Shoigu Disappointed Putin by “Capturing” Lysychansk: a Digest of Russian Propaganda of July 4

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3523300-shoigu-disappointed-putin-by-capturing-lysychansk-a-digest-of-russian-propaganda-of-july-4.html

Shoigu Disappointed Putin by “Capturing” Lysychansk: a Digest of Russian Propaganda of July 4

Shoigu Disappointed Putin by “Capturing” Lysychansk: a Digest of Russian Propaganda of July 4

The Kremlin is boasting of “liberating the LPR,” but treats the main hero of this “victory” in a rather shady way.
The Centre for Strategic Communication and
Information Security has collected the main fakes and narratives of the
Russian propaganda of July 4.

  1. “The second-best army of the world” advanced by 117 km in 131 days
  2. What about the encirclement?
  3. Awaiting the zero-turnout “referendum”
  4. Russian Minister of Defence put in his place

The second-best army of the world” advanced by 117 km in 131 days

Russian Defence Minister Shoigu announced the complete “liberation of
the Luhansk People’s Republic” at a meeting with Putin. The latter
thanked for the “victory,” awarded two commanders of occupier troops
with the Hero of Russia title, and ordered the units of
the “Centre” group who participated in hostilities in that area to get
some rest.

“Other military units, including the ‘East’ and ‘West’ groups, must
complete their tasks as planned,” said Putin. All this happened on July
4. “The special operation for the liberation of the Donbas,” as you are
well aware, started on February 24.

IN REALITY, the distance between Luhansk and Lysychansk is
almost 117 kilometres. It takes an hour and 56 minutes to drive between
the two. It took the Russian army 131 days to cover this distance. The
only more or less formalized military “victory” (of course, temporary)
in the war with Ukraine cost Putin more than 36,200 soldiers, 1,589
tanks, 3,754 armoured fighting vehicles, 804 units of artillery systems,
246 anti-aircraft guns, 105 air defence systems, 217 aircraft, 187
helicopters and some other “trinkets,” like the Moskva warship.

That’s all you need to know about the “invincible and legendary
second-best army of the world” in Ukraine. Everything else is
propaganda, like “we are saving the civilians of Luhansk oblast,” or
fakes, like the “Azot plant in Sievierodonetsk rigged with explosives by
Nazis.”

It will forever be recorded in the history of this war that “reaching
the administrative borders of the LPR,” which were 117 kilometres away
from Luhansk, took the Russian army 131 days. And that’s it.

What about the encirclement?

Back in May, Russian military experts started to hype up the
inevitable encirclement between Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk. They
wrote that “according to various data, 9 to 11 thousand Ukrainian
servicemen from various units are actually besieged in Lysychansk and
Sievierodonetsk.”

They also pretend-analysed Ukrainian social media and concluded that
the Ukrainian leadership do not have a single opinion concerning its
troops, who may end up in encirclement. Eventually, Moscow went so far
as to claim that the decision to withdraw combat-ready units and
officers was “a compromise between President Zelenskyy and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Valerii Zaluzhnyi.”

The western “icing” on the propaganda cake was the idea that the
Sievierodonetsk encirclement allegedly makes Europe less decisive.

IN REALITY, there was no encirclement. For starters, no
Russian media published any footage of captive Ukrainian soldiers. Not
even staged pictures.

The Ukrainian defence forces moved in an organized manner to
previously established positions: Siversk, Soledar, Bakhmut. From a
military standpoint, it made no more sense to keep holding Lysychansk.
And even less sense to hold on to Sievierodonetsk. The city is barely
there. It suffered the same fate as the previously “liberated” Mariupol.

Here’s what we have got:

The occupiers’ forces are limited in actions and have suffered major losses;

Much-needed time has been gained for further supply of Western weapons and improving the second line of defence;

Groundwork has been laid for advancing on other areas of the front;

The Ukrainian military and political command did not follow the Stalinist principle of “not a single step back”;

Kyiv follows very simple logic: when there is an army, territory will
be recovered. Without an army, there will be no way to recover any
territories.

