Thursday, January 23, 2020

Disinformation warning

Just read this good opinion piece by a former US Ambassador to Russia that was in the Washington Post last week:

Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial

I liked his summary of Russian disinformation tactics:
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies deploy several methods of disinformation to strengthen their power and influence. The first is to deny facts. For instance, Putin initially denied that Russian soldiers had seized control of Crimea in February 2014, denies Russian involvement in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014, and denies any Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

A second tactic is to deflect attention from the facts, also known as “whataboutism.” When criticized about Crimean annexing Crimea, Putin’s media shoot back, what about Kosovo? Or New Mexico? When criticized about civilian casualties from Russian military intervention in Syria, Kremlin defenders retort, what about Iraq, Vietnam or Hiroshima? When confronted with evidence of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, the Russian standard refrain is, you do it all the time.

A third practice is the dissemination of lies. Russian state media once asserted that President Barack Obama and former Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi embraced the same ideology. I may be more sensitive than most about this tactic, because when I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Kremlin media outlets accused me of fomenting revolution against Putin’s regime; perhaps most disgustingly of all, a video was circulated suggesting I was a pedophile. When Putin met with President Trump in July 2018 in Helsinki, the Russian president again lied about me, claiming I had broken Russian law while working in the White House.

A cumulative effect of all these tactics is nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth. Putin is not trying to win the argument; instead, his propaganda machine aims to convince that there is no truth, no right and wrong, or no data or evidence, only relativism, point of view and biased opinion.
His summary of what Joe Biden did in Ukraine is also a good, succinct summary, one which my reality challenged reader from Catallaxy, JC, has never got through his thick head:
Former vice president Joe Biden was not freelancing on behalf of his son when implementing U.S. government policy — supported by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, Republican senators, and the Ukrainian anti-corruption nongovernmental-organization community — to seek the ouster of corrupt Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Indeed, because Shokin was not prosecuting corruption in Ukraine, his removal produced greater scrutiny, not less, of the now-infamous Burisma Holdings energy company on which Hunter Biden used to serve as a board member. As Shokin’s deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, reported, “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky [Burisma’s owner]. … It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.” Trump’s own political appointee, former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, confirmed, “The allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and non-credible.”

4 comments:

  1. Hilarious. What decade do you people think you are living in? You old guys were weak on communism when the Soviets had the ear of all the major newspapers. Now that the Russians don't have that snap any more, you've all become mummified cold war warriors. This is a mental disorder to be so out of touch with the world around you. To be so late to the game. Four decades behind the times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nah, nothing will get through that very thick head.

    He can't read. I remember him telling me that when Wayne Swan was treasurer since commodity prices were high then the budget should be in surplus. I replied how was that given company tax revenues.

    He neither understood nor could ever understand budget papers.

    Only he could insert a definition of predecessor in a comment and then disagree with it later.

    his intellect is needed in hanson's party

    ReplyDelete