Quantcast
Channel: Information operations – To Inform is to Influence
Viewing all 5256 articles
Browse latest View live

Disinformation Review: Week Ten

0
0

Disinformation Review: Week Ten

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for all your reports. Once again, their summary shows important trends in the pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign in Europe and beyond.

For this week’s trend, we have chosen the use of foreign media

Due to their own low credibility, pro-Kremlin outlets often choose to report stories from “the West” (a similar strategy was employed by the Kremlin during the Soviet period). However, the reported stories are usually fakes and misrepresentations of the “genuine” reporting of these media.

We saw TASS agency reporting a story supposedly from the UK Daily Telegraph, claiming that Ukraine concealed radar information after the MH17 crash (http://bit.ly/1OAfhls); numerous media covered this. In fact, the newspaper was the Dutch De Telegraaf (http://bit.ly/1IQQQQ6), and it said that neither Russia, nor Ukraine provided radar information.

A scandalous story was supposedly broken by the BBC at the beginning of the New Year – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko had to be hospitalised, as he was found heavily drunk and unconscious under the Christmas tree. In fact, there was no story like that either on the BBC, or anywhere else apart from pro-Kremlin media (http://bit.ly/1Rw7GH3).

Another scandalous story by a respectable Western media outlet: Deutsche Welle supposedly reported that Angela Merkel insulted the Ukrainian leaders. Again, this is not true (http://bit.ly/1OJOpzr). Mrs Merkel was also targeted by some media in Hungary which claimed that she did not condemn the harassment attacks in Germany (bit.ly/1Zascfg). Of course, she did.

And finally, a Guardian columnist wrote that Barack Obama’s tears cannot be trusted in any way – at least according to Russian Ministry of Defense’s TV channel Zvezda (bit.ly/1PSBjRa). In reality, Michael Simkins wrote exactly the opposite (bit.ly/1kLW3Nr).

In contrast to using Western media as a credible source that should invoke trust, several articles claimed directly the contrary – you cannot trust the mainstream media, as they do not report the things that matter, e.g. about violent incidents in Brussels that occurred over the New Year. The fact is, the mainstream media did report this incident, and did so before the so-called alternative, in fact pro-Kremlin, media did.

Preserve the information space: Recycle your disinformation!

On several occasions, we saw that a common strategy of the disinforming outlets is to repeat the same story, no matter how many times it has been refuted already. According to this strategy, the fake claim of Polish President Andrzej Duda insisting on Ukraine returning the former Polish territory was recycled: bit.ly/1kOFlx0. Last time we saw it was in the Autumn 2015.

And in many articles and videos (including ones made by the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies – founded by the Russian President) we have seen recycling of older disinformation pieces – about illegitimate and/or fascist government/junta in Kyiv; about a “coup” backed by Western forces; ISIS fighters joining Ukrainian forces, etc.

In order to discredit Ukraine and Ukrainian authorities, the pro-Kremlin media invented not only a drunk President, but in the Disinformation Review you will also see multiple stories about gangs of drunken Ukrainian soldiers firing shots among peaceful citizens; and drunken American soldiers.

To end on a positive note – in one case the pro-Kremlin media quoted the Western sources accurately. Czech portals referred to a story from August last year, when Edward Snowden claimed that Osama bin Ladin is alive and well, living in the Bahamas and sponsored by the CIA: http://bit.ly/1PQXqFG. Apparently, they overlooked that the site World News Daily Report openly claims that its articles are satirical and fictional: http://bit.ly/1OcCtES.

DOWNLOAD DISINFORMATION REVIEW WEEK TEN (.pdf)

For contributions, please e-mail jakub.kalensky@eeas.europa.eu

When you advertise this product, please use this link for automated subscriptions.

Thank you very much once again, and we are looking forward to your new reports,

East StratCom
Follow us on Twitter @EUvsDisinfo

The Disinformation Review is a compilation of reports received from members of the mythbusting network. The mythbusting network comprises of over 450 experts, journalists, officials, NGOs and Think Tanks in over 30 countries. Please note that opinions and judgements expressed here do not represent official EU positions.

 

Copyright © 2016, All rights reserved.

Click here to subscribe to the Disinformation Review.


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia, Ukraine Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, counter-propaganda, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

National Security Council: Fractured Advice, Conflicting Messages

0
0
President Obama and national security advisers.

Now, more than ever, we need a National Information Strategy that is insulated from domestic politics.

This article highlights several serious problems which this administration is loathe to admit, Democrats cannot stop cheerleading enough to see, and that Republicans cannot stop attacking enough to fix this.

We have a severe lack of military experience in this administration and especially on the National Security Council. This equates to a severe lack of apolitical motivation, which equates to domestic politics directly affecting US global strategy and operations.  Nothing appears to be done for the good of the nation, it appears to intended to benefit one political party or another. Partisan politics is not only stagnating Congress, it is killing this nation’s messaging abilities and capabilities.  As a result our narrative is fractured, obtuse and absolutely ineffective.

</end editorial>


 

on January 14, 2016 at 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON: The most challenging national security problem for the Obama administration may be one of its own creation: the micromanagement of the Pentagon and Intelligence Community by a bloated and lackluster National Security Council.

This is one of those stories I’ve talked with dozens of people about for months. Every single person with whom I’ve spoken — Democrats and Republicans with vast experience in national security — has expressed deep worry about the issue and expressed exasperation with the administration’s conduct. They have been especially critical, regardless of party, of the performance of President Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

A lifelong Democrat with more than 40 years experience told me he’d never seen such an inept group manning the desks in the NSC’s offices in the Old Executive Building. He pointed to the lack of real-world military or intelligence experience as a key problem. What are some of the symptoms?

  • The declaration of a “red line” in Syria which was then hurriedly erased. leaving allies wondering just what the hell happened.
  • The very quiet decision to back out of joint operations against Syria with France one day before they were to be announced after a walk in the Rose Garden by President Obama and his chief of staff.
  • Then there was the long silence and resulting uncertainty as the Pentagon kept saying it was about to exercise Freedom of Navigation rights in the South China Sea to signal China that its so-called islands, caused through the destruction of coral reefs. Nothing happened for five months after the first declaration. All reports indicate that the White House kept fiddling with exactly what it wanted to do and how it wanted it done.

Republicans have been reluctant to talk much about this in public, apparently content to hammer the president on other fronts. But Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee gave me the hook to hang this article on when he issued a statement about the five month period of uncertainty.

“The Pentagon’s puzzling silence about the operation led to confusion not only about what had taken place, but America’s strategic intent,” McCain said. “Five months to conduct what should be a regular and routine operation is too long. Five weeks to respond to a simple letter [from McCain to Defense Secretary Ash Carter] is too long. Whether these delays are the result of the micromanagement of the National Security Council or the bureaucracy of the Pentagon, they are unacceptable nonetheless.”

This isn’t just about the size of the NSC, which has swollen from 40 under the first President Bush to the almost 400 who staff it today. But the numbers are illustrative for an important reason. In an illuminating 1999 discussion hosted by the Brookings Institution by five former national security advisers who served six presidents from Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton, the NSC’s size came up, and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush laid out this formula:

“The basic rule is that you shouldn’t have so many people that you can duplicate the work of the departments. I would say each of your geographic or functional areas ought to have one or two people – rarely more. They ought to get the work from the departments, massage the work, keep you informed, and so on. I think there is a real danger in turning the NSC into another large bureaucracy, and I think it really needs to keep flexibility,” he said. Scowcroft cut the staff from 50 down to 40.

Given the size of today’s staff, that means, almost by definition and certainly if you use Scowcroft’s standard, that the White House NSC staff has to run the Defense and State Departments. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have much to do since the NSC’s job in law is to coordinate and oversee — not make — policy.

But it’s also the quality and speed of the NSC’s decisions and coordination, as noted in the examples above. Consider the mixed message President Obama sent on Dec. 14 when he told the world we were containing Daesh but needed to do much more in light of their bombing of the Russian airliner and the attacks in Paris and San Bernadino. I’m pretty sure he’s actually addressing two different issues — Daesh-spawned terrorism and their control of large sections of Syria and Iraq.

These two issues need to be addressed separately. The administration and our allies need to make sure these are clearly separated in the minds of both the public and policymakers. I personally think Obama is right to keep America’s presence on the ground in Syria and Iraq as small as possible because our being there simply provides ammunition to the madmen and aspiring caliphs who wander that part of the world. But message clarity and discipline is absolutely imperative to make sure that happens. It is a key part of the NSC’s job — and it is lacking. Consistency over time and the ability to make prompt — but not rushed — decisions have to be maintained.

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/national-security-council-fractured-advice-conflicting-messages/


Filed under: CounterPropaganda, Crisis Management, Department of State, Extremism, Homeland Security, Influence, inform and influence activities, Information Control, Information operations, Information Warfare, Inter-cultural communication, International Broadcasting, Language, Narrative, National Information, Perception Management, Public Affairs, Public Diplomacy, Security, Strategic Communication, Strategic Communications, Strategic Narratives, U.S. strategic communication, United States, US Congress, US Department of State Tagged: information operations, information warfare, public diplomacy, Strategic Communication, United States

Putin’s Hard/Soft Strategy

0
0

The unpredictability of Vladimir Putin’s “hard” and “soft” sides constantly confound the West, but his approach has an internal logic of its own.

 It was one of those media stories about President Vladimir Putin that appear almost daily in Russia: Nikita Gusev, a sculptor in St. Petersburg, had crafted a 150 pound life-sized statue of Putin in chocolate.

“On one hand, the chocolate is soft and malleable,” he told a Reuters reporter. “On the other side, it can be very hard. It is very flexible, it can take any form. I think this material really represents him because he is like that.”

Vladimir Putin’s “hard” and “soft” sides constantly confound the West. When he annexed Crimea in 2014 — an action the West described as undermining the security structure of Europe — he did it with masked, unmarked special forces that he dubbed “polite” people, denying at first they were Russian military, then later openly admitting it.

In September 2015, when he deployed the Russian air force to Syria, he shocked the West, but then promptly invited the United States and the European Union to join hands with him “without any delay” in a “broad coalition” to fight extremists.

