Ukraine: The Nexus of Cognitive Warfare - Narratives to date
Ukraine is the frontline in the battle for minds, including yours.
“There are two sides to every story,” so the saying goes. Balance in reporting should seek to objectively present both sides, and leave the reader to decide for themselves how to judge the reported situation and what to believe.
How can such a glib truism be adequate when it comes to the complexities of geopolitics in which myriad actors’ motives, words and deeds interact in ways that can only be partially known by any actor and any observer?
At the macro narrative level, Russia’s “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine is presented to us a bipolar fashion. Are we the targets in a war of cognition? Again?
Objectives of this article:
Introduce the formal concept of Cognitive Warfare (CW) as defined by NATO, that encompasses civilian populations;
Set out a roughly up-to-date account of the Russian and Western narratives for the Ukrainian conflict as a referential foundation for further discussion of either narrative and related phenomenon.
To start to consider, in the context of CW, how an individual is both internally and externally affected by possible manifestations of CW post-Covid.
NB: To achieve 2, I have rather tediously tried to summarise both Russian and Western narrative below, to the best of my ability, but I am aware that with regards to the Western narrative, I may have introduced greater forms of criticism or bias to that section. If you feel I am unjustified or lacking in my write up of either narrative, please feel free to use the comments to highlight weaknesses and I will do my best to investigate and address/correct them transparently and with traceability. I apologise in advance for this article, it is long but its purpose is to set a referential foundation against which I can hold myself, my sources and my perception to account. It is also an attempt to fairly factually pull multiple narrative strands together at this moment in time into one place. This article deliberately ends after “Western narrative” so that subsequent articles can go straight into other concepts in (hopefully) a more succinct manner. Further, I have not filled this article with source hyperlinks due to time it took to write it. I can add these if you feel that is warranted to back up my write up. Just let me know in the comments.
Cognitive Warfare
Cognitive warfare embodies the idea of combat without fighting. Mastering the cognitive domain constitutes a new major stake indispensable to the generation of combat power.
The Cognitive Domain is a new space of competition, beyond the land, maritime, air, cybernetic and spatial domains. Warfare in the cognitive domain mobilizes a different and wide range of strategies, tools, and techniques. Its very essence is to seize control of places, groups, units, organizations, and nations, by targeting and affecting the brains of their personnel, civilian as well as military.
Cognitive warfare is thus an unconventional form of warfare that uses cyber tools to alter enemy cognitive processes, exploit mental biases or reflexive thinking, and provoke thought distortions, influence decision-making and hinder actions, with negative effects, both at the individual and collective levels.
This is obviously related to the concept of cyber warfare that uses digital information tools to gain control, alter or destroy said tools. However, cognitive warfare goes beyond information to target what individual brains will do with this information. It therefore extends beyond the human consequences of cyber warfare involving computer engineering, robotics and programmes; a cognitive effect is not a by-product of action, but its very objective.
Though technological tools are a medium towards an effect, this objective is independent of the technologies used to achieve it. One way of thinking about it is as a “psychological-social-technical warfare” on the one hand and of a form of “influence warfare” on the other, using cyber means. In the military context specifically, it involves the use of a strategy intended to carry out a combat, surveillance and/or security actions.
Source: The Cognitive Warfare Concept, Bernard Claverie & François du Cluzel
Weaponised Information - propaganda, narrative, truth and lies
What is the difference, if any, between propaganda and narrative? Are you served either or both? How hard do you work to evaluate a narrative or work out your own?
The Russian Narrative
Nato expansion
Longstanding NATO expansion - to which Russia has consistently and openly objected - is an existential threat to Russia. NATO is a de facto manifestation of the US hegemon, within which the UK and the EU bloc is a collection of US partner and vassal states, irrespective of the historical reasons for the EU’s creation. The US enacted its standard modus operandi of territorial expansion in Ukraine culminating (but not ending) in its fomenting of the Euromaidan uprisings and effective regime change/capture via the installation of the US puppet Poroshenko and Zelenskyy administrations. Like Poland and Romania, Ukraine could potentially host ABMs on the border of Russia, which means that more US Tomahawk missiles could be placed directly on Russia’s borders. In future, it is not unthinkable that this could be developed into tactical nuclear capability given the completion of the W76-2 low yield nuclear warhead deployed in 2019.
