Originally Posted By RolandofGilead:
On the topic of Russian propaganda and their infiltration into western institutions, this report is long but worth a read. You will note some tactics that we have seen in GD, and those on Twitter will absolutely recognize them.

https://www.underminers.info/s/Smagliy_Hybrid-Analytica_10-2018_upd.pdf

TL:DR
This report concludes that the Russian government pursues a coherent and well-coordinated "knowledge weaponization" strategy that has five inter-related components:1) engagement of Kremlin-linked Russian think tanks in the design of domestic and international communication strategies for the Putin regime;
2) establishment of influence centers abroad, which operate as think tanks, academic Russian study centers, cultural centers, various associations of Russian-speaking immigrants, etc.;
3) use of private, typically oligarch-sponsored, actors to promote the Kremlin's interests in the West;
4) reliance on Russian intelligence in the Kremlin's information warfare and infiltration of other countries through the network of agents of influence;
5) pursuit of a deliberate policy of employing Russian state or oligarch-controlled media as mul- tipliers, promoters and/or validators of pro-Kremlin narratives and messaging.



2.2. The Kremlin's Neo-Conservative Doctrine
The Kremlin's answer to this riddle took the form of the new ideological doctrine of "sovereign de- mocracy" (democracy without the rule of law, democratic values or the separation of power), which then evolved into the Russian "neo-conservatism doctrine," featuring the following elements:30
1) promotion of the concept of the superiority of Russians and the Russian state compared to other nations, and the glorification of Russia as the world's leading defender of "true" Christianity, morality, family and other conservative values;
2)revisionism of Russian/Soviet history and whitewashing of Soviet leaders, including Jo- seph Stalin; denial of Moscow's responsibility for mass crimes committed against the Rus- sian people as well as other nations of the USSR and abroad, particularly the 1932-33 genocide against Ukrainians; glorification of Russia's role in the World War Second victory over Nazi Germany and silencing the role of other nations in this success;
3)denial of Russia's responsibility for international aggression, including the war in Georgia in 2008 and the subsequent occupation of parts of its territory, de-facto occupation of parts of Moldova, and the ongoing undeclared war against Ukraine which has so far re- sulted in the illegal annexation of Crimea and the military occupation of Ukraine's eastern territories;4) 5) 6) 7)

4)dehumanizing Ukrainians; bashing Ukraine's culture and language; promoting narratives of fascist revival and anti-Semitism in Ukraine; misrepresenting Ukraine's current govern- ment as a Western puppet committed to neo-Nazi ideologies; discrediting Ukraine's post- Euromaidan reforms as incompetent; portraying Ukraine as a "failed" and "corrupt" state that is not worthy of Western support;

5)blaming the West for the Cold War and portraying Western sanctions against Russia as a return to a "morally bankrupt" and "unjust" "Cold War mentality";
criticism of the West for the "loss of its moral compass" and "degeneracy"; mocking Western concepts of human rights and democracy; accusing the West of double stand- ards;
6)hyperbolic focus on the West's economic and political troubles, which are misrepre- sented as inherent societal failures; support for anti-establishment groups and radical rightist and leftist ideologies in Europe and North America which are often misrepre- sented as legitimate voices speaking on behalf of whole societies;

Originally Posted By MelGibsonEnthusiast:

I know that you've promoted the idea that Lukashenko is a potential mole/double agent/defector for months, but respectfully, I'm not really buying it. Nothing indicates that he's willing to defect; all the evidence simply indicates that thus far, he hasn't been willing to directly commit troops due to the precarious position he would find himself in if he did. Presently, I feel as though we may have finally reached the point in which Putin has bribed/threatened Lukashenko into directly deploying forces to Ukraine. He might not, as his forces would certainly get slaughtered and he may very well get dragged through the streets Qaddafi style by the Belarusian people, but still, I'd put it at about a 60/40 chance that Russia pushes through Belarus into Ukraine again with Lukashenko's consent.

Originally Posted By ludder093:
China uses a lot of Russian stuff in their military.

Originally Posted By Capta:

We don’t know his intentions and I’ve never said that.
What I’ve tried to do is to look at Lukashenko’s actions and positioning from the perspective of “what is this consistent with?  What is possible?”  Not “what is the convenient propaganda view?”
The conventional wisdom here and elsewhere is that Lukashenko is a buffoon and a toady.  I believe the facts say otherwise.  He didn’t invade (on 2/24) when there was every incentive to do so and little apparent reason not to.  This is almost certainly not by chance.  He either had access to better information than Putin or evaluated the information he had much better than Putin.
In the very early days when stuff started going brown for Russia he didn't throw reserves in when it would have been reasonable to do so, indicating again he was actively making intelligent decisions for his interests.  And he has kept Belarus mostly out of the war despite what must have been intense pressure from Putin, indicating he isn’t just a puppet.
After that, what are his interests?  How does he achieve them?  What is his endgame?  Putin is clearly “playing out the string” hoping to draw 4 cards to a straight flush, or win on a bluff.  Lukashenko, I believe, is not “playing out the string.”  He has options outside of a Gotterdammerung finale with Putin.  So how does he get there?  What are his actions consistent with?  Could they be consistent with more than one option?
Take crypto mobilization.  If one doesn’t bother to go beyond the “toady” impression, then mobilization is to help Russia invade Ukraine again.  (Which Lukashenko has refused to do for 8 months.). However, factually, mobilization only provides an increased capability to exert policy through force.  You plan for capabilities, not intents.  Lukashenko will have a larger, somewhat more capable military to be used for an unknown intent.  That is what we can factually say.
I argue that this capability is equally consistent with the desire to secure his regime against Russia, as it is to invade Ukraine.