Report: Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Luthierbrown
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

I think the problem is your sexist egotistical ranting in which you are always so much smarter than the people here who are incapable of thinking on your level.

You seem to think all this happens in a vacuum where you post something with very little description or analyzation of your own. Unless it's a ground breaking expose perhaps you should try using your own ideas to describe the article. It's a thread not open heart surgery nobody needs to take you seriously and it's nothing but ego that makes you think they should.

Most of the threads I read of yours are long articles with very few of your own words. Like hey I just found this but I don't understand the big picture enough to know how it fits into the current running dialogue on the issue. How does this fit into the discussions being made about this topic. It's not a vacuum people have opinions about it and your topic headlines do not have a neutral tone. How many articles do have on western propaganda?

I posted this report because it is one of the first in depth recent analyses I have seen on the subject.

I do not need to add my own polemic at the start. That is a job for people like you.

I have definitely laid out very fair and balanced frame works for discussion here -- but the same 'ethnocentrists' (as you use the term) arrive with their tinfoil hats already fully covering their eyes. They talk about 'petrodollars' and 'NWO' and all the other nonsensical, anti-intellectual rubbish -- talking points they've gleamed from late night talk radio and conspiracy sites. I cannot help it if they are laypersons and have no real world experience or education.

If you want to talk about a real lack of intelligence, let us talk of the people here who inevitably latch onto (in the most absolutist way), elaborate coverups or conspiracies wherever there are more rational and dialectical political factors at play.

If you want to talk bias, look at yourself.

I just posted an article about the theoretical underpinnings of Russian propaganda today. If you want to talk about something else, go start your own thread. Do not be so obtuse!

So your purpose then is to educate the people here with an article you read then don't choose to explain how the article fits in to the obvious hot topic of Russia and the ukraine with probably hundreds of threads. I assume you as an intellectual understand this site and the threads are used to debate viewpoints correct?

So who is the fool really? The person who expects everyone "smart" agrees and these crazy conspiracy nuts keep derailing my thoughts on a UFO site? Perhaps a little more open mind will help ou persuade these idiots!

a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Just looking over the main points...

Looks accurate, but my critique is that the whole analysis seems to be based on a post-Cold War timeline (ie, the era of unipolar capitalist globalization).

If this were a Marxist analysis, it would go way back a hundred years and analyze every instance a major western power threatened the existence of Russia, and what Russia did in reaction. It's all cumulative.

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Just looking over the main points...

Looks accurate, but my critique is that the whole analysis seems to be based on a post-Cold War timeline (ie, the era of unipolar capitalist globalization).

If this were a Marxist analysis, it would go way back a hundred years and analyze every instance a major western power threatened the existence of Russia, and what Russia did in reaction. It's all cumulative.

Yes a Marxist critique would be very interesting here! Although, it would probably demand an immense written scope discussing means of production and class structure which inevitably becomes convoluted and statistic-oritened if modern. Perhaps somebody will make such a dissertation. We will have to wait. Or maybe we could put forth some speculation now in this vein, if only shorthand?

This paper is just a modern type case study, an artifact typical of research consultancies. It is silly to call it propaganda, as it is not intended for public consumption. The emphasis is not on convincing ideologically -- but rather gaining a multi perspective and predictive insight. Such is the nature of modern intelligence analysis. Although you are correct that many are still fighting the last Cold War.

I feel neglectful for just putting forth the abstract's points.

The really interesting portion is about the Panarin and Dugin school's of information warfare theory!

I am trying to find more primary sources in them now although English translations seem rare.

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Just looking over the main points...

Looks accurate, but my critique is that the whole analysis seems to be based on a post-Cold War timeline (ie, the era of unipolar capitalist globalization).

If this were a Marxist analysis, it would go way back a hundred years and analyze every instance a major western power threatened the existence of Russia, and what Russia did in reaction. It's all cumulative.

Yes a Marxist critique would be very interesting here! Although, it would probably demand an immense written scope discussing means of production and class structure which inevitably becomes convoluted and statistic-oritened if modern. Perhaps somebody will make such a dissertation. We will have to wait. Or maybe we could put forth some speculation now in this vein, if only shorthand?

This paper is just a modern type case study, an artifact typical of research consultancies. It is silly to call it propaganda, as it is not intended for public consumption. The emphasis is not on convincing ideologically -- but rather gaining a multi perspective and predictive insight. Such is the nature of modern intelligence analysis. Although you are correct that many are still fighting the last Cold War.

Not at all. Read "Imperialism" by Lenin which was a brief analysis of empires competing a century ago and it will look very similar to a modern analysis.

EDIT:

Just to add: A "Marxist" analysis is quite different from Marx's analysis. Marxist analyses are used in every social field, theorizing the basis of conflict and disparity as resulting from class power relations on all scales of social demarcation.

