While peace talks may eventually silence the guns, the Kremlin disinformation apparatus is already drafting and pushing narratives to fracture post-war Ukraine.
As we mark three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the real possibility of peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia is on the horizon. Not surprisingly, the Kremlin’s disinformation apparatus is already laying the groundwork for its next campaign to skew public perceptions in Russia’s favour.
Drawing on patterns that we have identified through almost a decade of monitoring pro-Kremlin outlets and exposing their bile, we have identified some of the likely narratives and information manipulation operations the Kremlin will deploy in an attempt to undermine Ukraine’s post-war sovereignty.
Visit us @ !fediverse_vs_disinfo@lemmy.dbzer0.com for all the latest news on the topics of astroturfing, propaganda and disinformation.
How come that on a forum against disinformation on an anarchist server a website is regularly featured that acknowledges the following under About:
We are the East Stratcom Task Force, a team of experts with a background mainly in communications, journalism, social sciences and Russian studies. We are part of the EU’s diplomatic service, which is led by the EU’s High Representative.
Information on this website is basically coming unfiltered from one of the major economic and political forces that is in direct conflict with the subject of its “evaluation”. Why would we trust anything they say?
Accordingly this article brings nothing new to the table and reinforces the idea that we shouldn’t even dare think about peace. That Russia is never to be trusted.
To counterbalance I’d like to suggest watching what Jeffrey Sachs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs) had to say, addressing the EU a couple of days ago.
Every source of fact checking has its own problems and biases. I post from sites that I find credible, or at least contain some useful data points. It’s up to you whether you find a particular source credible or not, I can’t make that assessment on your behalf.
According to Stuart Lau and Luanna Muniz writing in Politico, Sachs is a "long-time advocate of dismantling American hegemony and embracing the rise of China.
So its hardly surprising to see Sachs providing “critical support” to Russia as well.
Being an anarchist, my main concern is authoritarianism. Russia is an an authoritarian state with [neo]imperial ambitions that does not deserve my support. Anarchists generally don’t subscribe to MLs’ fixation on providing [un]critical support to authoritarian and only notionally socialist AES states, simply because they are working against US interests. Russia fully deserves to called out for its constant stream of propaganda about the Ukraine war and this particular source does a good job of that. To be clear, I’m not a supporter of the US either, as should be clear from my post history. But I do support Ukraine in it’s fight against a foreign aggressor, as I would support Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, or Canada against a US invasion. These are all morally uncomplicated things as far as I’m concerned.
It’s the folks trying to legitimize the invasion of a neighboring country that are the real concern to me.
I don’t know. It sounds like disinfo is ok to you if it suits your view. And it’s not very difficult to find support for that view from a wide array of sources, rather than an obvious EU propaganda outlet.
Then….quoting politico of all places to discredit Sachs? How does that even happen?
It sounds like disinfo is ok to you if it suits your view.
You’re the one calling it “disinfo”, and I disagree with your opinion. IMO, it’s a useful resource for understanding both Russian and EU/US propaganda. Is it perfect? Nope. But nothing is. If you could point to disinfo in the articles, then presumably you would have done so rather than trying to discredit the source.
Anyway I’m not interested in getting into an argument about it. The main websites I post from are clearly listed in the sidebar, and although none of them are perfect, they are all related to the topic. If you want to suggest additional sources, then please do so.
Then….quoting politico of all places to discredit Sachs? How does that even happen?
First one that came up. You aren’t paying me by the hour. Sachs has already discredited himself by going on state-sponsored Russian TV multiple times to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its “maximalist demands” of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory. What more needs to be said?
Like I did say: The article reinforces the idea that we shouldn’t dare think about peace, that Russia is never to be trusted.
While the Kremlin might theoretically accept the possibility of Ukraine’s EU membership, Russia is likely to push for more distant accession dates – 2035, 2040, or beyond – while simultaneously launching a two-pronged disinformation campaign.
Will it accept it or not? They don’t seem to know but speculation is free
Whatever shape the peace talks will take, Moscow will likely demand Ukraine be represented by specific individuals, possibly including pro-Russian politicians. And if they are not included in the Ukrainian delegation, Russia could then question the legitimacy of any agreement signed by the current Ukrainian leadership and push for immediate presidential elections in Ukraine where the Kremlin can deploy its influence operations.
The whole article is like that. Russia is likely to do this, is probably going to do that.
Considering that peace negotiations are on the horizon I view pieces like that, basically arguing for continuing the war, as plain disinformation from those parts of society who never had any qualms about the militarisation of Europe and want to see more of that.
There exists no such thing as being truly neutral or unbiased. In capitalism, every project has funders, every funder has interests.
This source is often shared because it has a good track record on fighting disinformation.
Obviously, because of inherent interests, the source is biased through selective reporting, like every other media outlet in existence. Which is why the community is open for anyone to share articles themselves, helping vary our sources and focus on different issues and perspectives.
A biased source is not the same thing as a paid for propaganda outlet.
Conflating the two is itself pretty dishonest.
All of the above is fair, but ending it with quoting Jeffrey Sachs, the asshole responsible for shock therapy (though not the administration, thanks Harvard and Larry Summers), is just as bad.
Reality being labelled as Russian disinformation, to support CIA/US empire pro war agenda, is a new form of McCarthyism. It is explicit base-childish disinformation to appeal to “all counter narratives to our glorious leaders warmongering” can only be disinformation.
I don’t support any authoritarian states, including the US and Russia. And neither should you.
