Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TopHatter
    replied
    Russian disinformation is about immigration. The real aim is to undercut Ukraine aid


    Phill Cady holds a sign during a "Take Our Border Back" rally on Feb. 3, 2024, in Quemado, Texas. Online actors tied to the Kremlin have begun pushing misleading and incendiary claims about U.S. immigration in an apparent bid to target American voters ahead of the 2024 election.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — For Vladimir Putin, victory in Ukraine may run through Texas' Rio Grande Valley.

    In recent weeks, Russian state media and online accounts tied to the Kremlin have spread and amplified misleading and incendiary content about U.S. immigration and border security. The campaign seems crafted to stoke outrage and polarization before the 2024 election for the White House, and experts who study Russian disinformation say Americans can expect more to come as Putin looks to weaken support for Ukraine and cut off a vital supply of aid.

    In social media posts, online videos and stories on websites, these accounts misstate the impact of immigration, highlight stories about crimes committed by immigrants, and warn of dire consequences if the U.S. doesn't crack down at its border with Mexico. Many are misleading, filled with cherry-picked data or debunked rumors.

    The pivot toward the United States comes after two years in which Russia's vast disinformation apparatus was busy pushing propaganda and disinformation about its invasion of Ukraine. Experts who study how authoritarian states use the internet to spread disinformation say eroding support for Ukraine remains Russia's top priority — and that the Kremlin is just finding new ways to do it.

    “Things have shifted, even in the last few days," said Kyle Walter, head of research at Logically, a tech company that tracks disinformation campaigns. While experts and government officials have long warned of Russia's intentions, Walter said the content spotted so far this year "is the first indication that I’ve seen that Russia is actually going to focus on U.S. elections.”

    This month Logically identified dozens of pro-Russian accounts posting about immigration in the U.S., with a particular interest in promoting recent anti-immigration rallies in Texas. A recent Logically assessment concluded that after two years spent largely dedicated to the war in Ukraine, Russia’s disinformation apparatus has “started 2024 with a focus on the U.S.”

    Many posts highlight crimes allegedly committed by recent immigrants or suggest migrants are a burden on local communities. Some claims were posted by accounts with tiny audiences; others were made by state media sites with millions of followers.

    This week the accounts seized on the recent death of a Georgia nursing student and the arrest of a Venezuelan man who had entered the U.S. illegally and was allowed to stay to pursue his immigration case. The killing that quickly became a rallying cry for former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who suggest that migrants commit crimes more often than do U.S. citizens. The evidence does not support those claims.

    The content, crafted in English, has quickly found its way to websites and platforms popular with American voters. Footage of a recent anti-immigration protest broadcast by Russian outlet RT, for example, was racking up thousands of views this week on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and prompting angry replies from other users.

    The Russian outlet Sputnik ran a story this week about growing calls to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, a priority for Trump, who failed to complete the job as president. An analysis of other sites that later linked to the Sputnik piece shows than half were in the U.S., according to data from the online analytics firm Semrush.com. Overall, Americans make up the English-language Sputnik's largest audience.

    U.S. officials have warned that Russia could seek to meddle in the elections of dozens of countries in 2024, when more than 50 nations accounting for half of the world's population are scheduled to hold national votes. While Russia has a strategic interest in the outcome of many of them — the European Parliament, for one — few offer the opportunity and the prize that America does.

    For Russia's bid to conquer Ukraine, this year's U.S. election stakes couldn't be higher. President Joe Biden has pledged to fully back Ukraine. Republicans have been far less supportive. Trump has openly praised Putin and the former president has suggested he would encourage Russia to attack America's NATO allies if they don't pay their fair share for the military alliance.

    More than half of Republicans believe the U.S. is spending too much on Ukraine, according to a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that found Democrats to be much more supportive of additional aid.

    Soon after the war started, Russia mounted a disinformation campaign designed to cut into support for Ukraine. Claims included wild stories about secret U.S. germ warfare labs or Nazi conspiracies or that Ukrainian refugees were committing crimes and taking jobs from people who had welcomed them.

    That effort continues, but Russia also has shifted its attention to issues with no obvious tie to Moscow that are more likely to create cracks in the unity of its adversaries — for example immigration, or inflation, high-profile topics in the U.S. and Europe.

    “They're very savvy and understand the right buttons to push," said Bret Schafer, senior fellow and head of the information manipulation team at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a Washington-based nonprofit. "If your ultimate objective is to reduce support for Ukraine, your inroad might be talking about how bad things are on the southern border. Their path to win this thing is to get the U.S. and the E.U. to stop sending weapons and aid to Ukraine.”