For instance, geopolitics is a Marxist analysis in that a geostrategist is always going to identify the richer nations with strong economies, under the paradigm of capitalism, as imperialistic with political agendas that reach beyond their own borders.

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Just looking over the main points...

Looks accurate, but my critique is that the whole analysis seems to be based on a post-Cold War timeline (ie, the era of unipolar capitalist globalization).

If this were a Marxist analysis, it would go way back a hundred years and analyze every instance a major western power threatened the existence of Russia, and what Russia did in reaction. It's all cumulative.

Yes a Marxist critique would be very interesting here! Although, it would probably demand an immense written scope discussing means of production and class structure which inevitably becomes convoluted and statistic-oritened if modern. Perhaps somebody will make such a dissertation. We will have to wait. Or maybe we could put forth some speculation now in this vein, if only shorthand?

This paper is just a modern type case study, an artifact typical of research consultancies. It is silly to call it propaganda, as it is not intended for public consumption. The emphasis is not on convincing ideologically -- but rather gaining a multi perspective and predictive insight. Such is the nature of modern intelligence analysis. Although you are correct that many are still fighting the last Cold War.

Not at all. Read "Imperialism" by Lenin which was a brief analysis of empires competing a century ago and it will look very similar to a modern analysis.

EDIT:

Just to add: A "Marxist" analysis is quite different from Marx's analysis. Marxist analyses are used in every social field, theorizing the basis of conflict and disparity as resulting from class power relations on all scales of social demarcation.

For instance, geopolitics is a Marxist analysis in that a geostrategist is always going to identify the richer nations with strong economies, under the paradigm of capitalism, as imperialistic with political agendas that reach beyond their own borders.

I admit I have read no whole work by the wise progenitor of Bolshevism. Although the suggestion reminds me of a dear old friend who possessed a rare volume of Lenin's philosophical notebooks.

I imagine it it is brimming with provocative insights, like a filmmaker writing on architecture.

originally posted by: Vovin


EDIT:

Just to add: A "Marxist" analysis is quite different from Marx's analysis. Marxist analyses are used in every social field, theorizing the basis of conflict and disparity as resulting from class power relations on all scales of social demarcation.

For instance, geopolitics is a Marxist analysis in that a geostrategist is always going to identify the richer nations with strong economies, under the paradigm of capitalism, as imperialistic with political agendas that reach beyond their own borders.

Yes, I was not necessarily thinking of Das Kapital.

I am most familiar in my early education (homeschooling) with the Marxist analysis of literature, something which I then found very disconcerting but now appreciate more than Freudian balderdash.

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Just looking over the main points...

Looks accurate, but my critique is that the whole analysis seems to be based on a post-Cold War timeline (ie, the era of unipolar capitalist globalization).

If this were a Marxist analysis, it would go way back a hundred years and analyze every instance a major western power threatened the existence of Russia, and what Russia did in reaction. It's all cumulative.

Yes a Marxist critique would be very interesting here! Although, it would probably demand an immense written scope discussing means of production and class structure which inevitably becomes convoluted and statistic-oritened if modern. Perhaps somebody will make such a dissertation. We will have to wait. Or maybe we could put forth some speculation now in this vein, if only shorthand?

This paper is just a modern type case study, an artifact typical of research consultancies. It is silly to call it propaganda, as it is not intended for public consumption. The emphasis is not on convincing ideologically -- but rather gaining a multi perspective and predictive insight. Such is the nature of modern intelligence analysis. Although you are correct that many are still fighting the last Cold War.

Not at all. Read "Imperialism" by Lenin which was a brief analysis of empires competing a century ago and it will look very similar to a modern analysis.

EDIT:

Just to add: A "Marxist" analysis is quite different from Marx's analysis. Marxist analyses are used in every social field, theorizing the basis of conflict and disparity as resulting from class power relations on all scales of social demarcation.

For instance, geopolitics is a Marxist analysis in that a geostrategist is always going to identify the richer nations with strong economies, under the paradigm of capitalism, as imperialistic with political agendas that reach beyond their own borders.

I admit I have read no whole work by the wise progenitor of Bolshevism. Although the suggestion reminds me of a dear old friend who possessed a rare volume of Lenin's philosophical notebooks.

I imagine it it is brimming with provocative insights, like a filmmaker writing on architecture.

Lenin's Marxist analysis of Europe during WWI is what led to the USSR. Lenin was the only real ideological leader that identified the real problems that caused so many people to needlessly die. The Czar and the anarchist leaders wanted to continue the war. Lenin identified that the war was nothing but petty power struggles over territory by advanced capitalist empires.

Russia itself was the most industrially advanced, but was financially owned by the western empires. Lenin correctly identified that to initiate a communist revolution, it must occur in the "weakest link", the country that was the most exploited. Russia was so exploited that most of its people were feudal-era peasants paying tribute to the dynastic Czar. The revolution was successful because the Bolsheviks presented the most progressive alternative AND because they defeated the western armies that had invaded Russia in an imperialist attempt to crush the communists and reinstate Russia as a feudalistic cesspool where the other empires owned the Russian industry sector.