This herky-jerky international behavior leads some in the West to call Putin unpredictable at best and unstable at worst. His foreign military operations — including the 2008 war with Georgia, the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and his air campaign in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad — have severely undermined both European and American trust in Russia.

Putin’s “hard/soft” strategy can be unpredictable, but it has its own internal logic. His binary approach is a key aspect of his geopolitical ambitions, dictated by a need to both consolidate and preserve power at home while at the same time pursuing a policy of integration with the West — integration, however, on his own terms.

Putin’s “hard/soft” strategy can be unpredictable, but it has its own internal logic.

Domestically, Vladimir Putin continues to build a “Fortress Russia,” nursing grievances, assuring his fellow Russians that they are a civilization apart — superior to the West, and strong enough to withstand any economic pressure imposed from abroad. Russian society is increasingly militarized, with constant references to the glory and valor of czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Retro Soviet symbols, from red flags to hammer and sickle-adorning knickknacks, seem to be in every gift shop. Putin has even ordered the creation of a modern version of the Soviet Union’s Young Pioneers organization, a way of promoting Russian values.

President Putin answers reporters’ questions at the 2015 United Nations General Assembly.
President Putin answers reporters’ questions at the 2015 United Nations General Assembly.Photo via Kremlin.ru

Beyond Russia’s borders, Putin employs Moscow’s “hard power” thanks to his rebuilt and increasingly competent military, projecting Moscow’s interests and exploiting any hint of indecision or weakness on the part of Western leaders.

As one opinion column in the Kremlin-funded online outlet sputniknews.com put it, “the people of the West — of Europe especially — targeted by jihadi terrorists, have cause to be grateful to the Russian people and government for protecting them from the follies of their own governments.”

But while excoriating the West, the Russian president increasingly says he wants to work with it, even defend it.

In his 2014 address to the Federal Assembly, for example, Putin had the United States in his crosshairs, denouncing a “policy of containment” which, he argued, had been carried out against Russia “for centuries … whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong or independent.”

In his 2015 speech, delivered in the midst of his Syrian air campaign, the Russian president once again depicted the U.S. as the main villain in the world, yet refrained from naming it. “We know who decided to oust the unwanted regimes and brutally impose their own rules,” he charged. “Where has this led them? They stirred up trouble, destroyed the countries’ statehood, set people against each other, and then ‘washed their hands,’ as we say in Russia, thus opening the way to radical activists, extremists and terrorists.”

Then a pivot, the “hard” Putin showing his more malleable side. Russia, he said, was “at the forefront” of a titanic battle against terrorism, “a fight for freedom, truth, and justice, for the lives of people, and the future of all civilization.” One country cannot defeat international terrorism alone, he said. “Every civilized country must contribute to the fight against terrorism, reaffirming their solidarity, not in word but in deed.”

Scorning the West while offering to cooperate with it, however, can be a tough balancing act, blurring the lines between enemy and ally. Turkey’s November 2015 shoot-down of a Russian warplane participating in the Syrian air campaign gave President Putin a new, specific enemy against which he could rally the Russian people.

During his December State of the Nation address, Putin lashed out at Turkey and its president: “We will never forget their collusion with terrorists! We have always deemed betrayal the worst and most shameful thing to do, and that will never change. I would like them to remember this — those in Turkey who shot our pilots in the back, those hypocrites who tried to justify their actions and cover up for terrorists.”

Putin’s “emotionality” is not just histrionics.

In a speech usually dedicated to the priorities of the Russian government, the venom was striking. Leonid Isaev, writing in Vedomosti newspaper, drew deeper conclusions from Putin’s tone. “Strained relations with Turkey once again have demonstrated the excessive emotionality of Russia’s external policies,” he wrote, “and its unbalanced character, as a result of which the leadership is becoming more inclined toward making rash decisions, deepening its difficult position.”

Putin’s “emotionality” is not just histrionics. Internationally it may seem over the top, but at home, Putin has molded his foreign policy into a powerful domestic instrument. Looking tough, standing up to the United States, and proving that Russia is a great power on the world stage helps him to consolidate power at home, and emboldens him to take steps that, in some cases, are detrimental to his own people.

In spite of Western sanctions and Russia’s counter-sanctions that deprived Russian consumers of imported cheese, fruits, and vegetables, President Putin’s approval ratings have remained constant at approximately 85 percent. A poll of Russians published by Moscow’s Levada Center in early December 2015 found that 48 percent of respondents said there is no one who could replace Putin as president. Almost a third of Russians polled also agreed with the statement, “our people [Russians] constantly need a strong hand,” and 39 percent agreed that “there are such situations in which, like now, you need to concentrate all power in individual hands.” Just one-fifth of those polled said that power should never be concentrated in the hands of one person.

Even Russia’s isolation — a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine — has not turned Russians against their president. In some ways, the thinking of the average Russian mirrors that of Putin himself.

In some ways, the thinking of the average Russian mirrors that of Putin himself.

Putin speaks to a crowd marking a countdown to the 2018 World Cup, hosted in Russia.
Putin speaks to a crowd marking a countdown to the 2018 World Cup, hosted in Russia.Photo via TASS/Kremlin.ru

Just as Putin assails the West while urging it to join him in an anti-terrorist coalition, 82 percent of Russians, according to a Levada Center focus group, support the annexation of Crimea and, while not opposing improving relations with Europe and the United States, two-thirds of them think Russia should stick to its international policies in spite of Western sanctions.

The West is likely to hear more proposals from President Putin for taking common action with Moscow. In some cases it will be useful, even unavoidable, as in the case of Iran’s nuclear program, and in Syria, where a political transition will be impossible with the efforts of Washington and Moscow.

The West should also be prepared for an assertive Putin to position himself as the catalyst of action, rejecting Western rules of the game. His “hard/soft” strategy relies on an intrinsic tension between cooperation and domination. Vladimir Putin will not take a backseat anymore. If he cannot dominate, he will work to ensure that his Western partners also cannot run the show.

* * *

Jill Dougherty is a journalist and expert on Russia and the former Soviet Union. During her three-decade career with CNN, she served as foreign affairs correspondent, Moscow bureau chief, and White House correspondent. She was a Wilson Center fellow with the Kennan Institute from 2014–2015. You can follow her on Twitter @jillrussia.

Cover photo via Kremlin.ru


Filed under: #RussiaFail, Information operations, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, putin, Russia, Russian propaganda

Ed Schultz Returns To TV…With Kremlin-Backed Propaganda Network Russia Today

0
0

Well, fans of working class hero and liberal commentator Ed Schultz will be happy to hear that he’s finally returning to TV. Schultz has been off the air since his MSNBC program, The Ed Show, was canceled last year during the network’s efforts to pivot away from progressive opinion and focus more on breaking news and Beltway establishment coverage.

So, where can Big Ed be seen now? Schultz will be hosting a nightly show on RT America titled News with Ed Schultz. The program will air on weeknights at 8 PM and begins on January 25th. In his press release and a YouTube ad promoting the new show, Schultz discussed how excited he was to be joining the network and how his program will focus on his pet causes of labor and helping the middle class. Schultz also pointed out that he’ll be delivering the news with “straight talk.”

Now, that’s all well and good, but RT America? This network is the Washington arm of the Kremlin-backed Russia Today, which is essentially a large propaganda outlet for Vladimir Putin. While RT America, in its 6+ years of existence, has largely been allowed to steer clear of the mothership’s pro-Russia agenda, former employees have still complained about editorial interference from the network to project an anti-Western bias or to push a Putin-approved point of view.

Specifically, RT America host Abby Martin took to the airwaves in March 2014 to specifically denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which Russia Today had framed in a glowing light. She pointed out that she made sure to bring multiple copies of her script in case the network tried to edit what she loaded into her teleprompter. She has since left the network to work for teleSUR English.

Meanwhile, anchor Liz Wahl quit RT America during a live broadcast shortly after Martin’s on-air statement, saying it was directly related to the network disseminating propaganda. She said her breaking point was an interview she did with Ron Paul, which was edited to remove her referencing Russia’s Ukraine action as an “invasion.” In later interviews, Wahl has said she couldn’t stand by while the network broadcast anti-American propaganda while whitewashing the atrocities and criminal activities of Putin and other dictators.

In an exhaustive investigative piece on RT in 2014, Buzzfeed’s Rosie Gray spoke to numerous current and former employees of the main network and RT America, who described the organization as focused on molding the truth they want. The report highlighted the hiring practices of the network, where it goes after very young journalists who are hungry, ambitious and impressionable. The story also reveals the lengths editors and executives will go to push RT’s specific agenda.

So, this is where Schultz will now be headquartered. Should fans and admirers of his be concerned that he might end up being a puppet of Putin’s? While that seems a bit over-the-top, Wahl herself said she was nothing but a pawn of the Russian leader.

Source: http://contemptor.com/2016/01/14/ed-schultz-returns-to-tv-with-kremlin-backed-propaganda-network-russia-today/


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, information warfare, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

Obama administration plans shake-up in propaganda war against ISIS

0
0
An image taken from a video posted by the Islamic State and circulated online Jan. 3, purporting to show members of the militant group shooting five men accused of spying for Britain in Syria. (AP)

By Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung January 8

The Obama administration is overhauling its faltering efforts to combat the online propaganda of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, U.S. officials said, reflecting rising White House frustration with largely ineffective efforts so far to cut into ISIS’s use of social media to draw recruits and incite attacks.

Officials will create a counter­­terrorism task force, which will be based at the Department of Homeland Security but aims to enlist dozens of federal and local agencies. Other moves include revamping a State Department program that was created to serve as an information war room to challenge the Islamic State online and erode its appeal.

U.S. officials said the unit at the State Department will turn its focus toward helping allies craft more localized anti-terrorism messages and will stop producing any videos or other material in English — ending a campaign that had been derided by critics.

The plans were announced by the White House on Friday, as senior members of President Obama’s national security team traveled to California in a renewed effort to enlist Silicon Valley companies to help contain the morphing terrorist threat. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, spy chief James R. Clapper Jr. and FBI Director James B. Comey were to meet with executives from Apple, Facebook, Twitter and other firms.