Russian propagandists and so-called military experts should probably be blocked themselves. In terms of information.

Awaiting the zero-turnout “referendum”

The leader of the so-called “LPR” Pasichnyk has already claimed that
“experienced, qualified people will be appointed to leadership positions
in Lysychansk; it is possible that they will be representatives of the
former administration.”

It seems that the fake republic will soon start talking about a
future referendum about joining something — who knows what, at this
point, since the Kremlin has not decided on its strategy, either. If
Shoigu’s army continues its glorious march of 117 km in 131 days, it is
unclear where this will all lead. In Kherson, they already announced a
“referendum” on September 11. Well, we’ll see. “South Ossetia,” which
has been “independent” since 2008, can share some experience here.

IN REALITY, the occupiers are facing another major problem
on the “liberated” territories — “legitimizing” the “referendum itch” of
the local collaborators.

The motivation of the latter is obvious: to formalize at least some
kind of status with a referendum to “make it official.” And later, they
can give up the made-up positions and get lost in the endless space of
Russian bureaucracy. One example is Trapeznykov, one of the former
“DPR” leaders, who is now governing the Russian Kalmykia.

There are, of course, other examples, way less successful. But the current Luhansk wannabes believe it’s their lucky day.

But what should Putin do? Of course, Putin can hardly be called a
strategic thinker, but how about at least a tactical task — finding
people who would show up to the “referendum”? Strangely, as of 2017,
there were 100,000 residents in Lysychansk, according to Surkov’s
calculations, “waiting to be liberated from Kyiv Nazis.” And now, when
the time has come, they are just 10,000 max. Somehow, nine out of ten
Lysychansk residents did not wait for the “liberators.”

Of course, they will write whatever numbers of supporters they like.
But how will they come up with the 100,000 residents of Lysychansk, the
same number for Sievierodonetsk, almost 57,000 people from Rubizhne and
other, smaller cities and towns of the “liberated” Luhansk oblast?

First, this is some tough logistics.

Second, if Moscow decides to use its favourite electoral trick in the
form of electronic vote, world hackers will have their work cut out for
them.

And there is a third way, a “parliamentary” vote, but considering
various dangers that regularly befall newly found “elected officials,”
there is no guarantee here.

Of course, Moscow will come up with something. Putin has probably
come to terms with the fact that nobody will recognize this (other than
maybe Syria). Although he stubbornly believes that he will handle it all
with the West later.

Russian Minister of Defence put in his place

Let’s wrap up with the meeting of Putin and Shoigu, where the latter
reported to the former that “LPR is ours.” Interestingly, the published
footage shows that the dictator tells his defence minister that he
has already received reports from two commanders of the “Ukrainian
vectors” Lapin and Surovikin.

IN REALITY, this way, Putin clearly showed Shoigu his place
in the new hierarchy. Before listening to his chief military commander,
Putin first listened to direct reports from his subordinates.

What was it: a protocol faux-pas, or an understated show of distrust?

What’s interesting, Putin’s spokesman Peskov said just a few days ago that the Kremlin maintains all anti-COVID measures.

These measures can be found in detail in the study “Kremlin
Quarantine during the War. How Vladimir Putin’s Health Is Guarded in
Russia.” It was released by the BBC. For instance, the “Rossiya” summer
squadron, whose crews fly with Putin, spent 125 million roubles on COVID
tests. Starting in June 2021, pilots and flight attendants have had to
take up to two thousand PCR tests and up to 600 antibody tests every
month. In addition, about 50 blood tests for biomarkers, and about
100–200 stool tests to identify the coronavirus.

94-year-old veteran Akhat Yulashev from Kazan was kept in quarantine
for two weeks before being allowed to shake Putin’s hand at the most
recent parade on May 9. This was the case for everyone sitting next to
Putin. This shows that the Kremlin chief is maniacally obsessed with his
health.

Considering the last meeting between Putin and Shoigu, this becomes
interesting because on June 26, the latter allegedly inspected the
command posts of the Russian military in Ukraine.