Russia argues that it has a maintained a consistent opposition to illegitimate NATO expansion for more than 20 years, despite US/NATO denials that a post Cold War promise that NATO would not expand was ever made. This denial has been undermined by US documentation released under FOIA showing that NATO expansion was not on the agenda were in fact made by the west.
Russia’s “annexation”* of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 was inevitable given that Sevastopol is the only deep warm water port of the Russian navy. Under no circumstances would Russia have ever given it up.
*According to some accounts (Ukraine on Fire), Crimean authorities initiated a referendum in which over 90% of the voting populace cast a ~97% vote to join the Russian Federation. Russian troops were always present on the peninsula due to its naval presence, and no “Russian invasion” of Crimea took place. By this account, Crimea wasn’t necessarily annexed by Russia.
Ultranationalism, extreme right, (neo-) Nazis
A key mechanism employed by the western and internal actors is the direct sponsorship of Ukrainian ultranationalist and Nazi proxies who have managed to penetrate every level of military, law enforcement and government despite Svoboda being an extreme right/ultranationalist/neo-Nazi minority political party whose seeming disproportionate influence is not reflected by its low popular support in elections since 2014. There is a long history of Ukrainian Nazi collaboration, fascistic ideologies, movement and leadership that stems from WW2 to the present day.
The west’s intent to bring Ukraine into both the EU and NATO is a further direct legitimisation of its far and extreme right elements, which is fundamentally unacceptable to Russia given its own history of anti-Nazi conflict and losses since WW2. Preparation for EU and NATO membership of the present Ukrainian regime has already conferred massive investment and development to bring its military up to NATO spec in terms of arsenal, independent capability and NATO interoperability. This support has gone directly to ultranationalist and Nazi units to the point that US/UK/NATO money, weapons and training has been provided directly to them.
“Regionalised genocide” and weaponised drought
For the 8 years since Euromaidan, the Ukrainian puppet administrations have waged civil war on the breakaway Donbass and Lugansk regions to the tune of an estimated 14,500 regional lives (pre-invasion). Kyiv has refused to implement the Minsk Accords, under the supervision of France and Germany, while the US/NATO has created a new reality on the ground via various forms of intervention.
Since the 2014 annexation, Ukraine has deliberately blockaded Crimea’s water supply to trigger deprivation and drought, forcing Russia into an expensive $100m desalination solution.
Wealth/Poverty/Resources
Over half of Ukraine’s electricity is generated in 15 PWR nuclear reactors; the Donbass region’s frackable shale is estimated to hold 3 trillion cubic metres of gas and was expressly cited by Julia Tymoschenko as a reason to exterminate the regional Russian population to make way for fracking operations. Its gas transmission pipeline network is one of the world’s largest and was key to delivering Russian gas into Europe, although other pipelines including Nord Stream 1 & 2 and Turkish Stream enable Russia to cease European gas delivery via Ukraine, which has repeatedly illegally diverted and retained circa $12.5bn of European-destined gas. It is a major exporter of Seed Oils and Wheat. Despite all of this, Ukraine is the poorest nation in the European continent, which is directly attributed in part to being plundered by corrupt internal and external actors.
Russia’s pre-stated demands and objectives
The above factors and circumstances have pushed Russia into a corner and forced it to act in its own interests and self-defence.
Prior to its “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine, Russia issued clear demands in its draft treaty and agreement that are consistent with global nuclear non-proliferation, NATO contraction and multipolar Balance of Power underpinned by UNSC and UN Charter primacy. It recognised the Donbass and Lugansk oblasts as independent then began its advance on grounds of humanitarian intervention to protect their populations from the ongoing Ukrainian shelling, before declaring a full scale Special Military Operation. A final trigger that Russia cited was Zelenskyy’s declaration that Ukraine would seek to nuclearize its armed forces.
