomb Moscow. We shouldn't want to provoke WWIII.Gadianton wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 3:47 pmHowever, these articles spell out what Russia wanted - Ukraine neutrality in exchange for security guaranties:The Scheerpost quotes Fiona Hill, of all people:
A lot of faith is put into Russia's motives being pure, right after their botched initial invasion. After becoming the laughing stock of the entire world, Putin would have just rolled up and gone home, and left Ukraine to prosper so long as they signed a paper saying they wouldn't join NATO? We can never know for sure, right? So what might have been can always be a card played with the most unrealistic bright-eyed optimism and nobody can say for sure otherwise.“According to multiple former senior US officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement.”
According to Fiona, who Scheerpost is quoting, within a couple of months, everything changed, and Russia wants it all, or at least everything they thought they could ask for to that point, and so this peace offering from Russia that was a one-time deal, take it or leave it, must be believed to have been completely reputable and the West totally ruined it; even though there is this alternative explanation that is just as likely (which Fiona of course believes) that "Putin’s goal is not negotiation but Ukrainian capitulation" -- from the same article Scheerpost quotes from.
I'm seeing more commentary that Trump might not be able to stop the war. If Zelenskiy is right, then they've only seen 6 billion of the US aid, and in that time, they've ramped up their own manufacturing capabilities substantially, especially in regard to their drone production. The point is being made that the US withdrawing their help would certainly hurt Ukraine, it wouldn't necessarily end them. Our help has been significant, but not as much as imagined. And the tradeoff would be if the US isn't helping, then Ukraine's restriction on attacking inside Russia vanish. It might be a wash, as the restrictions have allowed Russia as goliath to use guerilla tactics while David is stuck playing by the rule book of an international power.