Only a week passed since then and before the meeting. So, either the
quarantine before meeting Putin has become shorter, or Shoigu did not
inspect the posts on June 26, or it was not Shoigu who did it, or his
meeting with Putin was completely staged.

In any case, the Russian minister of defence, who happily reported
about the “liberation of the LPR,” was put in his place. It no longer
matters if it was done by Putin or the Russian television. And that’s
all you need to know about July 4, the 131st day of Russia’s war in
Ukraine and the “liberation of the LPR.”

Centre for Strategic Communication and Information Security

Pentagon Confirms UFOs are Real – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2022/05/18/pentagon-confirms-ufos-are-real/

Why the recent flip?

Posted BY: Paul Joseph Watson

Why did the establishment and the legacy media flip from treating the entire UFO subject with scorn and ridicule to treating it with the utmost seriousness?

TRENDING: ‘Good Morning America’ Admits Covid Booster Shots Can Cause AIDS

Please share this video! https://youtu.be/f-G76aBG-Ls

US is world’s ‘greatest propagator of disinformation’ – Senator — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/555011-rand-paul-disinformation-mayorkas/

5 May, 2022 11:25

US is world’s ‘greatest propagator of disinformation’ – Senator

Washington has no right to tell its citizens what the truth is, Rand Paul claims
US is world's 'greatest propagator of disinformation’ – Senator
Due
to its long track record of disinformation, the US government has no
right to tell the American people what the truth is, Kentucky Senator
Rand Paul has stated. He went to list a number of examples of where
Washington had lied to its own people, and the rest of the world.

During
a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Paul grilled Secretary of Homeland
Security Alejandro Mayorkas over the so-called ‘Disinformation
Governance Board’ his agency has announced to supposedly help social
media platforms filter out ‘fake news.’

“Here’s the problem: we can’t even agree what disinformation is,” the Republican Senator pointed out. “You can’t even agree if it was disinformation that the Russians fed information to the Steele dossier.”

He
was referring to the controversial and largely discredited report that
relied on info from anonymous sources to allege collusion between the
Donald Trump campaign and Moscow ahead of the 2016 presidential election
in the US.

“If you can’t agree to that, how are we ever going to come to an
agreement on what is disinformation, so that you can police it on social
media?” Paul wondered.

“Do you know who the greatest propagator of disinformation in the history of the world is? The US government!” he insisted.

In
order to back his claim, the Senator mentioned several examples of
false information being deliberately spread by Washington over the past
decades.

Among them were the so-called Pentagon Papers, which
revealed that the US government had been misinforming the public about
the scale of its military operations during the Vietnam War. The
documents were officially declassified in 2011, but the media had been
reporting on them since 1971.

Paul also mentioned “George W. Bush and the weapons of mass destruction,”
referring to American claims that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been in
possession of WMD, claims that were used by the US to justify the
invasion of Iraq in 2003, but were never confirmed by findings on the
grounds.

His other example was the Iran–Contra affair, which saw
top US officials secretly organizing the sale of weapons to Iran in
violation of an arms embargo between 1981 and 1986 in order to obtain
money to fund the Contras insurgent group in Nicaragua.

“I mean, think over all the debates and disputes we’ve had over
the last 50 years in our country. We work them out by debating them. We
don’t work them out by the government being the arbiter,” the Senator said.

“I
want you to have nothing to do with speech… You think the American
people are so stupid they need you to tell them what the truth is?” Paul added.

The
creation of the Disinformation Governance Board was announced in late
April. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the new
body would help counter disinformation, which is being spread by “foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran,” and by human traffickers operating on the US-Mexico border, among others.

The
DHS gave assurances that it won’t be targeting US citizens. But critics
were quick to nickname the board ‘The Ministry of Truth,’ after a
fictional organization from George Orwell’s iconic dystopian novel
‘1984’.