The moves come at a time of increasing public anxiety and criticism of the administration’s strategy after recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., that were linked to or partly inspired by the Islamic State. Although some of the initiatives have been in development for months, U.S. officials acknowledged a heightened sense of urgency and opportunity.

“Everybody realizes that this is a moment . . . to take advantage of,” a senior administration official said before the announcement. The official added that the objective in sending so many top officials to Silicon Valley was to make sure the tech firms “understand what we are up against with respect to ISIL.”

Cloud brings peace of mind to the public sector
Agencies increasingly turn to cloud services to strengthen their security measures.

The official was one of several who were authorized to discuss the plans on the condition of anonymity.

But the changes are also likely to be seen as the latest sign of turmoil in U.S. government attempts to disrupt recruitment and radicalization efforts by terrorist groups that increasingly exploit social-media platforms and encrypted-communications technologies, often developed in the United States but beyond the reach of law enforcement.

The State Department’s ­counter-messaging team has had three leaders in a little more than a year and has cycled through multiple strategies in its search for a way to counter the Islamic State’s massive propaganda output. The FBI has also ramped up efforts against violent extremism, opening nearly 1,000 cases across the country and cultivating closer ties to Muslim communities. Even so, it was caught off-guard by the San Bernardino rampage last month.

A report released this week by the conservative Heritage Foundation concluded that U.S. strategy for countering violent extremism “has fallen short, lacking meaningful attention and resources.”

The changes unveiled Friday appear to be centered on bureaucratic and strategic adjustments, with little indication of any substantial increase in re­sources.

U.S. officials said that the State Department’s counter-messaging operation would be re-branded the Global Engagement Center but acknowledged that its annual budget for now remains unchanged at about $5 million.

Planning that led to the new initiatives was set off in February at a Washington summit held by Obama to spark ideas and buy-in here and abroad. In September, Obama convened another international meeting at the U.N. General Assembly.

“Ultimately, it is not going to be enough to defeat ISIL in the battlefield,” Obama told representatives from more than 100 nations and civil society groups. “We have to prevent it from radicalizing, recruiting and inspiring others to violence in the first place. And this means defeating their ideology.”

But one of the biggest problems the administration has faced is determining whether any of it is working. As the U.S. government’s counter-messaging campaign has grown, so has the Islamic State’s recruitment spread. Recent attacks outside the Middle East indicate that the group has grown more powerful, rather than less.

“That is the billion-dollar question,” one official said of how they determine whether the campaign is actually accomplishing anything. “We don’t have great, perfect data on why people become radicalized or why people change their mind. . . . You can’t prove a negative — ‘How many young guys did you prevent going to Syria today?’ — We don’t know the answer to that. What we can do is learn what kinds of messages resonate.”

In the absence of evidence, and in the face of more attacks, the new initiatives inevitably appear to be shuffling the deck chairs rather than introducing new, proven strategies.

“It doesn’t sound sexy to say we’re setting up a task force to better coordinate the United States government,” acknowledged another official. “I understand that there’s skepticism; we’ve all been at this problem for a long time.”

The centerpiece of the administration’s revised plan is the new task force at the Department of Homeland Security that officials said would coordinate the government’s domestic counter-radicalization efforts and serve as a conduit for ideas, grants and other resources­ to community groups across the country.

The task force will be led by George Selim, a Homeland Security official who previously served at the White House as director for community partnerships — a position that put him in regular contact with local law enforcement agencies and Muslim communities.

U.S. officials said that the new unit will be made up of representatives from at least 11 departments or agencies and that its mission will involve using data to find better ways to combat radicalization, as well as funding and supporting intervention efforts.
Part of the outreach will be to U.S. Muslim communities, although officials cautioned that the environment for these Americans has become more toxic in recent months amid the fallout from the Paris and San Bernardino attacks.

“The climate overall has become pretty bad,” a U.S. official said. “Our business is an uphill business.”

The revamped State Department program will be led by Michael Lumpkin, a former U.S. naval officer who since 2013 has served as assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict.

He takes over an organization that became a point of controversy last year for the mocking tone and gruesome images it used in videos and other materials posted online targeting the Islamic State. The group has abandoned aspects of that strategy and is now largely focused on working with other governments to set up overseas messaging centers that officials hope will have more credibility with Islamic State followers.

“We’re not the most effective messenger for the message we want to get out,” a U.S. official said. As a result, the State Department unit has already helped set up a messaging center in the United Arab Emirates, with plans for others in places including Malaysia and Nigeria.

Friday’s high-level conference with senior executives of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, LinkedIn and Apple is the administration’s most ambitious attempt to persuade those companies to collaborate in the ­counter-militant campaign.

“The idea is to come out with a work plan,” one administration official said. “Nobody wants to have their platforms co-opted by terrorists.”

But companies have been reluctant to cooperate on critical fronts with the government, which has pressured firms to alter encryption systems used in smartphones and other devices to enable the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to monitor communications.

Click here for more information!
The roster arriving in Silicon Valley represented almost every top national security official in the U.S. government. Others attending included White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers and Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.

The assembled firepower was puzzling to some in Silicon Valley who said there was no expectation that companies were prepared to grant major new concessions. Many were angered by the public fallout for their prior cooperation with the government, the extent of which was exposed in documents leaked by former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

“Being seen as having the U.S. government force our hands makes others around the world lose confidence in us,” said an industry official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the discussions. “We understand that the White House [has] a political need to show progress, but we don’t necessarily share that political need.”

Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html


Filed under: Information operations, ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State, Narrative Tagged: CounterPropaganda, George Selim, information operations, ISIS, Islamic state, Michael Lumpkin, propaganda, public diplomacy, Strategic Communication

InfowarCon 2016 – Strategic Cyber Congress

0
0
InfowarCon 2016

Filed under: Cyber, Cyber warfare, Cybersecurity, cyberwar, Cyberwarfare, Information operations, Information Warfare, InfowarCon Tagged: InfowarCon, InfowarCon 2016

Where Foreign “Experts” and “Political Scientists” on Russian Television Come From

0
0

Excellent article.

Two mildly confusing sentences in this article are quoted here:

In addition, Engdahl is a regular contributor to the Centre for Research on Globalization and frequently publishes on the website globalresearch.ca. Noodle Remover has already written about  why this site is a valuable source for various “analysts” and “political scientists” for Russian television.

For clarification: these sites are notorious Russian proxy news sites that publish articles that nobody else will. These articles, in turn, are cited by slightly less disreputable sites as “proof!”

“slightly less disreputable”…  that makes as much sense as ‘slightly less a virgin’, but who’s keeping score?

By the way, those of you who read this blog, bless you. For that unnamed person who said my blog wasn’t difficult to read, I’m assuming you like what I write. Thank you. Sincerely.

A second slightly vexing point, for me, is that I’ve been on Russian television – twice. Does that make me one of these “foreign “experts””? That would quite literally be the “kettle calling the pot black”.  Eh, you heard it here first.  The first time I played nice.  I stayed neutral and objective the entire time. The second time I tweaked my answers so that every sentence included something accusing Russia of propaganda, lying, and waging dreadful information war, giving journalism a bad name.  Every sentence. I’m still waiting for the link to see how badly they changed the translation of what I said.  It was on Russian TV 24, so if you have a link, share? C’mon, I know you want to.

Bottom line, Russian information warfare, propaganda and disinformation are much greater in volume than they were during the Cold War.  Their quality, however, is dismal, in comparison. With that much volume, however, one must wonder what the Russians are doing that is quiet, insidious and almost too subtle to detect. This article highlights only one small piece of their media apparatchik.

</end editorial>


 

One of the outcomes of the Maidan Revolution, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the ensuing war in the Donbas has been a marked explosion in Russian propaganda. So much so that dissecting it has become a genre in and of itself. Indeed, over the last two years an entire discursive universe has emerged to analyze, adjudicate, and combat Russia’s “weaponization of information.”

Alexey Kovalev’s “Hello, is this Noodle Remover?” is a recent example of this effort sniff out the stink in the Russian media’s bullshit. And what large steaming piles of bullshit he’s found.

Below is a translation of one of his posts (I originally saw it on Maximonline.ru. My translation is of that text) that caught my eye. Links between the Kremlin and American and European rightwing groups has been well documented. So that fact that neo-Nazis, LaRouchies, and other fringe rightwing characters find their way on Russian television is that surprising. Perhaps what is novel about Kovalev’s post is that the circle he uncovers all seem to be one degree or so from the Kremlin.

This is not to say that Russian television has the monopoly on the tin foil hat brigade rolodex. Anyone with enough patience to look askew at Fox News will notice Birthers, 9/11-Truthers, and other conspiracy mongers gracing their screens. Nevertheless, what attracted me to this particular post are the wacky neighbors Russian state media has cozied up with (I have somewhat of a strange fascination with cultists of the Right and the Left) and how this confirms my belief that Russian propaganda is so propagandistic—turned all the way up to 11—that it’s essentially a (unwitting) parody of itself. It’s all very meta.

Where Foreign “Experts” and “Political Scientists” on Russian Television Come From

Alexey Kovalev

Hello, is this Noodle Remover?

These experts appear on domestic Russian channels like the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK) and for the foreign market like RT and Sputnik. They are used for legitimizing propaganda talking points abroad: You see, we didn’t come up with all this about America being treacherous. Even American experts say so.

There’s quite a small set of people who migrate from story to story where they are introduced as “experts,” then “analysts,” and then as “journalists and writers.” Even though they aren’t considered experts in their own country. In Russia, this could be the speaker of parliament, the heads of large state-owned corporations, or someone who serves in some other high governmental post and as such spin the most elaborate conspiratorial nonsense for the public. And it will be printed in the state media, and no one will raise an eyebrow.

