U.S. Helps Pro-Ukraine Media Run a Fog Machine of War

[Nickyjo]

U.S. Helps Pro-Ukraine Media Run a Fog Machine of War

By Lee Fang, RealClearInvestigations and LeeFang.comApril 11, 2024 Ukraine’s American-backed fight against Russia is being waged not only in the blood-soaked trenches of the Donbas region but al

www.realclearinvestigations.com

Before the war, in one of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s first controversial acts to stifle political opposition, he moved in February 2021 to close television channels 112, NewsOne, and ZIK – stations owned by Viktor Medvedchuk and his associate Taras Kozak, former lawmakers with the Opposition Party of Life, a bloc opposed to Zelensky – over allegations of Kremlin ties.

Later that year, in December 2021, the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement that criticized the Ukrainian crackdown on journalists and peaceful expression. The report cited the closure of opposition television channels and other media.


The USAID-funded Ukrainian media network, however, was quick to defend the Zelensky government. The decision to close the outlets, wrote Detector Media, was "not an attack on freedom of speech" because the channels, the group argued, provided "informational support of Russian aggression against Ukraine."


In May 2022, the Zelensky government widely expanded its efforts to outlaw the political opposition. Zelensky moved to ban 11 political parties over alleged ties to Russia, the largest of which was Medvedchuk’s Opposition Party of Life, which previously held 44 seats in the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament.

other bills to crack down on media rights that had failed to pass in the past over civil liberty concerns were brought back into consideration. Mykyta Poturayev, a Ukrainian legislator and close ally of Zelensky, re-introduced the On Media Law.


The legislation features provisions to penalize hate speech and disinformation, as well as broad powers to limit certain forms of foreign influence. Among its most contentious provisions is the power granting a council controlled by Zelensky and his allies to ban media outlets without a court order.


Before Zelensky signed the bill in December 2022, many journalists spoke out against the legislation. The European Federation of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists denounced it as an extreme violation of journalistic freedom. Ukraine's National Union of Journalists described the bill as the "biggest threat to free speech in independent [Ukraine's] history."

Again, the USAID-funded media groups provided pivotal support amid a tightening on journalistic freedom. The push to support the bill was largely led by U.S.-government-backed think tanks and media outlets.

The statement was organized by Ukraine's Center for Democracy and Rule of Law. In 2022, the group received 76.67% of its budget from USAID, USAID’s contractors, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S. government-funded nonprofit that was spun out of the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980s.

NED, the former CIA arm, has publicly touted the effort to pass the On Media Law for its work in reshaping Ukraine’s media landscape.

The document names liberal journalists Max Blumenthal and Newsweek’s Ellie Cook, as well as Republican figures such as former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs, as voices that end up featured in Russian propaganda and disinformation.


The Open Information Partnership report suggests new legislation to counter "malign foreign actors"

Obviously Putin invaded to put an end to all this.

 

[oneworld2]

Good. You should want the U.S. and the West to win, and if this means distributing pro-Western propaganda that gives the U.S. and the west an advantage you should be all for it.

It's noticeable that your comment has NOTHING to say about the plight of Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Sucks for you to be so obvious about the disregard for those being used as proxies.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I like the Grayzone coverage and am keen to see evidence for your ongoing claims of Matė being a " fraud". So, what are you using to back this?

Here is Aaron claiming Crowdstrike found no proof of Russia hacking the DNC.



Here is Crowdstrike explicitly stating otherwise:



He later claimed the US scuttled the peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. This was wrong too:

No, Elon, the U.S. Didn’t Scuttle a Ukraine Peace Deal

Twitter contrarians—given the spotlight by Elon Musk—distort an interview by Israel’s ex-PM.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[oneworld2]

Here is Aaron claiming Crowdstrike found no proof of Russia hacking the DNC.



Here is Crowdstrike explicitly stating otherwise:

Thanks for taking the time to show me this but I think the wording and decisions were to quote up to leave some questions of their own.

Having done some digging of my own, I found the full quote from Henry that was truncated in the piece you cited.

page 32

HENRY; " Counsel just reminded me, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that it was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated"

He goes to state that " There are times when we can see that data has been exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it seems it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

I know it is getting into the minuscule details but often times that where the detail is.

https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted.pdf

Just focusing on this for now.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Thanks for taking the time to show me this but I think the wording and decisions were to quote up to leave some questions of their own.