Tulsi Gabbard suggests Obama behind ‘Ministry of Truth,’ says Biden just ‘front man’ | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

https://truth4freedom.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/tulsi-gabbard-suggests-obama-behind-ministry-of-truth-says-biden-just-front-man/

…Former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard suggested that former President Barack Obama is behind the effort to establish a Disinformation Governance Board, which she likened to George Orwell’s famed “Ministry of Truth.”

Source: Tulsi Gabbard suggests Obama behind ‘Ministry of Truth,’ says Biden just ‘front man’

North Korea issues fresh nuclear warning — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/554755-north-korea-nuclear-threat/

30 Apr, 2022 03:26

North Korea issues fresh nuclear warning

Leader Kim Jong-un vows to preempt any nuclear threat to his country
North Korea issues fresh nuclear warning
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has promised to take decisive action and “crush” any “hostile” foreign power, just days after saying Pyongyang would advance its own atomic arsenal “at the fastest possible speed.”

Speaking
after a meeting with senior officials involved in organizing a major
military parade earlier this week, Kim pointed to growing threats in a
world where “powers clash fiercely and keep getting stronger,” including in the nuclear sphere, arguing that “overwhelming” might is the only guarantee of his country’s security.

“In
order to preemptively and thoroughly crush all threatening actions,
including the continued and aggravated nuclear threat by the hostile
forces, if necessary, the Party Central Committee will firmly maintain
the absolute superiority of our revolutionary force and continuously
raise it,” Kim said, as cited by the state-run KCNA.

The remarks follow a pledge from Kim earlier this week to “continue to take measures for further developing the nuclear forces of our state at the fastest possible speed,” insisting Pyongyang must be ready for a nuclear deployment “at any time” amid steadily rising tensions with the United States.

Pyongyang
has carried out a series of weapons tests this year, including an
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), its first such launch since
2017 following a self-imposed moratorium on major arms tests. Those
moves coincided not only with the Joe Biden presidency in Washington,
but a change in leadership in Seoul more recently, with South Korean
President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol taking a much harder line against the
north than the prior head of state.

Both Biden and Yoon’s
predecessors – presidents Donald Trump and Moon Jae-in, respectively –
made significant diplomatic inroads with Pyongyang, resulting in a
number of summits, including a historic face-to-face meeting at the
infamous demilitarized zone (DMZ). Those efforts later fizzled, however,
leaving relations between all sides in limbo before Biden took office
in 2021.

‘Something is rotten in the state of Pakistan’: How Islamabad’s stance shapes the region — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/554069-political-crisis-pakistan-foreign-police/


Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for Firefox. Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

27 Apr, 2022 09:39

‘Something is rotten in the state of Pakistan’: How Islamabad’s stance shapes the region

Political crisis in Pakistan and its foreign policy: Constant and non-constant variables
'Something is rotten in the state of Pakistan': How Islamabad's stance shapes the region
Pakistan’s
traditionally complex and intricate domestic political environment has
just experienced another reshuffling. With the government headed by
Imran Khan determined to salvage its position, even by dissolving the
National Assembly (the lower chamber of the parliament), the joint
opposition led by Shehbaz Sharif proved its resolve to oust the prime
minister by appealing to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, another powerful
un-elected institution – the army – waited in the wings to come on
stage.

However, the play’s outcome turned out to be less dramatic
than some may have expected: parliamentarism, at the time empowered by
the Supreme Court’s interpretation of constitutionalism, prevailed over
the controversial ‘doctrine of necessity.’ The reconvened National
Assembly eventually voted in favor of the no-confidence motion that
ended up forcing Khan from his post.

This could have been just
another story of ‘how Pakistani civilian rulers can lose power’ if one
did not come to notice the presence of Russia in the room.

What does ‘Aazadi’ mean?

“We
are not a nation to be used as a tissue paper. We do not want a
one-sided relationship with anyone. When European Union ambassadors gave
a statement against protocol asking Pakistan to condemn Russia … can
they say that in India? Do they have the courage? “ – said the former prime minister during his address to the nation on April 8.