But in the West, unlike in Russia, the idea of a reputation still carries some weight. And even if people hold some very fringe views or flirt with conspiracy theories, they try to keep it to themselves if they want to serve in high office. Those who can’t manage to keep their love for tin foil hats quiet are left with only a small number of websites for their small circle of adherents or channels like RT where their fantasies are broadcast live to a considerably larger, though on a global scale still marginal, audience. So first they make it on RT, and then from there they land on Vesti as “experts” who on closer examination turn out to be village idiots, swindlers, and outright Nazis.

Where do they get all these people? Does some unknown VGTRK editor sit there and come up with some reputable foreign expert to put on air to talk about American plots?

Let’s try to sort this out with a Vesti story on “armchair experts” as an example.

Take, for example, William Engdahl [3:40 in the Vesti report] who says that “the US government has concocted a entire plot to demonize Russia.” Engdahl is the author of numerous books, articles and speeches about the dangers of GMOs, that global warming is a myth, and that the CIA is behind every incident in the world, from the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran to the Egyptian Revolution in 2011. He often appears on RT, and in particular on the programTruthseeker in July 2014, the same episode about “crucified children” that was eventually taken off the air after numerous viewer complaints.

If Engdahl is introduced as a “writer and political scientist” in the Vesti story, here he’s an “investigative journalist.”

In addition, Engdahl is a regular contributor to the Centre for Research on Globalization and frequently publishes on the website globalresearch.ca. Noodle Remover has already written about  why this site is a valuable source for various “analysts” and “political scientists” for Russian television. And Michel Chossudovsky, the Centre for Research on Globalization’s founder, is on the scientific council of the Italian magazine Geopolitica, whose editor, Tiberio Graziani, in turn, sits in the high council of the International Eurasian Movement, whose leader is Aleksandr Dugin. If you don’t already know who this is, then read on, so I don’t have to tell you. In general, in just a few years this multifaceted personality has morphed from a “nutty professor” into one of the most influential Russian public intellectuals with a huge impact on domestic and foreign policy. There’s perhaps nothing that demonstrates Dugin’s attitude toward Russia’s leadership than this quote from 2007. His views haven’t changed much since:

“There are no more opponents to Putin’s policy, and if there are, they’re mentally ill and need to get their head examined. Putin is everywhere, Putin is everything, Putin is absolute, Putin is indispensable.”Alexandr Dugin, the leader of the Eurasian Movement, at a reception for Izvestiia newspaper September 17, 2007.

There is an Italian magazine for far right intellectuals that supports Putin on the principle “the enemy of my enemy” (the main criteria is to be against America), and there on the scientific council is Engdahl on the next line after Dugin. We can assume that Engdahl is personally acquainted with Dugin and through him he enters the minds and offices of the highest managers, including the heads of VGTRK, and not put on air on the personal initiative of some junior editor.

It seems that generally European right-wingers, neo-Nazis, Eurosceptics and various conspiracy theorists in Dugin’s orbit are the main source of “experts” for Russian television. And not just for television. Take for example, Manuel Ochsenreiter, who appears regularly on RT and Russian television channels as a “journalist.”

Manuel Oschsenreiter, editor of the neo-Nazi magazine Zuerst! on Channel One.

Of course, the journalist Ochsenreiter is more specifically the editor of the far right journalZuerst!, which has been involved in several scandals in Germany (for example, the publisher Bauer dropped the magazine due to its sympathy for Nazism). Moreover, Ochsenreiter isn’t just a frequent commentator on Russian television; he was an “observer” to the “elections” in the Luhansk People’s Republic, which is defending itself against the aggression of the fascist junta. All with the help of a real German neo-Nazi, who publishes a German magazine about the glorious victories of the Wehrmacht.

This is literally the cover of the magazine Deutsche Militärzeitschrift, which Ochsenreiter edited until 2011.

Continuing with the Vesti story. Jeffrey Steinberg comes on next after Engdahl [at 3:51]. Steinberg is an author for Executive Intelligence Review which is published by the so-called LaRouche Movement. This “movement,” to put it kindly, is actually just a bunch of LaRouchies—a quasi-fascist cult with fairly seedy rituals (read about “ego-stripping“, for example). Their views are also purely cultish and conspiratorial. LaRouchies, for example, are completely nuts about the British royal family, which, in their view, are to blame for all of mankind’s troubles, Queen Elizabeth II personally controls the drug cartels, and so on. Jeffrey Steinberg, for example, claimed in an interview that Princess Diana didn’t die in a car accident but was killed by British intelligence on the orders of Prince Philip (Conspiracy theories that Diana was murdered and didn’t die in an accident are popular). EIR magazine regularly publishes covers like this:

As you probably guessed, American magazines with such covers and viewpoints, while they aren’t illegal to publish (try to imagine something like this in Russia), don’t enjoy a massive following, to put it mildly.

Are they active in Russia? First, there’s a LaRouche office in Russia—the so-called Schiller Institute. And the Executive Intelligence Review has a Russian website with all the same stuff as the original only it looks even more insane in Russian:

British agents and advocates for genocide organized the American imperial coup in Ukraine. My God. However, they just didn’t show up yesterday. Lyndon LaRouche himself has been regularly interviewed on RT since 2008.

But he also didn’t appear out of thin air. The thing is, Lyndon LaRouche isn’t the personal and longtime friend of just anyone, but of Sergei Glazyev, the adviser to the President on regional economic integration. Here’s LaRouche and Glazyev together at a joint press conference in 2001:

 

And here’s a personal congratulation from Glazyev to Lyndon LaRouche on EIR‘s Russian site:

 

As you can see, these “experts” and “analysts” on the Russian television aren’t picked out of thin air or by the whim of broadcast news editor, but from the friends of those in the highest levels of the Russian government. Dugin, Glazyev, and the Rodina Party have close ties with the European and American far-right, neo-Nazis and other yahoos, who are dragged on television as influential Western political scientists and journalists when they really aren’t. And they are so very pleased when they’re let on television. Even if they’re introduced as important people in Russia and not back home. The Rodina Party, which Glazyev belongs, is also a major supplier of a variety of hand-fed “experts” for television. For example, Vesti has constantly quoted John Laughland at least since 2002:

 

Now Laughland is cited as the “Director of Studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation.” The respectably named Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, or the Institut de la Démocratie et de la Coopération is headquartered in Paris. Only Laughland is not really he director of this institute nor is any Monsieur for that matter. It’s Natalia Narochnitskaya, a former Duma deputy from the Rodina party from 2003 to 2007. Putin personally appointed her as director.

Narochnitskaya has also been good friends with Laughland for ages.

John Laughland and Natalia Narochnitskaya

The Institute for Democracy and Cooperation is an NGO officially established and financed from Russia. So, if you see such experts on television, don’t be fooled by the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation and Mr. Laughland criticizing NATO, America and democracy. It’s all for the homeland. In such cases don’t let your noodles hang on your ears and stay by the phone.

PS: Noodle Remover thanks Anton Shekhovtsov, whose profound research has provided a lot of useful leads on the links between the Russian political establishment and the European and American far-right.

Source: http://seansrussiablog.org/2016/01/05/where-foreign-experts-and-political-scientists-on-russian-television-come-from/


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia

Sputnik Lies Yet Again

0
0

Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 12.01.48 AM Sputnik News, once again, lies. Their only goal seems to be to make any anti-Western statement, ignoring the evidence.

Yes, US Sailors and Marines were captured. Iran videotaped what happened, in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

No tears were in evidence. Only resolute Sailors and Marines.

Sputnik News, as I have often said before, lacks any journalistic integrity.

Sputnik lies.

</end editorial>


US Sailors ‘Were Crying’ When Captured by Iranian Troops – IRGC Commander
01:34 17.01.2016 (updated 05:48 17.01.2016)

US marines released from the Iranian custody Wednesday were crying when the country’s servicemen detained them for illegally crossing into territorial waters aboard two boats, the nation’s top commander claims.

The revelation came from the deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami on the same day the state’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif held talks with his American counterpart John Kerry on lifting anti-Tehran sanctions, Fars News Agency reported.

“The marines were crying when they were being captured, but they later felt better after the IRGC forces treated them with kindness,” he said.

Ten American marines were captivated by Iranian naval forces on Tuesday after they illegally drifted into state-controlled waters in the Persian Gulf aboard two US boats.

Salami noted that after the incident, US politicians were asking their Iranian counterparts to free the detainees in a series of phone calls.

“The Americans humbly admitted our might and power, and we freed the marines after being assured that they had entered the Iranian waters unintentionally and we even returned their weapons.”

IRGC’s naval commander General Ali Fadavi unveiled on Wednesday that the situation could have gone in a drastically different direction, stressing that Iranian missiles were locked on a US aircraft carrier deployed in the Persian Gulf after the accident happened.Fadavi explained that as Iran prepared to open fire as the USS Truman aircraft carrier engaged in “unprofessional moves” for 40 minutes, potentially provoking a response. At that moment, Iranian forces could have inflicted the US with “such a catastrophe that they had never experienced all throughout the history.”

“We were highly prepared with our coast-to-sea missiles, missile-launching speedboats and our numerous capabilities,” Fadavi stressed, adding Iran would win any battle with the US in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

In the aftermath of the release of the American captives, John Kerry expressed his gratitude to Iran for quickly resolving the crisis.

“That this issue was resolved peacefully and efficiently is a testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure, and strong,” Kerry said.

Tehran officials have repeatedly claimed the US apologized for the incident, despite Washington denying they made such a gesture.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160117/1033262581/us-sailors-cried.html


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, iran, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

Russia Accused Of Clandestine Funding Of European Parties

0
0
American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed. Photo: Alamy

Finally.

It’s in the open, it’s out there for all to see, it’s public. Russia is meddling other country’s politics, influencing them through bribes, illicit payments and greasing palms.  *yawn*  Business as usual for Russia.

It can almost be said that Russia knows they would get no respect otherwise.

</end editorial>


 

Russia accused of clandestine funding of European parties as US conducts major review of Vladimir Putin’s strategy

Exclusive: UK warns of “new Cold War” as Kremlin seeks to divide and rule in Europe

James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, has been instructed by the US Congress to conduct a major review into Russian clandestine funding of European parties over the last decade.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper  Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

The review reflects mounting concerns in Washington over Moscow’s determination to exploit European disunity in order to undermine Nato, block US missile defence programmes and revoke the punitive economic sanctions regime imposed after the annexation of Crimea.