    A message left with the Russian Embassy in Washington wasn't immediately returned.

    America’s election may also be a tempting target for other authoritarian nations such as China and Iran that, like Russia, have shown a willingness to use online propaganda and disinformation to further their objectives.

    The online landscape has dramatically shifted since Russia sought to meddle in America's 2016 presidential race won by Trump. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have banned many Russian state accounts and built new safeguards aimed at preventing anyone from exploiting their sites. In one recent example, Meta, the owner of Facebook, announced last fall that it had identified and stopped a network of thousands of fake accounts created in China in an apparent effort to fool American voters.

    Other platforms, including X, have taken a different approach, rolling back or even eliminating content moderation and rules designed to stop disinformation. Then there is TikTok, whose ties to China and popularity with young people have set off alarms in several state capitals and Washington.

    Artificial intelligence is another concern. The technology now makes it easier than ever to create audio or video that is lifelike enough to fool voters.

    Social media is no longer the only battleground either. Increasingly, Russia and other disinformation spreaders use encrypted messaging sites or websites that masquerade as legitimate news outlets.

    “A lot of their activity has moved off the major platforms to places were they can operate more freely,” said John Hultquist, chief analyst at Mandiant Intelligence, a cybersecurity firm monitoring Russian disinformation.

    Walter, Logically's research director, said he is most concerned about disinformaton on X and TikTok this year, given their lack of controls and their popularity, especially with young voters. TikTok's ties to China have raised national security concerns.

    He said that while election years tend to highlight the dangers of disinformation, the most effective information operations are launched years in advance. America's adversaries have spent a long time studying its politics, building online networks and cultivating domestic divisions.

    Now comes the payoff.

    “They don’t need to put a ton of effort into causing disinformation," Walter said. "They’ve already laid the groundwork leading up to 2024.”

    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Biden officials weigh giving Ukraine weapons without replacing U.S. stocks right away

    Biden administration officials met Tuesday at the Pentagon to discuss ways to fill some of Ukraine’s urgent needs for artillery and ammunition quickly, including possibly drawing down U.S. stockpiles without replenishing them immediately or without waiting for more money from Congress, say two senior administration officials and a congressional official.

    In the meeting, officials discussed various ways the Pentagon could resupply critical artillery and ammunition that Ukraine is expected to run out of soon, even while the White House’s request for new funding from Congress remains stalled, the officials said. No decisions have been made, according to the officials.

    The discussions reflect growing alarm in the administration that Ukraine is poised to run out of key weaponry in the next few weeks, including 155 mm artillery rounds and air defense munitions.

    Not all administration officials support the idea of sending a tranche of aid to Ukraine as a stopgap move, however. Some administration and congressional officials are concerned that such a move could imperil White House negotiations with Congress, particularly House Republican leaders, to get roughly $60 billion in new Ukraine aid through the chamber. Other officials are wary of the idea because it could put the U.S. military’s stockpiles below levels that are considered necessary for sufficient readiness.

    But after months of fiercely protecting stockpiles in the name of military readiness, Pentagon officials are now warming to the idea of accepting some risk to U.S. readiness in order to keep Ukraine in the fight.

    A spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said, "We are focused on urging the House of Representatives to pass the national security supplemental package as soon as possible. Ukraine needs the full resources in that package and Speaker Johnson should put it to a vote, where it would overwhelmingly pass, since there is no other way to fully meet Ukraine's needs."

    In a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “The DoD continues to urge Congress to pass a supplemental to support Ukraine in its time of need and to replenish our stocks.”

    The House is not expected to move on Ukraine aid until at least late March. But even if that happens, the process is not expected to be swift, given GOP opposition in the House to a Senate bill that passed earlier this month.

    The Pentagon still has about $4 billion in congressionally approved Presidential Drawdown Authority funding, meaning it can provide $4 billion worth of weapons and equipment from U.S. stockpiles to Ukraine. But the Pentagon does not have enough approved funding available to replace the weapons and equipment after the U.S. sends it. Without funding, Biden administration officials must decide whether the risk of depleting of U.S. stockpiles without guarantees of when they’ll be replenished is a risk worth taking.

    The idea of providing artillery and ammunition from U.S. stockpiles, even without a supplemental, has been on the table for a few weeks, according to a congressional official, but it is a last resort move when Congress has no more options. The official said that there is momentum now and that if the president approves this now, it could undermine progress that is being made in Congress and damage their argument that the supplemental is critical now.