Russia declared two high level military objectives to “demilitarise” and “denazify” Ukraine but has not actually declared war against it, and expressly stated that it had neither intent to permanently occupy Ukraine nor hostility towards the civilian population, which might be inferable from its tactics in theatre that see its operation pitched at a 3:1 troop disadvantage and lack of “shock and awe” type bombardment tactics employed by the west.
The obvious political objectives encompassed by the terms of “demilitarisation” and “denazification” include:
the capture or annihilation of Nazi personnel;
crippling the wider Ukrainian military capability and destruction of all means of external support and resupply;
negotiations conducted during continued prosecution of military operations at increasing intensity to force political capitulation of the Zelenskyy administration to Russia’s demands of Ukrainian permanent neutrality, recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, recognition of the independence of DPR and LPR, and guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO and abandon any attempt to nuclearize its arsenal.
Purported Ukrainian assault in DPR may have been key factor driving Russian intervention
On March 9 2022, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, General Igor Konashenkov reportedly said:
…that Russian troops had seized documents confirming Kiev’s plans to attack the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in Donbass… the Russian military had obtained a written order issued by National Guard of Ukraine commander, Col.-Gen. Nikolai Balan, to prepare a military offensive against the Donbass republics in March 2022. He added that the secret document had fallen into the hands of the Russian military following the seizure of the headquarters of the Ukrainian National Guard’s 4th operational brigade. Konashenkov also confirmed the order’s authenticity, including the personal signature by Nikolai Balan.
Source: Batko Milacic for the Saker Blog
If true, and depending upon when the Russians became aware of this intent, the timing of the Russian invasion may have been determined by the Ukrainian troop positioning that is reflected in the Russian “cauldroning” or encirclement of those forces in the Donbass republic. On the one hand, Russia may have had to go in to stop that assault. On the other, such Ukrainian force deployment provides an opportunity to cauldron some forces once they moved to assault positions.
Russia gears up to CQB, expands targeting and heavy weapons
A month into the invasion Russian overt strategic objectives have tilted towards a predicted potential bifurcation of Ukraine. Russian targeting has now expanded into military support, repair and supply infrastructure with the intent of paralysing the Ukrainian military. Heavy weapons use has increased. Some commentators describe this as “corrective action” to earlier light-touch “mistakes”, which Russia couched in its desire to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties. Tactically, Russia has begun to withdraw its offer to accept surrender of encircled Nazi forces: Azov in its home base of Mariupol has been marked for annihilation and frontline reports depict increasing close-quarter battle (CQB) in order to capture or kill forces that have been surrounded. Russia has stated that it is preparing trials to hold the captured Nazis and possibly the Ukrainian administration to account for crimes up to genocide. Humanitarian corridors serve two purposes: to evacuate civilians; to provide a route for Ukrainian troops to surrender or desert.
Russia and Ukrainian civilians report that Ukrainian forces have employed the same “human shield” tactics as seen by the western “rebel” proxies in Syria in that they have chosen to occupy and operate from within civilian locations including schools and residential areas, as well as using civilians as literal human shields in combat. Russian information streams contain video of Ukrainian civilians supposedly speaking to these facts, as well as some independent reporting from inside the DPR. Multiple sources going back to 2014 contain similar accounts of constant Ukrainian oppression of and attacks against the civilian populations on Donbass and Lugansk, against which the pro-Russian DPR and LPR militias have fought.
On March 25 2022, Russia made three extensive statements via: its Ministry of Defense; and Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy, Head of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; and Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev, Head of the National Centre for Defence Control of the Russian Federation. These statements are the most detailed accounts of Russian operations that I have seen in terms of objectives, context and progress, including Russian losses, which are stated as totalling 1351 dead and 3825 wounded Russian servicemen. The Russian Telegram channel, Intel Slava Z, deliberately showed and declared no information about Russian losses, failures or casualties, until these official statements were released.