The US move came as senior British government officials told The Telegraph of growing fears that “a new cold war” was now unfolding in Europe, with Russian meddling taking on a breadth, range and depth far greater than previously thought.

“It really is a new Cold War out there,” the source said, “Right across the EU we are seeing alarming evidence of Russian efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity on a whole range of vital strategic issues.”

“It is a clever game. There are unwritten rules between nation states, and these rules are clearly being violated by the Russian side.”
Dr Igor Sutyagin, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)

The US intelligence review will examine whether Russian security services are funding parties and charities with the intent of “undermining political cohesion”, fostering agitation against the Nato missile defence programme and undermining attempts to find alternatives to Russian energy.

Officials declined to say which parties could come into the probe but it is thought likely to include far-right groups including Jobbik in Hungary, Golden Dawn in Greece, the Northern League in Italy and France’s Front National which received a 9m euro (£6.9m) loan from a Russian bank in 2014.

Other cases of possible Moscow-backed destabilisation being monitored by diplomats includes extensive links in Austria, including a visit by Austrian MPs to Crimea to endorse its annexation, as well as cases of Russian spies discovered using Austrian papers.

http://cf.eip.telegraph.co.uk/breakoutCards/6f667264-03f5-4582-ade4-420548f35f6e.html

Russian influence has also been detected in a referendum in the Netherlands next April over whether to block the EU’s closer relations with Ukraine. Sources said arguments deployed in support of the referendum “closely resembled” known Russian propaganda.

Russian desire to influence politics in Britain is also in the ascendant, sources said, as the Kremlin eyes the forthcoming EU referendum and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader as potential opportunities to weaken Europe.

Igor Sutyagin, the Russia specialist at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said that Russia’s propaganda machine was currently “very active”, deploying what security experts call “hybrid warfare” that blends conventional military powerwith guerrilla tactics and cyber warfare.

“The Russian campaign exists in a grey area, operating covertly – and often legally – to avoid political blowback, but with the clear aim of weakening Western will to fight, maturing doubts over Nato, the EU, Trident and economic sanctions,” he said.

Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to London
Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to London  Photo: Rex

“It is a clever game. There are unwritten rules between nation states, and these rules are clearly being violated by the Russian side, but they know the West cannot ban them without harming their own values of freedom of expression.”

Analysts have noted how Russia Today, the Kremlin-controlled television channel which operates in Britain, gave extensive and very positive coverage of Mr Corbyn’s leadership campaign. It covered six of his public rallies and speeches, which it did not do for rival candidates.

“Wherever the opportunity presents itself, Russia wants to undermine the West – to present the argument that the West is no better than they are.”
Andrew Foxall

He hailed the election as a “democratic mandate” for his platform of “opposition to military interventions of the West, support for the UK’s nuclear disarmament, conviction that NATO has outstayed its raison d’etre with the end of the Cold War, just to name a few”.

Andrew Foxall, director of the Russian centre at the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, said Russia had become “more audacious” in its approach as it attempts to fight off the Crimea sanctions.

“No-one is suggesting that Corbyn is on the payroll of the Kremlin at all – simply that his interests demonstrably overlap with what the Kremlin is saying. Russia has ramped up its influencing policy and is trying to achieve in six months or a year what it previously took a decade to achieve.

“Wherever the opportunity presents itself, Russia wants to undermine the West – to present the argument that the West is no better than they are. It wants to see an end of the European Union because it much prefers a policy of divide and rule.”

Relations between London and Moscow have been in the diplomatic deep freeze for more than a decade, and are likely to chill a few more degrees this week with the publication of a public inquiry into murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian agent who claimed asylum in Britain.

The inquiry was charged with identifying who was responsible for the poisoning of Mr Litvinenko in London in 2006 using radioactive polonium-210, and is widely expected to point the finger at the Kremlin.

The UK has recently taken steps to combat Russian meddling. In August, the Russian embassy claimed that the Home Office had effectively forced out four of its diplomats by refusing to extend their visas.

Among them was Sergey Nalobin, a familiar face on the Westminster drinks circuit who was associated with the Conservative Friends of Russia, a pro-Russian group backed by several prominent MPs that dissolved in 2012 after questions emerged over its neutrality.

Mr Nalobin was previously stationed in Venezuela, and is now thought to be working at the Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

Russia also took an active interest in the Scottish referendum which threatened Britain’s Trident base at Faslane and which was given extensive coverage on Russia Today. Afterwards, Russia claimed the count was flawed and suggested the result was rigged.

Ukip has also faced scrutiny, given that Nigel Farage and other senior staff have praised Mr Putin and accused the EU of “provoking” Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. However, there is no evidence of any direct contacts between the party and Russian officials.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12103602/America-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia

60 Minutes Depicts Russia’s Air Campaign In Syria As Propaganda-Filled And Stalling

0
0

Monday 6:40pm

A 60 Minutes segment uploaded yesterday claims that Russia’s air campaign in Syria is really a propaganda fueled, dumb-bomb slinging adventure that has had questionable results, with goals that reach well beyond Syria itself — the same conclusions that Foxtrot Alpha has made for quite some time now.

Watch the 60 Minutes piece by clicking here.

The iconic television news magazine did a similar story on America’s anti-ISIS air campaign a couple months ago, which gave a more unique look into the coalition air campaign than the press junket Russia attached 60 Minutesto.

Still, there are some interesting interviews and takeaways from the piece, one of which is Russia’s growing frustration with Bashar Al Assad himself and his partially collapsed military. Additionally, there are some good video moments, including how Russian handlers wanted them to film their “state-of-the-art” Su-34 Fullback fighter-bombers, a jet that just received its first export order.

Contact the author at Tyler@jalopnik.com.

Source: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/60-minutes-depicts-russias-air-campaign-in-syria-as-pro-1752189243


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda, Syria

Russia ‘Borrowing” Citizen Money To Raise Funds

0
0

I have problems with the translation, as written.

As translated, it sounds like Russia can dip into private banks and involuntarily “borrow” money.  When I first read this it seemed like Russia was selling bonds to raise money.

Oil prices continue dropping. Russia cannot hope to spend according to the budget, estimates are for a $34 Billion shortfall.

As a colleague remarked:

Finally in Russia is starting to come true, what I’m talking about even more than a year ago. The Russians will actually buying the bonds of the federal loan to cover the budget deficit. Well, the money on him, of course, will be available in approximately the same time frame, and that the bonds of sberbank Soviet of the USSR. I mean never. (in this place heard my demonic laughter)

The financial crisis in Russia seems to be driving new ways of financing.

The Russian oligarchs, Putin included, might have to keep their hands in their own pockets.

</end editorial>


(Translated from Russian by my Chrome browser)

State Duma deputies approve of the idea of ​​the state to borrow household savings accumulated in banks

In the near future will be submitted to the State Duma a bill that extends the access of citizens to buy bonds (OFZ) in 2016.

“BFL is a reliable tool that provides high assurance that the obligations are met almost 100%. Obviously, individuals will purchase such instruments. And it will be an alternative to deposits, which are now the main means, a tool attachment for our citizens “, – quotes RIA Novosti opinion of the head of the Duma Committee on Economic Policy Anatoly Aksakov.+

More than 20 trillion rubles in deposits lie. “We must look for other ways to diversify investments for our citizens,” – says Aksakov.

“I think this is absolutely the right decision. And it extends the use of public investments in various financial instruments. The person will be able to receive more money from the same source, it’s too bad. Incidentally, this is a worldwide practice. In Soviet times, too, it has been used, “- he concluded.

Chairman of the Duma Committee on Financial Markets Nikolai Gonchar (“United Russia”) also supports the idea of ​​borrowing on the domestic market.

Source: http://www.znak.com/urfo/news/2015-09-25/1046483.html#hcq=lPfX3Ap


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia, Ukraine Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

How Vladimir Putin is waging war on the West – and winning

0
0

Russia is waging political warfare, plain and simply, against Europe, against the West.

The West has not yet recognized the nature of Russia’s aggression, but must counter this aggression in order to survive.

Yes, survive.

Anne Applebaum, of course, has written a clearly spectacular exposé of what Russia is doing. 

</end editorial>


Across the new Europe, a little bit of Russian influence is going a long way

Last month, the speaker of the Russian parliament solemnly instructed his foreign affairs committee to launch a historical investigation: was West Germany’s ‘annexation’ of East Germany really legal? Should it be condemned? Ought it to be reversed? Last week, the Russian foreign minister, speaking at a security conference in Munich, hinted that he might have similar doubts. ‘Germany’s reunification was conducted without any referendum,’ he declared, ominously.

At this, the normally staid audience burst out laughing. The Germans in the room found the Russian statements particularly hilarious. Undo German unification? Why, that would require undoing the whole post-Cold War settlement!

Which is indeed a very amusing notion — unless you think that this is exactly what the Russian speaker, the Russian foreign minister, and indeed the Russian President, a man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century’, are in fact trying to achieve.

I concede that this plan does sound preposterous. Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the old Soviet empire is no more. Most of the old Warsaw Pact countries have joined the European Union and Nato. Central Europe’s transition from communism to democracy has been widely acclaimed as a huge success, and indeed is widely copied and studied the world over. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, even Romania and Bulgaria are all more open and generally more prosperous than ever before. Germany is triumphantly unified, and Europe is whole and free.

Can Vladimir Putin really pick all of this apart? Well, while most of us weren’t watching, he has certainly tried. We’ve spent the past decade arguing about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, almost anything but Russia. Meanwhile, Russia has been pursuing a grand strategy designed to delegitimise Nato, undermine the EU, split the western alliance and, above all, reverse the transitions of the 1990s.

Much of the time, they are pushing on an open door. The Kremlin doesn’t invent anti-European or anti-establishment ideas, it simply supports them in whatever form they exist, customising their tactics to suit each country. They’ll support the far left or the far right — in Greece they support both. Despite its economic plight, the new Greek government’s first act was not a protest against European economic policy but a protest against sanctions on Russia. Only then did it tell its European creditors that it might not pay them back.