Having done some digging of my own, I found the full quote from Henry that was truncated in the piece you cited.

page 32

HENRY; " Counsel just reminded me, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that it was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated"

He goes to state that " There are times when we can see that data has been exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it seems it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

I know it is getting into the minuscule details but often times that where the detail is.

https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted.pdf

Just focusing on this for now.

So at best, Mate was misleading in titling his article saying there was "no proof".

To be fair, he delivers very little detail on that actual nugget...

...because he spends most of trying to exonerate Trump and cast doubt on investigations into his ties to Russia. Which was the point of his article.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It's noticeable that your comment has NOTHING to say about the plight of Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Sucks for you to be so obvious about the disregard for those being used as proxies.

As far as I'm concerned the Ukrainians are Westerners now.

 

[beerftw]

Good. You should want the U.S. and the West to win, and if this means distributing pro-Western propaganda that gives the U.S. and the west an advantage you should be all for it.

Pro western propoganda however is not winning, infact it is increasingly backfiring as American and British propoganda is near copy paste from nazi propoganda, use word association, lie constantly, lie to cover lies, lie to cover the lies covering the lies etc. This style of propoganda is highly effective in a short run but fails long term.

Compare it to russian and chinese style psyops, even though the west calls everything they say lies it is very rare they actually lie, as the eastern nations literally choose to relay news and information in a way that leaves out what they want without having to lie, as to not have to cover those lies. Ie the propoganda strategy can be differentiated between west short term instant gains but fails long term as even the lowest iq of the population catch on, or east where the propoganda is not as effective, but rather gamed figuring they may have to keep it up for years and decades, and are more cautioud sbout lying and often avoid it as not mentioning som,ething is much easier to sweep under the rug than getting caught flat out lying.

Also why would you want any propoganda? Do you even know the definition of propoganda? Let me put it simple, propoganda is any information or opinion that can affect public opinion, or in lamens it literally by definition means any information not in lockstep with official govt policy, and truthfulness of it does not matter by definition. If a govt can only be right by shutting down all opposition and differing opinion north korean style, than that govt is clearly wrong and is unable to even prove to it's own people it's justification and insead looks for means of silencing anything outside what it deems acceptable politics.

 

[beerftw]

Russian propaganda is designed and propagated by the Russian government as a means to further Russian interests, and within the context of the present geopolitical environment, it is designed as a means to further Russian interests at the expense of the U.S. and the West.

If you want the U.S. and the West to win, stop repeating Russian propaganda. It's that simple.

Just simply google propoganda, then look at what russia does, reality is they are doing what is in their interest, but their interest is often fully honest and transparent.

If we go by the definition of propoganda you simply saying you oppose biden clamping down on the border would be propoganda as the definition can get murkey but mostly follows information no matter how truthful that can sway political opinion, or the state department version which lists any opinion not in lockstep with federal leadership as being propoganda, ie they view any opinion not supporting biden as propoganda no matter which nation it comes from and even within this nation.

 

[beerftw]

I do actually, but thanks for playing.

Given that you accuse people of russia propoganda and supporting of such indicates you do not, anyone who was a soldier who had training or had to be in a situation where such awareness was required would know claiming propoganda was bs, it is infact Americas most used tool in foreign policy.

At the end of the day any soldier who did more than just play the game and squeak by knew the American govt was running propoganda nonstop, knew the enemy was doing the same, that everyone was deceptive, and usually had enough situational awreness to also realize that unit cohesion was equally as important to survive and could balance out what was real and what was fake without disrupting the system.

Calling out anyone be it other posters or journalists or politicians as russian propogandists show you really have no understanding of psyops or are strictly a cog in it, as calling someone a propogandist is the western blocs go to answer for everything they can not actually explain their way out of to their own population.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Given that you accuse people of russia propoganda and supporting of such indicates you do not,

Yes, I do.

 

[oneworld2]

So at best, Mate was misleading in titling his article saying there was "no proof".

To be fair, he delivers very little detail on that actual nugget...

...because he spends most of trying to exonerate Trump and cast doubt on investigations into his ties to Russia. Which was the point of his article.

I've learned that those who attack power are always scrutinized to a massively greater degree than those who try to ignore it to the best of their ability. Those in service to it are only in danger through negligence imo.