US Biolabs
In parallel to the conflict’s original “justification”, Russia has publicly presented what it claims is evidence of 30 US bioweapons labs on Ukrainian territory. This evidence has been presented to the UN Security Council. Russia, China, Brazil, India, and Kenya requested investigations into the biolabs, while the other nations denied the accusations as total lies and pure propaganda. The scale of biological “research and development”, according to Russia, includes deliberate attempts to weaponise deadly pathogens that are targeted against the genomes of the Russian population. In effect, Russia is accusing the US of waging biological warfare against Russia, supported by what it claims are official documents recovered from some of the labs themselves (or their personnel). The Bulgarian investigative journalist, Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, has openly challenged the US over biolabs in both Ukraine and Georgia, amongst other places, since at least 2015. The US flat out refuted her findings.
US political and financial corruption, Biden family
The Ukrainian NABU has purportedly released evidence from the Ukrainian side of corruption relating to the Biden family’s dealings in Ukraine in the form of unredacted documents that detail financial transactions and network linkages. This information links in to the Hunter Biden laptops and his actions with Burisma and Rosemont Seneca, which is now linked to the funding of US biolabs in Ukraine via Metabiota back to NIH etc.
Sanctions, exports, assets, currency
Following the most severe, golbally co-ordinated western sanctions in the history of sanctions, and despite heavy dependency on Russian energy exports and the obvious ability of Russia to weaponise them by simply turning them off, Russia continues to service its debt and supply oil and gas per its existing contracts. In response to the western freezing of Russian assets, Russia is now demanding payment for its exports in rubles as a means to bolster its currency and potentially put the west into a notional default on payments due. At time of writing, the G7 has refused to meet the ruble requirement so Russia has warned that delivery may cease. The legitimacy of this position is underpinned by its inability to transact in dollar, euro or pound currencies due to the sanctions.
Russia’s nuclear backstop enables it to abandon the petrodollar. By contrast, Iraq’s and Libya’s intent to do this saw them invaded and destroyed by the US. Half of Russian exports go east and it has been preparing for de-dollarisation and exit from SWIFT for perhaps more than a decade. Like China, it has been buying gold, closing its internet and developing its place in the trans Eurasian strategic alliance. Bilateral currency swaps enable it to do direct trade in mutual currencies, thereby bypassing the dollar.
Internal dissent control
Internally, draconian Russian measures to block any anti-invasion commentary has been passed in law with jail sentences of 15 years.
The Western Narrative
Ukrainian “sovereignty”, US political intervention, NATO/EU membership
The western stance is grounded in the notion of Ukrainian independent sovereignty despite the clear and undisputed, paradoxical, direct overt and covert US (and possibly UK & EU) involvement in the 2014 Ukrainian coup that saw neocon figures under Victoria Nuland literally install the Poroschenko administration. Ukraine is a de facto NATO member given NATO’s direct intervention via training and weapons, although NATO Article 5 support is not technically possible in the absence of strikes on actual existing NATO member state, where Ukraine is not a NATO member. NATO Articles also imply a logically escalating method of conflict resolution that has not been followed and Article 5 must be interpreted within this context rather than as a standalone criterion for response by force. Direct US/NATO-Russia conflict therefore cannot be legitimised via NATO Articles. Thus, the US and allies conduct a proxy war in the same vein as was seen in Syria, backed up by the most extreme anti-Russia sanctions ever seen that are crippling the globe and driving faster development of the trans Eurasian bloc and widening de-dollarization.
Despite NATO expansion being a primary driver of the invasion, the west appears to be doubling down by stating intent to expand NATO further in to Moldova and Georgia, the practicalities and implications of which are unclear but perhaps predictable.
Putin’s desire to rebuild the Soviet Empire
Generally, Russia’s overt reasons for its invasion have registered in the western press but are subsumed by political claims that Russia harbours desires to further expand its territory beyond Ukraine, deeper into Europe. Evidence for this claim has not been provided. However, both France and Germany explicitly acknowledged that Russia is key to ongoing EU security, which implies possible security restructuring of the EU bloc to at least take into account Russia’s strategic concerns instead of ongoing stand-off or lockout but western actions drive towards long term Russian isolation rather than de-escalation and reparation. In short, locking Russia out of EU security undermines EU security because making an enemy of your immediate neighbour makes you less safe and stable.