If need be, Russia will court select members of the political and financial establishment too. In Britain, Russia has friends in the City, but also sponsors RT, the propaganda channel which features George Galloway and other titans of the loony left. In France, Russia keeps in close touch with industrialists, but a Russian-Czech bank has loaned Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Front €9 million, with another €30 million said to be on the way.

Still, Britain and France are established democracies, each with a relatively strong political class and relatively solvent news-papers, and Greece is a longstanding member of the EU. With very little effort, the Kremlin can achieve a lot more in smaller countries where the political class is impoverished, the media downright broke and Europe still a new idea. On a recent visit to Prague, I was surprised to hear so much Russian spoken in the streets, and said so to a friend. He rolled his eyes: ‘Prague has become the poor man’s London.’ Russians who can’t afford Mayfair buy flats in the Baroque city centre. While there, they’ve discovered that the price of manipulating Czech politics is strikingly low.

Here again, they didn’t invent the Czech backlash against transition. Not everyone has got what they wanted in the past 25 years; the dissatisfied young don’t remember the bad old days. The Iraq war created disillusion with the transatlantic alliance, and the financial crash of 2009 created scepticism of the ‘West European model’ that the Czechs used to admire. Since 2013, when the Czech government collapsed following a bribery scandal, the Czech internet has heaved with invective and insult, attacks on ‘our corrupt political class’ and ‘two wasted decades’. In this atmosphere, a tiny bit of Russian media funding, especially in a country where most newspapers lose money, goes a long way. One former minister told me that the same Czech internet portals which attacked him — he says falsely — for corruption are now attacking Ukraine and supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

A little bit of money goes a long way in Czech politics too. The election campaign of the current president, Milos Zeman, was openly financed in 2013 by Lukoil, the Russian energy company. Since then President Zeman — who doesn’t, fortunately, control the government — has argued vociferously against Russian sanctions, dismissed the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a ‘bout of flu’ and invited western-sanctioned Russian oligarchs to Prague. Nor is he alone. In Prague, I was invited to debate a close associate of Vaclav Klaus, Zeman’s predecessor, who complained at length about the pernicious influence of Germany and the EU. I asked him whether German companies had ever paid for Czech presidential election campaigns, as Lukoil does. He couldn’t answer.

The EU doesn’t use anonymous trolls to manipulate the media, as Russia does all over central Europe. Nor does it fund any far-right political parties, as it does in Budapest as well as Paris. Nevertheless, Hungary’s centre-right prime minister, Viktor Orban, has adopted a piece of Russia’s anti-transition message too. Last year he secured a Russian loan — the details of which were secret — for the construction of a new nuclear power plant. A few months later, he told ethnic Hungarians in Romania that it was time to abandon western ‘dogmas and ideologies’ such as liberal democracy, the form of government which was, once upon a time, the central goal of Hungary’s transition. Infamously, Orban then explained that he preferred the ‘illiberal democracies’ of Turkey, China, and of course Russia. Putin is visiting Budapest this week.

As in Prague, the relationship between Russian money for Orban’s projects and Orban’s pro-Russian and illiberal views is murky. But other things besides money may be at stake. Orban is famously nostalgic for ‘greater Hungary’, which hasn’t existed since the first world war. A small slice of that fabled lost territory is now part of Ukraine — a point the Russian foreign minister also brought up, curiously, in Munich. Perhaps this was a hint: if Russia successfully partitions Ukraine, maybe Budapest will get a slice too.

Even if Hungary doesn’t, in the end, succumb to the charms of illiberal democracy, others might. In Serbia, which is not yet an EU member (and Russia would like to keep it that way), Russian firms control the most important oil and gas companies, and Putin was recently welcomed with the largest military parade in 30 years. Slovakia has a prime minister who flirts with hardline nationalism — he has said that his country was established ‘for Slovaks, not for minorities’ — and also feels doubtful about sanctions on Russia.

Even in Poland, probably the most successful nation in central Europe and the most reliably pro-Nato, internet trolls talk of a ‘disastrous’ 25 years, and mainstream opposition politicians in full campaigning mode have been heard to dismiss Poland’s ‘Third Republic’ — 1989 to the present — as a catastrophe. Those who consider themselves ‘losers’ of the Polish transition are a minority, but they do exist. No one is fond of Russia in Poland, but that isn’t the point: Russia doesn’t need Poland, Hungary or Slovakia republic to be ruled by pro-Russian governments. They just need anti-German governments in central Europe, or anti-western governments, or simply incompetent governments that can persuade the rest of Nato to throw up their hands and say ‘we won’t fight for these people’.

A Czech or Romanian government which would join the Greeks in opposing sanctions on Russia would also be useful. A Hungarian or Bulgarian government willing to torpedo any unified European policy towards Russia, especially one which concerns oil and gas, would be better still.

If a significant number of obstreperous central Europeans came to power, it isn’t at all hard to imagine how a chunk of central Europe could break off from the European Union. Indeed, it isn’t hard to imagine how bits of what we used to call western Europe could break off from the European Union too. Greece is halfway there already. President Le Pen in France and a far-left Podemos government in Spain would also want to redraw the political map. And if the resultant economic and political crisis happened to hit Germany particularly hard, perhaps the Germans would decide to strike out on their own too, abandoning their European partners and the transatlantic alliance both.

If you were Vladimir Putin, wouldn’t you at least try it? There are still plenty of ex–Stasi informers in the eastern Lander, and plenty of former Russian agents. Nobody will notice if a few dodgy companies pay a few converted roubles into the accounts of Germany’s anti–European parties. Thanks to the Snowden affair, and the alleged bugging of Chancellor Merkel’s phone, the Germans are already pretty angry at the Americans. They’ve long since ceased to treat the British as serious geopolitical players. It wouldn’t take that much money or that many trolls to keep a drumbeat of anti-western, anti-American, anti-EU rhetoric going for a few years, as long as it takes.

We will know that it’s succeeded when the next Russian foreign minister declares the post-Cold War settlement null and void — and nobody laughs.

Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/how-vladimir-putin-is-waging-war-on-the-west-and-winning/


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, Political Warfare, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

Russian Influence ‘Detected’ In Ukraine Referendum Campaign

0
0

Russia is the bad boy of the world. Russia does not play well with others. Russia is a bully. Russia cheats.

All these are immature invectives flung at other children on the playground, but they all apply to Russia. They all apply to Putin, specifically.

Perhaps this is why Putin likes Trump, many apply to him, too.  Perhaps both need a good paddling.

</end editorial>


 

January 18, 2016

Russian influence has been ‘detected’ in the Dutch referendum on the EU’s treaty with Ukraine and US security officials are to investigate, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reported at the weekend.

Sources told the paper ‘arguments deployed in support of the referendum “closely resembled” known Russian propaganda.’

The Telegraph made the claims as part of a wider report on Russia’s alleged clandestine funding of European parties which US intelligence agencies are investigating.

Influence

The paper said it had seen a dossier of ‘Russian influence activity’ which identified Russian influence operations running in France, the Netherlands, Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic.

The Netherlands will hold a non-binding referendum on the treaty with Ukraine in April. It was called after eurosceptic campaigners, including shock blog GeenStijl, gathered over 300,000 signatures in support of a public vote.

Minister

Dutch Socialist MP Ronald van Raak (SP) has now called on the government to state if the Dutch security service AIVD is involved in any such probe. He also urged Plasterk to inform the US authorities that ‘political research by the American secret service in our country will not be accepted’, RTL news reported.

Anti-treaty campaigner Thierry Baudet, one of the people behind the referendum, said he considers the claims ‘very funny.’

‘I have never seen a cent from a foreign organisation,’ he said. ‘This would appear to be a witch hunt against Russia. It would seem that being a Eurosceptic makes you a Russian ally. That is not reality.’

Source: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/01/83536-2/


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, counter-propaganda, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

Dirty propaganda wars in Russia

0
0
Putin speaking to an empty room.

Caution: Some sarcasm ahead. At Russia’s expense.

</end editorial>


  • Date 17.01.2016
  • Author Fiona Clark, Moscow

Mud sticks – that’s why politicians love to throw it at their opponents. But in Russia it’s become an art form with TV programs making allegations to discredit government critics. Fiona Clark reports from Moscow.

It must come as a pretty serious shock when your own mother believes the propaganda broadcast against you on Russia’s Kremlin-controlled TV stations, but that’s the exact scenario the satirical Russian poet, Andrei Orlov, has just faced. Speaking at a recent performance of his works he told the audience how his elderly mother, who suffers from a heart condition, had made him promise not to buy her medicine using the money he’d received from alleged US spies.

Where had she got the idea that her son was on the US payroll? From a documentary she’d been watching which alleged Orlov had taken money from US agents to write anti-government poems. The documentary used secretly filmed footage which showed her son having coffee with two American friends in the luxury shopping centre GUM – right opposite the Kremlin. One of the American men was also secretly filmed entering and leaving the US Embassy, and withdrawing rubles from an ATM. Join the dots and the obvious conclusion, in the mind of the film makers at least, is: Dissident Russian poet is paid by US intelligence agencies to write subversive poems.

Dirty war of words

Now, I’m a foreigner in Moscow. I regularly go to my own embassy to get papers stamped or a passport renewed, and on very rare occasions, I may even turn up for a drink on a Friday night. All of those activities require me to enter and leave the building. I also regularly withdraw money from ATMs. Additionally I have a small circle of Russian friends who I sometimes meet up with – including Orlov who I have known since 1991. (And, by the way, he was writing irreverent and anti-government prose way back then too).

man speaking at lecture copyright: Fiona ClarkA thorn in the Kremlin’s side

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that sometimes I might even go to the embassy, withdraw money and meet Russians including Orlov, all in one day. Add all of that up and I too could be accused of acting on behalf of my government and paying him off. The problem is it’s so devoid of logic that it almost rivals Monty Python’s proof of witchcraft: throw her in the water and if she floats she’s a witch.