So that's why I did a little digging and found the wording interesting and the claim only of a partial value.

So if misrepresentation is the arbiter of people/organizations being cast as " frauds", then we can safely say that the western MSMs collective servitude to power and their willingness to serve its interests likewise sets them up for the same charge. I just don't see that happening or mass awareness of the situation regarding this.

thx anyway but I won't throw him under the bus based on this just yet

 

[oneworld2]

As far as I'm concerned the Ukrainians are Westerners now.

I'm sure they're so relieved to hear that, the ones that haven't already been killed that is.

I'm sure too that the maimed and homeless, the refugees with nothing to return to will, likewise, feel elated at your decision.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So if misrepresentation is the arbiter of people/organizations being cast as " frauds",

Simple "Misinterpretation" would be a better shield if this wasn't something Mate has repeatedly pushed in multiple instances, and has tried to use this to dismantle a bunch of tangibly related elements like Russian collusion and intervention in the 2016 and 2020 election.

It also doesn't speak to the second point I raised regarding his capability.

I would retract this accusation if Mate had demonstrated a willingness to rescind or modify his claims in light of further revelation. But he doesn't, because he's trying to push a narrative of excusing Russian behavior and action.

 

[oneworld2]

Simple "Misinterpretation" would be a better shield if this wasn't something Mate has repeatedly pushed in multiple instances, and has tried to use this to dismantle a bunch of tangibly related elements like Russian collusion and intervention in the 2016 and 2020 election.

It also doesn't speak to the second point I raised regarding his capability.

I would retract this accusation if Mate had demonstrated a willingness to rescind or modify his claims in light of further revelation. But he doesn't, because he's trying to push a narrative of excusing Russian behavior and action.

How many times do you have to be told that all western actions are for noble intentions and any crimes discovered mostly cast as " blunders", " mistakes", " errors of judgement" before you condemn as frauds the western MSM ?

I think it's pretty obvious that a double standard is at work here but you can ignore it if you wish. No probs.

 

[Jredbaron96]

How many times do you have to be told that all western actions are for noble intentions and any crimes discovered mostly cast as " blunders", " mistakes", " errors of judgement" before you condemn as frauds the western MSM ?

I have no problem calling or identifying when Western media outfits innacuratelty convey information. A limiting factor in this is, contrary to what many like to believe, western media is not a monolith.

I can forgive, on a limited basis, when a reporter trying to explain something complicated like cryptology and computer security, oversimplifies something, or there is a flurry on information and they may not be aware of the full volume of facts.

I do not intend to excuse repeated and consistent misrepresentation of the facts to push a narrative.

I think it's pretty obvious that a double standard is at work here but you can ignore it if you wish. No probs.

I think you would like this to be true.

 

[oneworld2]

I have no problem calling or identifying when Western media outfits innacuratelty convey information. A limiting factor in this is, contrary to what many like to believe, western media is not a monolith.

I can forgive, on a limited basis, when a reporter trying to explain something complicated like cryptology and computer security, oversimplifies something, or there is a flurry on information and they may not be aware of the full volume of facts.

I do not intend to excuse repeated and consistent misrepresentation of the facts to push a narrative.

To play down the role of the western MSM in its support for western elite interests and national image, etc etc is fully expected.

I think you would like this to be true.

That's what the evidence suggests imo

 

[Jredbaron96]

To play down the role of the western MSM in its support for western elite interests and national image, etc etc is fully expected.

Absent from this is any actual acknowledge of Mates dishonest framing.

That's what the evidence suggests imo

I don't really see why I should value your opinion on this; you clearly like Mate, defended him against my accusation, your response was then to meekly suggest "well I guess he kinda sorta was right if you squint" (itself a major reach and ignores the entire tone of the article) then ignore the second bit entirely.

So I'll say it again; he's a fraud who misrepresentation, out of either ignorance or deliberately, what other people have said in order to push an agenda.

 

[oneworld2]

Absent from this is any actual acknowledge of Mates dishonest framing.

Again, if dishonest framing is the dis qualifier for you, then you are engaging in a huge double standard wrt western MSM reporting and its clickbait head linings

I don't really see why I should value your opinion on this; you clearly like Mate, defended him against my accusation, your response was then to meekly suggest "well I guess he kinda sorta was right if you squint" (itself a major reach and ignores the entire tone of the article) then ignore the second bit entirely.