This time, Imran Khan had to accept the fact that he had lost the
support of both the political class – the wide range of opposition
parties along with dissidents from his own coalition; and the
establishment – the military, judiciary, civilian bureaucracy, ulema
(Muslim clergy), business circles and landowners. However, the ousted
national leader invoked a trump card that is certain to play its role in
the future: the allegation of foreign conspiracy.

Both the
country’s power elite and its population at large have always realized
that the idea of the ‘Muslim Nation’ – which is part of the two-nation
theory that predetermined the Partition of British India – is a rather
fragile construct. After gaining independence from the British in 1947,
Pakistan has survived several bloody conflicts with India over Kashmir
and other disputed territories, the secession of East Pakistan,
innumerable insurgencies in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh.
However, within the national meta-narrative all of those misfortunes
have historically been attributed to foreign interference aimed at
undermining Pakistani ‘aazadi’ – an important national concept that in
the Urdu language means ‘freedom’ or ‘independence’ – and thus
ultimately destroying the nation.

In Pakistani discourse, India is undoubtedly seen as ranking first among states that seek to “eliminate even the idea of the existence of the Muslim Nation.” Hence, the idea of full preparedness to deter what are perceived as “India’s aggressive policies,” counter its “covert intrigues” and uncover “insidious conspiracies”
organized by Indian security agencies is inherent in Pakistani society.
Not giving this sufficient attention is seen to be endangering aazadi
and statehood itself.

Nevertheless, India is not alone in the
interference ranking and is joined by an unsurprising character: the
United States. Pakistan’s ties with Washington are ambiguous and have
seen many ups and downs, but the two nations still appear to be
indispensable to each other. It is therefore no wonder that it was the
US that first voiced concern and objections in the wake of Khan’s visit
to Moscow on February 23-24.

Strategic partnership vs giving up to the infidel

At
the dawn of the Cold War, US strategists seem to have taken rather
reasonable steps by compelling Pakistan to join American initiatives in
constructing a regional security architecture. The goal was to contain
Soviet expansion in Asia. Back then, Pakistan had no choice but to align
with a superpower to enhance its defense capabilities – otherwise, the
lion’s share of its resources would have been spent on deterring India
alone.

The US and Pakistan put a premium on defense cooperation, including
officer training, arms trade and the building of military
infrastructure. By the mid-1960s, Pakistan had become better equipped
with arms and ammunition than its archrival India. However, when
Islamabad needed decisive support from Washington during the
Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971, the Americans preferred to abstain
and watch from afar the defeat of its “very important ally.”

During
the 1970s, America turned a blind eye to Pakistani strategic
considerations but spared no effort in lambasting Islamabad on sensitive
domestic issues. The situation changed when the Soviets intervened in
Afghanistan, and Pakistan was proclaimed a ‘frontline state,’ at which
point Washington provided it with military and financial aid to train
the Mujahideen. However, no sooner had Soviet troops left Afghan soil
than the US forgot about the strategic importance of Pakistan, and
Islamabad was left to clean its Augean stables without any assistance.

Indeed,
there were plenty of issues to deal with: an influx of refugees from
the neighboring war-torn country, the rise of radical Islamism at home,
and free circulation of arms and drugs. Public dissatisfaction with the
US actions and resentment at domestic governments “obeying kafirs”
tilted the narrative in an anti-secular, anti-Western and anti-American
direction. Consequently, ever since and up to the present day the
Pakistani political elite has had to balance the necessity of
cooperating with the US against deep-rooted public discontent at such
cooperation, which is seen as “denigrating the idea of Pakistani aazadi.”

This
pattern is unlikely to change: the US wants Pakistan to be in the right
place when it is needed, but when the need is gone Islamabad’s efforts
are of no importance. Meanwhile, the efforts that Pakistan does
undertake at the urging of the Americans seemingly do not imbue the
nation’s populace with much enthusiasm.