Putin the “war criminal”
Strong western rhetoric has labelled Putin a “war criminal” while unchecked calls for Putin’s assassination pepper the western narrative sphere, although this accusation has the potential to backfire as any criteria against which Putin is judged could be turned against any western nation who has been involved in invasive overt or covert military operations post 9/11, including drone strikes. It is highly unlikely that Putin will be accountable under international law, given its actions to date in the international forum of the UN preceding the invasion of Ukraine and the lack of recognition of the ICC (along with the US and China).
Western weapon sales into Ukraine
Weapons are being sold and supplied to Ukraine on at least a partial credit basis, which will have an ongoing effect on the country’s economy and debt. Actively selling weapons to Ukraine in support of its “right to self-defence” is good for the military industrial security surveillance complex, but is considered separate and distinct from “boots on the ground” despite the fact that weapons must be in the possession of capable operators in order to be effective.
US Congress formalises continuous intervention in any form
The rolling western narrative has seemingly abandoned recent history to the point that the issue of NATO expansion and “denazification” are being respectively inverted and side-lined. Russia being labelled an overt enemy is an existential reason for more NATO, not less. NATO is the US empire by another name, so by implication the world needs more of the US too. This stance is directly expressed in the passed Bill S.3488 - Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022 that now explicitly pits the US/NATO against the Russian Federation in a proxy war and paves the way for a full military stand-off. This is a direct contradiction of the supposed Obama Doctrine, which stated the opposite.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) it is in the national security interests of the United States to continue and deepen the security partnership between the United States and Ukraine, and support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity;
(2) aggression and malign influence by the Government of the Russian Federation and its proxies in Ukraine is a threat to the democratic sovereignty of Ukraine;
(3) in coordination with the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and members of the international community, the United States should support the territorial integrity of Ukraine and oppose any effort by the Government of the Russian Federation to further encroach on Ukraine’s territory and independence;
(4) the United States should work in close concert with allies and partners of the United States—
(A) to support and expedite the provision of lethal and non-lethal assistance to Ukraine; and
(B) to support and bolster the defense of Ukraine against potential renewed aggression and military escalation by the Government of the Russian Federation or its proxies
(5) the United States and NATO should not cede to the demands of the Government of the Russian Federation regarding NATO membership or expansion;
(6) economic and financial sanctions, when used as part of a coordinated and comprehensive strategy, are a powerful tool to advance United States foreign policy and national security interests; and
(7) the United States, in coordination with allies and partners of the United States, should impose substantial new sanctions in the event that the Government of the Russian Federation or its proxies engages in escalatory military operations or other destabilizing aggression against Ukraine.
SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY. It is the policy of the United States that—
(1) the United States will support the territorial integrity of Ukraine and other Eastern European countries against aggression by the Government of the Russian Federation or its proxies;
(2) the United States will work to ensure the swift and ongoing provision of lethal and non-lethal security assistance to Ukraine, particularly so long as the Government of the Russian Federation or its proxies has armed forces within the territorial borders of Ukraine or stationed near Ukraine’s border;
(3) the United States will continue to build the resiliency of Ukraine’s military and cyber defenses and bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend against aggression by the Government of the Russian Federation;
(4) the United States will continue to improve Ukraine’s interoperability with NATO forces and seek to further enhance security cooperation and engagement with and among partners in the Black Sea and Baltic region;
(5) the United States will work closely with regional partners, including those in the Black Sea region and the Baltic states, to strengthen Ukrainian and regional security; and
(6) the United States is committed to a strong and unified NATO and will not cede to the demands of the Government of the Russian Federation regarding NATO membership.