Russia does not forget this invasion. It was an imperialist invasion to subvert Russia to foreign control.

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: ALoveSupreme

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Just looking over the main points...

Looks accurate, but my critique is that the whole analysis seems to be based on a post-Cold War timeline (ie, the era of unipolar capitalist globalization).

If this were a Marxist analysis, it would go way back a hundred years and analyze every instance a major western power threatened the existence of Russia, and what Russia did in reaction. It's all cumulative.

Yes a Marxist critique would be very interesting here! Although, it would probably demand an immense written scope discussing means of production and class structure which inevitably becomes convoluted and statistic-oritened if modern. Perhaps somebody will make such a dissertation. We will have to wait. Or maybe we could put forth some speculation now in this vein, if only shorthand?

This paper is just a modern type case study, an artifact typical of research consultancies. It is silly to call it propaganda, as it is not intended for public consumption. The emphasis is not on convincing ideologically -- but rather gaining a multi perspective and predictive insight. Such is the nature of modern intelligence analysis. Although you are correct that many are still fighting the last Cold War.

Not at all. Read "Imperialism" by Lenin which was a brief analysis of empires competing a century ago and it will look very similar to a modern analysis.

EDIT:

Just to add: A "Marxist" analysis is quite different from Marx's analysis. Marxist analyses are used in every social field, theorizing the basis of conflict and disparity as resulting from class power relations on all scales of social demarcation.

For instance, geopolitics is a Marxist analysis in that a geostrategist is always going to identify the richer nations with strong economies, under the paradigm of capitalism, as imperialistic with political agendas that reach beyond their own borders.

I admit I have read no whole work by the wise progenitor of Bolshevism. Although the suggestion reminds me of a dear old friend who possessed a rare volume of Lenin's philosophical notebooks.

I imagine it it is brimming with provocative insights, like a filmmaker writing on architecture.

Lenin's Marxist analysis of Europe during WWI is what led to the USSR. Lenin was the only real ideological leader that identified the real problems that caused so many people to needlessly die. The Czar and the anarchist leaders wanted to continue the war. Lenin identified that the war was nothing but petty power struggles over territory by advanced capitalist empires.

Russia itself was the most industrially advanced, but was financially owned by the western empires. Lenin correctly identified that to initiate a communist revolution, it must occur in the "weakest link", the country that was the most exploited. Russia was so exploited that most of its people were feudal-era peasants paying tribute to the dynastic Czar. The revolution was successful because the Bolsheviks presented the most progressive alternative AND because they defeated the western armies that had invaded Russia in an imperialist attempt to crush the communists and reinstate Russia as a feudalistic cesspool where the other empires owned the Russian industry sector.

Russia does not forget this invasion. It was an imperialist invasion to subvert Russia to foreign control.

Good points, although I am curious why you would claim Russia was the 'most industrially advanced' in 1911. There are many statistical measures for industrialization (GDP, percentage global manufacturing output, urbanization, etc.). By all of these, the UK, Germany and France led Russia by a large margin. If you were speaking of technological innovation, it would also be a pretty difficult task to argue that Russia was ahead of these countries.

I am sure that somebody, somewhere in Russia (maybe the diehard Communists) has a good notion of what motivated the October revolution. But I see much more yearning today in Russia for wealth generation, luxurious lifestyle, and the most visible of status symbols. 20 years ago, young Russians studied to become scientists and engineers. Today they prefer business and tourism.

If these young people cannot look back at Russia's recent past for inspiration -- which ended in total degradation -- where can they look?

They turn completely retrograde and look all the way back to the times of the Czar. They aspire to be imperialists once more. And thus they rally around symbols of the Romanovs and the Church and speak of a Third Rome, a Novorossiya! And so are all fascisms masquerading as national socialist redemptions born.

a reply to: ALoveSupreme

I said that Russia was the most industrially advanced, because they were. Russian urban centres were home to massive production lines created from foreign investment from other empires. Literally, they were the largest factories in Europe.

The disparity between the advanced industry in the cities and the backwards conditions in agricultural production is what Lenin was banking on to make the revolution work.

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: ALoveSupreme

Learn about polish people: they hate germans, but they hate russians much more, and they think Ukraine is their own territory as it was earlier.

As Polish - I would not agree with such description.

Germans - maybe some people of older generation have problems with them (those who actually lived during WW2), the rest don't care. (the difference here - from 1945 Germans behave more or less friendly, what simply can't be said about the SU/Russia)
Russians - It's hard to love people who occupied you, still try to mend in your private affairs, every few years put embargo on your food products and at this moment are invading nearby country.
Ukraine - not specially, maybe some ultra nationalists.