So I'll say it again; he's a fraud who misrepresentation, out of either ignorance or deliberately, what other people have said in order to push an agenda.

You can value it or not, just like I can your own. If you cant acknowledge the special treatment meted out to the western dissident in the western MSM you are no better than me either.

I do like Mate and he will have his own prejudices and biases like all of us, including yourself but what they offer are the facts that are often the critical omissions from the MSM coverage.

He actually quoted Henry correctly in his comments on whether anything was actually " taken". You cut that quote in half in one reply you gave me and I had to do the due diligence to find that out. Does that make you guilty of fraudulent representations?

See how easy these charges can be made?

I guess you won't see the same in people whose views you might oppose but rest assured the western MSM is as guilty of it as anyone and likely many times worse.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Again, if dishonest framing is the dis qualifier for you, then you are engaging in a huge double standard wrt western MSM reporting and its clickbait head linings

So are you going to give me an example of this double standard you think I've displayed?

Does that make you guilty of fraudulent representations?

No.

Mate claimed " Crowdstrike said there was no proof of Russian hacking of the DNC"

He then cut out one quote, about a very specific topic, data exfiltration, and presented it as it if was proof that no hacking had occurred at all.

There's no if ands or buts about, that is either deliberate or unintentional misrepresentation of the evidence based on a single quote about a single metric.

Which is why the second image I posted has Crowdstrike explicitly stating "yes we have proof", because they are not trying to rely on a single sentence as proof of anything.

So which is it? Did Mate deliberately quote mine to push an agenda, or did he not understand what that actually meant and decided he should still try to push a narrative anyway?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Also why would you want any propoganda? Do you even know the definition of propoganda?

I believe propaganda is a legitimate tool of statecraft. I understand the definition of propaganda and it encompasses both positive and negative aspects.

I think it's bullshit that socialists, communists, and people on the far left bitch and moan about Western propaganda but they've got nothing negative to say about the propaganda of our enemies, and the reason is very ****ing simple. These people hate the West and they want the West to lose. End of story. And I don't have any patience for them. They know if the message of the Russians is promoted and the message of the West is diminished this gives Russia an advantage. These people can suck a big f** ****. Move to Russia if you hate us so much is my message to these haters of the U.S. and the West.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Let me put it simple, propoganda is any information or opinion that can affect public opinion, or in lamens it literally by definition means any information not in lockstep with official govt policy, and truthfulness of it does not matter by definition. If a govt can only be right by shutting down all opposition and differing opinion north korean style, than that govt is clearly wrong and is unable to even prove to it's own people it's justification and insead looks for means of silencing anything outside what it deems acceptable politics.

I don't think we should have a North Korean style information space. At the same time, I don't think we should shy away from calling out pro-Russian bullshit for what it is, nor should we shy away from promoting our own interests by telling our story to our people and to others around the world. We should not flinch from promoting our national interests, and Western civilization as a whole.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

the state department version which lists any opinion not in lockstep with federal leadership as being propoganda, ie they view any opinion not supporting biden as propoganda no matter which nation it comes from and even within this nation.

The bottom line is that what you're writing is a lie. The State dept. doesn't list any opinion "not in lockstep with federal leadership" as being propaganda, and what they do label as Russian propaganda is very obviously pro-Russian propaganda. And the reason why some people have a hard time understanding this is because the people most bitterly championing Russian propaganda want the U.S. and the West to be diminished, to lose.

I understand many on the Left and even the Right don't like some particular federal policy, or even the system as a whole, but it seems exceptionally counter-productive to advance one's political agenda by intentionally acting in ways that reduce the power and influence of the U.S. It's best these people separate their criticisms of domestic policy from foreign policy.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I'm sure they're so relieved to hear that, the ones that haven't already been killed that is.

I'm sure too that the maimed and homeless, the refugees with nothing to return to will, likewise, feel elated at your decision.

The reason why Ukrainians are now dying is because Putin has not yet come to terms with the fact that Ukrainians have already become Westerners.

It's so strange, as I do not hear you saying critical things about Putin. Why is that?

 

[Hamish Howl]

The reason why Ukrainians are now dying is because Putin has not yet come to terms with the fact that Ukrainians have already become Westerners.

It's so strange, as I do not hear you saying critical things about Putin. Why is that?

All these uber-leftwing antiwar types are not actually antiwar.