Source: Bill S.3488 Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022
Russian underperformance, “stalled operations”, massive casualties
Heavy emphasis is being placed on the notion that Russian progress is literally stalling for reasons including stronger than anticipated Ukrainian defence, lack of flexibility in Russian tactics, supply line starvation, inferior equipment and personnel, and the combat loss of key military commanders. While Russia itself had issued no indication of losses it has sustained, asserted western estimates range up to over 15,000 Russian losses. Russia formally stated that “as of March 25, 2022, 1,351 servicemen were killed, 3,825 were injured”, which is radically lower than western assertions. Western media reports are repeatedly airing combat footage sequences that bear the watermarks of the Nazi Azov battalion. Western reports of the house arrest of Andrey Soldatov, Head of the FSB’s foreign intelligence branch have been attributed to Putin’s frustration at progress in the Ukrainian theatre. Western maps of Russian progress lag those presented by pro-Russian sources and accompany blanket reports of Russian underperformance which frequently stem from Ukrainian state sources or various western estimates that often take the form of assertions with no reference to publicly available Russian reports and possible evidence.
Critique of Russian strategy and progress tends towards Russia “underperforming” often without contextual reference to its stated objectives and how Ukrainian force distribution is being engaged. Russian plans are largely the object of generally negative mainstream speculation, although experienced military analysts including General Douglas MacGregor and Scott Ritter run counter to the narrative. Bill Roggio’s commentary is similar but watered down, possibly in order to make it into the MSM. MacGregor and certainly Ritter are locked out and confined to periphery and alt-media. They both state that Ukraine has already effectively lost the military confrontation and the west’s options for affecting the overt military situation are few against a nuclear backstop, but acknowledge that war by other means presents the west with other options. An obvious western objective is to force Russia into a long term conflict a la Afghanistan by any means possible while executing multi-front pincer movements.
Russian forces are described to be both losing and directly and deliberately attacking civilian populations, although this has been denied by Russia from the start and it has not employed US-style “shock and awe” bombing that inflicted massive and indiscriminate civilian casualties seen in Iraq at levels that radically exceed those reported in Ukraine over equivalent periods. In the first month of conflict, approximately 1000 civilian casualties have been reported in Ukraine, compared to 7000 in the first month of the Iraq war. Western reports include Russian attacks on schools, hospitals and the Mariupol theatre. However, these reports often lack an explanation of why such targets would be attacked or comprehensive circumstances of the attacks, despite a plethora of freely available footage showing possible Ukrainian military activity within populated civilian areas including:
artillery positions established in a school yard;
troops assembling and sheltering inside schools;
a purported Ukrainian sapper booby-trapping a mobile kiosk in the grounds of a school;
civilian hostages being held by Ukrainian troops inside a school.
The Mariupol theatre attack may have been a Ukrainian false flag: Azov may have blown the theatre from the inside and then released a false narrative of a Russian aerial attack in order to draw in more western support, according to alternative reporting sources.
Russia’s supposed failure in theatre runs directly counter to:
Zelenskyy’s literal begging for a NATO no-fly zone and any form of additional military support via increasingly emotive, targeted (possibly theatrical and crass) speeches to a variety of western governments;
The US congressional bill formalising overt and covert lethal and non-lethal support;
Western supply of weapons to Ukraine to the point of western stock depletion (admitted by UK and Canada);
NATO troop build up in Eastern Europe;
Ingress (and subsequent destruction or rapid egress) of foreign mercenaries, of which Russia claims there are over 6000. Some reports from mercenaries in mainstream and alternative channels have stated that there is effectively brutal chaos awaiting those who join. Accounts mention no meaningful supplies or training, enforced contracts that bind signatories to indefinite service for a pittance, being sent to the frontline with 10 rounds of ammunition and being forced back to the frontline if caught trying to leave the country. One supposed survivor of the Starichi and Yavoriv mercenary base stated, “People need to stop coming here. It’s a trap, and they’re not letting you fucking leave.”
UK Defence Secretary reveals UK’s ongoing intention to extend conflict
The UK Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, recently revealed some of the level of support the UK has provided and some of its intended future actions in a video call to Russian pranksters, Vovan and Lexus, who pretended to be the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal. Wallace explicitly referenced a “next phase” of the conflict. He indicated that the UK is in a pro-active position with troops throughout Eastern Europe, and intends to continue to prolong the conflict via weapons supply/sales, proxy support and manoeuvring the British Navy into close proximity of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. He also stated that he effectively supports the involvement of sufficiently professional mercenaries in the Ukrainian theatre. Despite being “a military man”, Wallace compromised UK national security via an unvetted video call while travelling in Poland to the point that even the pranksters chose to redact some of the call in order to (supposedly) preserve some degree of UK national security.