Thus, one should not be
surprised that Imran Khan, an experienced populist, positions himself as
an advocate of a multilateral approach to foreign relations. However,
notwithstanding the significant recent development of Russian-Pakistani
relations, which have borne out the prime minister’s multipolar
ambitions, crossing a red line on this path made the establishment
reconsider Khan’s position, which eventually became fatal for him.

Glass ceiling of thoughtful choice

Russia-Pakistan
ties have in fact made great strides in recent years. To begin with,
since Russia is wary of non-traditional security threats to Central
Asian states from Afghanistan, it maintains a dialogue on security
issues with Pakistan – the only regional actor having some leverage over
the Taliban. Cooperation in the defense sector has manifested itself in
the ‘Druzhba’ (Friendship) regular joint military exercises and Russian
participation in the ‘Aman’ (Peace) regular multinational naval drills.

Furthermore,
both countries are determined to facilitate economic interaction with a
focus on the energy sector and agriculture. Russian capabilities in
these areas could be of great value in dealing with South Asia’s eternal
problems of energy and food security. And finally, the views of Moscow
and Islamabad are aligned on multiple international issues, especially
when it concerns Western unilateral steps.

However, these dynamics
should not be overestimated. Russia-Pakistan relations have long been
complicated by the countries having belonged to opposing blocs during
the Cold War and the mutual mistrust in the context of the Afghan
crisis. Accordingly, Russia has shown a clear propensity to foster
relations with India, whereas Pakistan has turned toward the US.

On top of that, there is one truly crucial determinant that Russia
bears in mind – it is India that is Russia’s Special Privileged
Strategic Partner, not Pakistan. This imperative of Russian foreign
policy has existed for decades and is certain to be in place in the
aftermath of current developments.

That is why Moscow is going to
be extremely careful about cooperating with Islamabad – especially in
the fields that might bother New Delhi. And Russia hopes for a
reciprocal approach when it concerns the interaction between India and
the US. Otherwise, an obsession with loyalty to one country at the
expense of relations with another would likely bring about unintended
consequences.

History has no end

What we
should stipulate is that the removal of Imran Khan from office in
essence stems from various mounting challenges at home and the
government’s inability to tackle them. Ultimately, Khan’s visit to
Moscow and the disapproval of that visit publicly articulated by the US
merely served as a pretext for the establishment’s decision to leave
prime minister alone on the playing field.

With the umpire out,
the game is getting rougher. The joint opposition had threatened Imran
Khan with a no-confidence motion right after the general elections in
2018, but finally demonstrated its willingness to undertake decisive
steps after receiving the relevant signals from the army. While the
prime minister was focused on scrutinizing the US and appealing to
anti-American sentiment, the men in uniform decided to rebalance
Pakistan’s strategic priorities at the expense of developing relations
with Russia.

The chief of the Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, stated that the Russian military operation in Ukraine must be “stopped immediately” and that Pakistan shared a “long and excellent strategic relationship with the US.”
Such statements should not disturb a patient observer – the military
wants to fix its ties with the US and thus is willing to be critical of
Russian actions. Even so, such an equilibrium is unlikely to be durable.
Renewed romances between the US and Pakistan usually do not last long,
while there is always room for improving Russia-Pakistan relations.

The
same considerations apply to Imran Khan’s political future. Pakistani
history has seen some ousted prime ministers return to office – the
weapon to take the reins back is the Pakistani article of faith that
foreign powers aim to encroach on the nation’s aazadi. That feeling is
certain to be a constant variable in the nation’s sensibility and sooner
or later the opportunity to appeal to it will come. And the Americans
will not fail Imran Khan – they will undoubtedly provide him with the
chance to make such an appeal.

Podcasts

EU Puts Elon Musk On Notice Over Free Speech Plans For Twitter – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2022/04/26/eu-puts-elon-musk-on-notice-over-free-speech-plans-for-twitter/

Source: ZERO HEDGE

EU commissioner Thierry Breton told the Financial Times that Musk must follow rules on moderating illegal and harmful content online, since words have been elevated to ‘sticks & stones’ when it comes to the dangers of modern life.