    Two congressional officials say the goal is to pass Ukraine funding in the third week of March in order to sustain that country in its war against Russia and they anticipate a vote by the end of March. If the House can’t get the funding passed by then, the administration can take the ammunition from U.S. stockpiles, “but to do it now would absolutely kill us,” one congressional official said.
    _______

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    But getting back to Statquot's point about info war against the Ukrainians, taking out the node can be legitimate military targetting but deliberately targeting the liars can be considered as actions against civilians in violations of the GC. Lying to the enemy is not a war crime nor does it make you an enemy combatant. If the person making the lie happens to die when the node is taken out is taken out, then that's collateral damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Legal but waste of resources. I can think of more important and easier targets such as bridges and railways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    What is your opinion if the Ukrainians were, say, to target Lavrov, Zakharova, Medvedev?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    I'm saying Baghdad Bob did not make himself a target by being ineffective. There were other bombing priorities. If al-Sahhaf had Goebbels' wit, he would have been assigned a bomb, ie knowing what message to send out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    So then are you saying al-Sahhaf would have been a legitimate target on March 19, 2003 in a targeted strike specifically aimed at taking him out, but not on March 21st?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    The Iraqi Chain-of-Communications collapsed once the war started. Goebbels' was still active beyond his death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    I don't know who gave Baghdad Bob his orders on what to say/what not to say. But they occupied the same position within their respective governments. An information minister and propaganda minister are the same thing. al-Sahhaf had served two years in that position, and a previous nine as the Iraqi foreign minister. Yeah, he might have been ad-libbing for those last few days in April 2003 as the Iraqi government collapsed and its members went on the run, but his position in the "chain" wasn't any different than Goebbels.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    What's the difference between Baghdad Bob and Goebbels?
    Goebbels communicated actual policy. Baghdad Bob was spouting his own ... I don't know what he's spouting but we do know it wasn't from Saddam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    What's the difference between Baghdad Bob and Goebbels?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    Anwar al-Awlaki was taken out in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. He was engaged in information warfare and ideological motivation of terrorism. Killing him wasn't really any different than Ukraine's targeting of Aleksandr Dugin, which ended up killing Daria Dugina (who was essentially engaged in the same propaganda and ideological motivation regarding the Russian war against Ukraine as her father).

    Goebbels no doubt would have gotten the noose and danced the Spandau Ballet had he not committed suicide. I doubt he was ever an actual combatant engaged in active hostilities, against either Allied forces or victims of the Holocaust.

    Clearly, the US has no qualms taking out the motivators of violence advocating the targeting of the US and its citizens. Maybe the question that should be asked is should Ukraine be held to a different standard?
    I don't have enough intel about Dugina but all the others you've listed are part of the Chain-of-Communications, legitimate military targets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    Anwar al-Awlaki was taken out in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. He was engaged in information warfare and ideological motivation of terrorism. Killing him wasn't really any different than Ukraine's targeting of Aleksandr Dugin, which ended up killing Daria Dugina (who was essentially engaged in the same propaganda and ideological motivation regarding the Russian war against Ukraine as her father).

    Goebbels no doubt would have gotten the noose and danced the Spandau Ballet had he not committed suicide. I doubt he was ever an actual combatant engaged in active hostilities, against either Allied forces or victims of the Holocaust.

    Clearly, the US has no qualms taking out the motivators of violence advocating the targeting of the US and its citizens. Maybe the question that should be asked is should Ukraine be held to a different standard?
    Last edited by Ironduke; 27 Feb 24,, 15:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by statquo View Post
    I have a question for discussion that stems from a podcast I was listening to. Essentially, the Russians have shaped the information battlefield to lean on Ukraine skeptics in a way that we haven't seen before. This has consequences on the battlefield as we can see today. Should actors who engage in information warfare be treated as combatants? If you're engaging in information warfare and you are engaged in shaping the battlefield, should you not be subjected to cyber or kinetic actions?
    Lying in open space is not illegal. Tokyo Rose, Baghdad Bob as examples.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by statquo View Post
    I have a question for discussion that stems from a podcast I was listening to. Essentially, the Russians have shaped the information battlefield to lean on Ukraine skeptics in a way that we haven't seen before. This has consequences on the battlefield as we can see today. Should actors who engage in information warfare be treated as combatants? If you're engaging in information warfare and you are engaged in shaping the battlefield, should you not be subjected to cyber or kinetic actions?
    They should be but they won't be.

    It's kinda like Russian fighters downing NATO drones with their jet wash, fuel dumps or just plain ramming them (no pun intended).

    They've clearly deliberately destroyed an expensive piece of NATO property, just as surely as if they've launched a missile at it....but because it was jet wash/fuel dump/collision and not a missile, the incident can be "dismissed" as an "accident" and not an act of war.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X