They’ve taken three random facts, strung them together, and drawn a conclusion that cannot be substantiated in any way and put it on national TV. Television channels regularly run so-called documentaries that make allegations of corruption or spying against people if they have reached a certain status and dare to question government policy. If you can’t get people on money laundering or embezzlement then what other choice is there but to publicly discredit them? And clearly it works, as Orlov’s mother’s reaction attests.

Good company

Over the years the list of accused provocateurs has grown quite long and includes some impressive names. Ksenia Sobchak, whose father Anatoly Sobchak was said to be Vladimir Putin’s mentor when he was the Mayor of St Petersburg in the 1990s, endured a 9-hour police raid of her apartment in 2012 where large amounts of cash – more than a million euros and almost half a million dollars – were found. Having hosted numerous prime-time TV shows including the Russian version of “Big Brother” she said she earned more than $2 million (1. 8 million euros) a year and chose to keep cash at home because, like many Russians, she didn’t trust banks. The money and her jewelry were taken away and shown on TV. A tax investigation was launched. Two years later an opinion poll ranked Ksenia as one of the least trusted figures in Russia – a big fall for a previous TV super star.

In 2013 the opposition figure, Alexey Navalny, was charged with embezzlement and money laundering and is serving his sentence under house arrest.

But it was the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov who paid the ultimate price, not publically discredited but shot dead in February last year, just before he was about to release a report on Russian operations in Ukraine.

Chechens are accused of killing him but the president of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, blamed western and Ukrainian intelligence agencies for masterminding the assassination – trying to stir up trouble by killing an opposition leader pretty much right outside the Kremlin so the government would be blamed. Again no evidence was forthcoming, just an allegation.

man speaking picture alliance/AP Images/M. SadulayevKadyrov wants to see critics and dissidents behind bars

Subversive western agents

And now he’s saying other quite disturbing things. As Russia continues to play its part in the war against “Islamic State” terrorists in Syria, the Chechen leader thinks pressure on dissidents at home should be ramped up.

Labeling those who speak out against government policy as failed political aspirants, he told reporters at a press conference on January 12 in the Chechen capital, Grozny, that many opposition figures were “playing the game invented by Western special services” and should be put on trial for “subversive activities.”

It’s not clear how many people had been arrested for subversive activities but this is cause for serious concern. What does he class as subversion? What evidence is there against these people? What type of trial will they get? Is this a purge? These are just some of the questions that spring to mind.

And while many may think Kadyrov’s rantings are fringe views, it’s not too difficult to imagine that in this climate of economic hardship, the current acts of public intimidation in other regions of the country could well escalate into exactly what he’s saying – charges of subversion or treason. According to the “Moscow Times,” Supreme Court records show the number of high treason cases was almost four times higher in 2014 with 15 people convictions compared to four in 2013 and six in 2012. So it’s not unreasonable to think that allegations like those against Orlov, that cannot be proven as either true or false, could well see people end up behind bars just like they did in Stalin’s day, and the vast majority of Russians who watch state-controlled TV will probably cheer. After all, if it’s on TV it must be true.

Source: http://www.dw.com/en/dirty-propaganda-wars-in-russia/a-18981887


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, counter-propaganda, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda

Attributing Cyber Attacks: Article


Measures of Effectiveness Historical Studies

0
0

I agreed to sanitize the source but I’d like to share some MOE studies with you, gentle readers.  I received this in an email this morning from Ft. Bragg, the self-proclaimed home of ‘inform and influence’ expertise in MOE.

“In my opinion, none of this is new. The same problems are continually rehashed every generation with new studies and initiatives and each time nothing substantive is ever done to address the underlying causes. For example, take the following studies:

  • RM-120 Methods for Studying the Psychological Effects of UW 1949
  • ORO-T-12 (FEC) An Evaluation of PSYWAR Influence on North Korean Troops 23 JUL 1951
  • An Evaluation of PSYWAR Influence on Chinese Communist Troops 19 NOV 1951
  • ORO-T-30 (FEC) An Investigation of Factors Relating to Effectiveness 13 AUG 1952 (P)
  • Psywar_operational_deficiencies_noted_in_korea_study_aug_1953[1]
  • Prior Art in the Psychological Effects of Weapons Systems 29 APR 1964 (P)
  • A Proposed Method For Determining The Psychological Effects Of Weapons 29 APR 1964 (P)
  • Combat Incidents Illustrating Psychological Reactions to Weapons 01 JUN 1966
  • A Proposed Measure of Effectiveness for COIN Operations JUN 1967
  • JUSPAO_PSYOP Circular No9_Testing of PSYOP Material in Viet-Nam 14 JAN 1969
  • 7th POG_PSYOP Intel Notes No231_Reaction to PSYOP_Response to Broadcasts & Leaflets 02 JUL 1970
  • MACV_CIMIC_PSYOP Effectiveness_1967 to 197012 30 JAN 1971
  • Analysis of PSYOP Effectiveness Indicators 30 JUN 1973
  • DOS Memo – Lack of Effectiveness Data for Leaflet Operations in Cambodia SEP 1973
  • New Indicators of Psychological Operations Effects JUN 1975
  • PSYOP and the Problem of Measures of Effectiveness for the Combatant Commander 18 MAY 2004
  • Evaluation of PSYOP Effectiveness JAN 2009
  • Foundations of Effective Influence Operations RAND 2009

These files comprise a small sampling of the historical studies on effectiveness covering 60 years. Each war generated initiatives to study how we could have been more effective and how to accurately determine effectiveness. Each generation of studies enumerated the same underlying issues. Also in each case, the underlying issues were not fixed, and ill-conceived and poorly execute “fixes” were imposed on the force to little benefit either to operations or the units executing them.”

FYI, at least two experts approached me attempting to have me, instead of MOE, look at Measures of Impact (MOI).  MOI present a larger perspective and offer a larger dataset.

Effectiveness vs. Efficiency

Apologies, but getting the US government to look at MOE instead of MOP is a tectonic plate shift, looking at MOI is probably a ‘bridge too far’. Then I saw this graphic little turdball, below.  Way to ruin my cornflakes, dude.

Nota Bene, some of the most notable experts in IO, SC and PD said “there is no one leading expert in MOE”.  There is no one person who we can put in front of a crowd to be a keynote speaker about MOE.  I did receive a really great list of experts from probably the top person in the field. But then we have the problem of “epic” personalities. ’nuff said.


Filed under: Information operations, Information Warfare Tagged: counter-propaganda, CounterPropaganda, information operations, information warfare, Military Information Support Operations, Psychological Operations, Strategic Communication

Ukraine says to review cyber defenses after airport targeted from Russia

0
0

Russia is a known ‘bad-guy’ in the cyber world, they are involved in cyber espionage, attacks and malicious code, since the beginning of the internet (and before).

The proof of cyber attacks from Russia is in the origin of these attacks, if the servers were outside Russia it would be a simple matter of Law Enforcement Agency approaching Law Enforcement Agency and the offending code would be removed. Russia, however, notoriously does not comply, instead stating, “we will take care of it” and then don’t.  Something about corruption or something…

</end editorial>


By Pavel Polityuk and Alessandra Prentice

Mon Jan 18, 2016 | 6:31 AM EST

KIEV (Reuters) – Ukrainian authorities will review the defenses of government computer systems, including at airports and railway stations, after a cyber attack on Kiev’s main airport was launched from a server in Russia, officials told Reuters on Monday.

Malware similar to that which attacked three Ukrainian power firms in late December was detected last week in a computer in the IT network of Kiev’s main airport, Boryspil. The network includes the airport’s air traffic control.

Although there is no suggestion at this stage that Russia’s government was involved, the cyber attacks have come at a time of badly strained relations between Ukraine and Russia over a nearly two-year-long separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine.

“In connection with the case in Boryspil, the ministry intends to initiate a review of anti-virus databases in the companies which are under the responsibility of the ministry,” said Irina Kustovska, a spokeswoman for Ukraine’s infrastructure ministry, which oversees airports, railways and ports.

Ukraine’s state-run Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-UA) issued a warning on Monday of the threat of more attacks.

“The control center of the server, where the attacks originate, is in Russia,” military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said by telephone, adding that the malware had been detected early in the airport’s system and no damage had been done.

A spokeswoman for the airport said Ukrainian authorities were investigating whether the malware was connected to a malicious software platform known as “BlackEnergy”, which has been linked to other recent cyber attacks on Ukraine. There are some signs that the attacks are linked, she said.

“Attention to all system administrators … We recommend a check of log-files and information traffic,” CERT-UA said in a statement.

In December three Ukrainian regional power firms experienced short-term blackouts as a result of malicious software in their networks. Experts have described the incident as the first known power outage caused by a cyber attack.

A U.S. cyber intelligence firm in January traced the attack back to a Moscow-backed group known as Sandworm.

The Dec. 23 outage at Western Ukraine’s Prykarpattyaoblenergo cut power to 80,000 customers for about six hours, according to a report from a U.S. energy industry security group.

Ukraine’s SBU state security service has blamed Russia, but the energy ministry said it would hold off on attribution until after it completes a formal probe.

(Editing by Matthias Williams and Gareth Jones)

Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0UW0R0


Filed under: Information operations

In Izvestia, Kadyrov Says Russian Opposition ‘Jackals’ Will Be ‘Punished’

0
0
Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov is well known for his uncompromising and forthright comments, particularly when it comes to opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov has been engaged in an increasingly chilling confrontation with opponents and critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin — people he now routinely refers to as enemies of the people and puppets of the West.

Kadyrov’s bald threats have amplified the key question of whether he is acting in concert with the Kremlin — and, if not, why hasn’t Putin reined him in?

Kadyrov usually posts his rants and rhetoric on Instagram, but his latest was published on January 19 in Izvestia, a pro-Kremlin paper that is one of Russia’s oldest — a possible sign of approval at the highest levels.

RFE/RL has translated Kadyrov’s article in full:

The Jackals Will Be Punished Under Russian Law

My rhetoric about those who call for the overthrow of the state system and changes in Russia’s borders has not changed. I called these haters of Russia traitors to the Motherland and enemies of the people in 2010, and in 2011, and in 2012. I am truly surprised that this is news to some people. My statement that those who call for revolution and mass violence must be punished with all the severity of the law has caused a panic attack in the nonsystemic opposition. I believed this then, I believe this now, and I will always believe it — my position is immutable.