Source: UK Column News, March 25 2022
US Biolab denials, admissions, semantics and telegraphing of possible chemical/biological (false flag) attack
At the UNSC, the US and allies flat out denied the presence of biolabs capable of producing bioweapons in Ukraine. The US has now engaged in a game of semantics while formally admitting the presence of biolabs producing dangerous pathogens in Ukraine, despite its earlier denial. Under oath, Victoria Nuland stated:
Ukraine has… err… biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to… err… gain control of so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.
Source: Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admits Ukraine has "biological research facilities"
This was a precursor statement to then state that any chemical or biological weapon release inside Ukraine would be, in Nuland’s opinion, the sole work of Russian forces. That statement has been used to bolster and justify a future “appropriate” US/NATO response to such an attack, while effectively sidestepping the issue of what exactly is being carried out inside the US biolabs spread around the globe but concentrated along the Russian borders. Such statements are made under the shadow of the proven false OPCW and US claims of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government.
There is a possibility that the US has hereby telegraphed western intent to execute a false flag chemical or biological release in theatre to manufacture a pretext to justify escalatory action, like it did in Syria. On February 18th, Ukrainian forces were alleged to have attempted to blow up ammonia storage tanks in Gorlovka. On March 9th, the Russian MOD purportedly stated that 80 tons of ammonia was being prepared by the Ukrainians to use in a false flag chemical attack. On March 21st, Dmitry Zhivitsky, the head of Sumy Regional State Administration was reported to have declared an ammonia leak in the region of Sumy, Kharkov affecting a 2.5-5km area.
Hunter Biden, laptop and emails confirmed true, connections to previously denied biolabs
Despite mass denials of the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop story since 2019, and claims that the story was the totally false product of Russian “disinformation”, the US media have now conceded that the laptops and their contents are true. Hunter Biden is under investigation by the DOJ for tax matters that draw in evidence from the laptop. At present, there appears to be a deliberate focus on Biden Jr’s “lesser” illegal and unsavoury activities including drug taking, sexual acts (including possible familial abuse and paedophilia) possibly in order to distract from the bigger picture of international fraud, theft and political lobbying for profit by the Biden family via Burisma, Rosemont Seneca and Metabiota, and the suppression of this information during the last US election.
President Biden suggests that there is intent to insert troops and seek Russian regime change
President Joe Biden has told US troops in Poland:
“You’re going to see when you’re there, and some of you have been there, you’re gonna see — you’re gonna see women, young people standing in the middle in front of a damned tank just saying, ‘I’m not leaving, I’m holding my ground.’”
Source: New York Post - Biden tells US troops they’ll be in Ukraine in war gaffe
He has also publicly stated, "For God's sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power,” although White House staff and others have attempted to walk back what could be interpreted as a direct call for “regime change” in Russia, which comes on top of calls for Putin’s assassination by Lindsay Graham and other public figures, including British talking heads on GB News and other outlets.
Western censorship and information control follows Covid MO
“I support the current thing” is a perhaps apt, sardonic meme that succinctly illustrates a major aspect of the west’s approach to narrative control or, put another way, to how it wages cognitive warfare on us.
All the big tech platforms and the corporate media are visibly repeating the same methods of narrative development and delivery as was seen in Covid. Nearly all channels are transmitting the same perspective in lockstep, bar one or two. Only alt-media and the periphery sources (including niche eastern outlets) carry wider perspectives but they are very unlikely to turn up on the first two pages of search results (even in non google searches). Western reporting presents as near truth assertions about the conflict issued by Ukrainian authorities with little or no independent verification. None of this is new. Nor is the deliberate construction of articles whose certainty of headline is simply not supported by the article’s content.
In this regard, I make a suggestion to you. Try reading a western news article from bottom to top and see if the headline and first two paragraphs make sense and/or are justifiable by the time you get to them. If it isn’t, why is that?