The seething reaction of the nonsystemic opposition and its sympathizers can be considered mass psychosis. I can help them get over this clinical problem and I promise that we will not be stingy with injections.

My firm statement concerned those who have left Russia and who, from abroad while receiving handouts from the governments of Western countries, sling mud at our country and slander it. This is also clear from the term that I used — the nonsystemic opposition. Naturally, in this case, we are not talking about the opposition that, within the framework of Russian legislation, operating inside the state system, tries to find a way to resolve vital problems in various spheres — healthcare, communal services, roads, and so on. We are talking about those who call themselves the nonsystemic opposition and under this name pursue their main aim — to destroy our country and undermine its constitutional order.

I have never considered these people who impose exclusively Western values upon us to be a part of our society. Taking advantage of the global crisis, the Western lackeys are attempting to throw everything created by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the first president of the Chechen Republic, Akhmat-Khadzhi Kadyrov, into chaos. My republic was bloodied by war. The Chechen people know how many lives the peace that now reigns in the republic cost.

The so-called nonsystemic opposition have become so insolent as to use national media to promote their ideas about destroying the Russian state. Ekho Moskvy, Dozhd, RBK and others happily broadcast their false, hypocritical statements, which are imbued with a profound hatred of Russia.

And some representatives of the Russian authorities are flirting with this pack of jackals, interpreting any reproach or call for them to follow Russia’s law as a threat. Let the Prosecutor-General’s Office now examine their statements in support of those who are calling for violence.

Who gave a bunch of vile liberals the right to call themselves the Russian intelligentsia?

Those who are calling for dialogue with jackals that dream of destroying our state may not be able to wash off the stench of cowardly dog. As a patriot, a foot soldier of the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, I will never play around with murderers and traitors to my country. It’s unlikely even one sensible and self-respecting person would engage in dialogue with those who consider it amoral to love their Motherland and faithfully serve her.

We have [in Chechnya] a village called Braguny, where there is a very good psychiatric hospital. The seething reaction of the nonsystemic opposition and its sympathizers can be considered mass psychosis. I can help them get over this clinical problem and I promise that we will not be stingy with injections. When they are prescribed one injection, we can give two.

Who gave a bunch of vile liberals the right to call themselves the Russian intelligentsia? They make a claim to the title of the nation’s conscience, while gathering around themselves haters of everything Russian and paying attention to the West. The liberals think that their ideas are indisputable and that no other convictions can exist, and if they hear criticism, they attack with threats and insults.

The shadow over the country is cast not by those who protect and preserve its identity, its history, and its sovereignty, but by those who protect the rights of a very small circle of people. Part of the Russian human rights community forgets that its function is to protect the rights of simple Russians, and not a bunch of traitors who have been elevated into a privileged class.

The politics of these warriors for injustice is an antipeople one that represents their own personal interests. When they criticize all and sundry without grounds, using vile words and spraying spittle, they think that we will remain silent. And when they get a tough response with mass support, they run to their defenders howling and tucking in their jackal’s tails. If these dogs have their protectors in our country, then the main protector of the Russian people is the president of our country, Vladimir Putin, and I am prepared to carry out his orders, no matter how difficult.

These morally fallen people who have sold their souls to Western devils behave freely not only in the West, but also in the country that they scorn, where they feel themselves to be beyond punishment and untouchable.And, after any attempt to call them to answer to the law, they start to scream about repression.

But in their beloved Western countries, calling for the violation of territorial integrity and for the destruction of the state is a punishable criminal offense. And in Europe there are mass human rights violations. But for the opposition, sympathy for these countries is unshakable. Your lack of love for Russia is mutual.

Acting firmly, consistently, systematically, and within the strict framework of the law, we will not allow a mad rabble that sets itself in opposition to Russia to get in the way. The position of the authorities on this question must be consolidated, all the more so because it serves the interests of the country and its population.

By not sparing the enemy, we will save Russia.

**************

The article adds to a stream of threatening invective unleashed by Ramzan Kadyrov and his allies against liberal Russian opposition politicians, activists, and journalists in recent days.

It is likely to spark new calls for Putin to intervene and to dismiss Kadyrov, who has been widely accused of human-rights abuses and is believed by critics to to have overseen assassinations both in Russia and abroad. Relatives and associates of Boris Nemtsov, an opposition leader shot dead in February 2015 near the Kremlin, want Kadyrov questioned over his killing.

A local lawmaker in Siberia called Kadyrov a “disgrace” to Russia last week, and then apologized following what he said were oblique but clear warnings that he could suffer the same fate as Nemtsov.

Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-kadyrov-rant-opposition-jackals-izvestia-putin/27497321.html


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, information warfare, Russia, Russian propaganda

WORLD WAR 3 FEARS: Russia vows to deploy weapons to Black Sea to counter NATO build up

0
0

Anybody want to bet that this is a cover for an attempt to take Odessa?

</end editorial>


MOSCOW is building up its forces in and around the Black Sea to counter what it sees as encroaching NATO power in the region, according to Russian military sources.

GETTY

FIRE-POWER: Russia is attempting to counter NATO

War games are being planned where the scenario is a head on conflict with Western powers, according to the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta.This follows a NATO exercise in the Black Sea in August widely seen as a show of support for Ukraine after its territory of Crimea was annexed by Russia.

Meanwhile it has been revealed the US navy could ramp up its presence in the Mediterranean seas to take on Russia’s warships based in Syria.

It is understood that Moscow military bosses admit its fleet could never take on a combined NATO naval force in the Black Sea.

But it is claimed it is deploying warplanes and missiles that can easily paralyse an enemy navy.

Ships of the Black Sea fleetGETTY
SEA POWER: Ships of the Black Sea fleet
Russia has shown it can launch cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian SeaAPPOWER: Russia has shown it can launch cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea
Kalibr-NK being fired from warship IGGAME-CHANGER: Kalibr-NK being fired from warship
Black Sea Fleet spokesman, Captain Vyacheslav Trukhachov, said more than 15 new Russian combat ships arrived to the Black Sea in 2015 alone.This includes two missile carriers and two submarines equipped with the most modern cruise missiles, the Kalibr-NK which have a range of 1800 miles.

The weapons have been used against ISIS in Syria and military observers said they mark a new era in Russian capability.

Two brigades of Iskander-M ballistic missiles that have effective range of 300 miles have also been deployed and claim to be able to penetrate any of the existing missile defence system.

Iskander-M ballistic missilesGETTYDEADLY: Iskander-M ballistic missiles

Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Propaganda, Russia Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, CounterPropaganda, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda, Ukraine

Former Commander Of Pro-Russian Separatists Says He Executed People Based On Stalin-Era Laws

0
0
Igor Girkin, also known as Igor Strelkov, was a key commander in the Russia-backed separatist forces in the early stages of the war against Ukrainian government troops in the east of the country. (file photo)

By Anna Shamanska

For most of his 42-minute appearance on a radio talk show, former Russia-backed separatist commander Igor Girkin sounded like nothing more than a fanatic discussing a dream now widely dismissed as fantasy.

He spoke of hopes for the creation of a “Novorossia” — a New Russia stretching across much of Ukraine, from Kharkiv to Odesa, and one day joining a Russian empire including all of Belarus and Ukraine.

It wasn’t until the last minute that the interview with Girkin went from surreal to chilling.

Referring to his time commanding separatists in the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk in 2014, a host asks him how he stopped the rampant looting.

“With executions,” Girkin said matter-of-factly.

According to Girkin, separatist “authorities” installed a military court and introduced 1941 military laws implemented by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

“Under this legislation we tried people and executed the convicted,” Girkin said.

“While I was in Slovyansk four people were executed. Two among the military for looting, one local for looting, and one for killing a serviceman,” he said on the Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is affiliated with a leading pro-Kremlin Russian tabloid.

One of the people killed was an “ideological” supporter of the Ukrainian nationalist group Right Sector, he said.

Key Separatist Commander

Girkin, also known as Igor Strelkov, was a key commander in the Russia-backed separatist forces in the early stages of the war against Ukrainian government troops that has killed more than 9,000 civilians and combatants since April 2014.

Ukraine’s government has called Girkin a Russian agent and accused him of war crimes. He resigned as a rebel commander in August 2014 amid reports that he had been wounded in battle.

Later that year, he told an interviewer that he was a colonel in the Russian FSB, or Federal Security Service — a statement that was edited out of the interview published by state-run Rossia Segodnya.

In October 2015, the Brussels-based International Partnership for Human Rights provided the International Criminal Court with more than 300 testimonies about alleged military crimes and crimes against humanity that it said had been committed by Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

It said that “while crimes committed by both sides of the conflict have been documented, the collected evidence primarily concerns crimes committed by separatists because of security issues related to accessing separatists-controlled territories of Ukraine.”

In the radio appearance, Girkin said he was not concerned about the possibility of international prosecution.

“I am not at all bothered by international law, because it’s a tool in the hands of winners,” he said. “If we are defeated, well then, the norms of these laws will be applied to me.”

Fighting has lessened since a February 2015 deal on a cease-fire and steps toward peace, but the Russia-backed separatists still hold large parts of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk provinces.

Girkin, a former military reenactor, appeared to have the support of both the hosts and those calling in.

“God forbid,” one host said, referring to the possibility of Girkin being sent to an international court for prosecution on war crimes charges.

As for his feelings about Stalin, Girkin said he dislikes the dictator as he was in his younger days, but believes that he was a great statesman at the end of his life.

“You can discuss for a long time how much blood and where Stalin spilled it, but at least you can confidently say that he did it not for himself but for the sake of an idea,” he said.

Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-girkin-strelkov-executions-stalin-era/27497491.html


Filed under: #RussiaFail, CounterPropaganda, Information operations, Information Warfare, Ukraine Tagged: #RussiaFail, #RussiaLies, counter-propaganda, CounterPropaganda, information operations, information warfare, propaganda, Russia, Russian propaganda, Ukraine
Viewing all 5256 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images