Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners


Quotes of the Day: 

"We advocate democracy, human rights and freedom, and even those countries that are not sharing those specific values…of course we're not trying to exclude them…”
-President Yoon Suk-yeol

"We are not yet trying to win the 'cold war'... A war of ideas will not be decided by a war of arms, and as long as there is a worldwide war of ideas there will be a continuing worldwide threat of war of arms." 
– The Administrator of the International Information Administration, (originally 1953 but can also be 2022)

"A mind that is stretched by a new idea can never go back to its original dimensions." 
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.


1. RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MAY 20 (PUTIN'S WAR)
2. President Biden Announces John Kirby as NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications
3. Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and other like-minded intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine war
4. Ukraine’s information war is winning hearts and minds in the West
5. Retired Kremlin colonel who disparaged Ukraine war makes sudden U-turn
6. Secret Service response to latest scandal shows commitment to accountability: ANALYSIS
7. Russian info war matches its land war: Loud, but unsophisticated
8. Pro-Russia online operatives falsely claimed Zelensky committed suicide in an effort to sway public opinion, cybersecurity firm says
9. The IO Offensive: Information Operations Surrounding the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
10. China's Bid to Topple US Without Fighting
11. The United States is Sending Billions in Military Aid to Ukraine—Just Not the Systems It Needs
12. Special Operators Want AI to Help Discern Public Opinion
13. US-supplied howitzers to Ukraine lack accuracy-aiding computers
14. What Does Bongbong Marcos’ Win Mean for the United States in Southeast Asia?
15. ‘Deadly serious’: U.S. quietly urging Taiwan to follow Ukraine playbook for countering China
16. Russia Gets a Taste of Its Own Medicine as Hackers Target the Country
17. Joe Biden has big plans for his first presidential trip to Asia
18. Electric Motorcycles and NLAW Missiles: How Ukraine Kills Russian Tanks
19. Putin's Worst Nightmare: Is Ukraine Preparing to Retake Crimea
20. Reducing or Exploiting Risk? Varieties of US Nuclear Thought and Their Implications for Northeast Asia
21. Watching Ukraine, US special ops realizes it's behind on information war capabilities
22. No War for Old Spies: Putin, the Kremlin and Intelligence



1. RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MAY 20 (PUTIN'S WAR)

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MAY 20
May 20, 2022 - Press ISW

Karolina Hird, Frederick W. Kagan, and George Barros
May 20, 5:30 ET
Russian forces are focusing on digging in and reinforcing defensive positions in Kharkiv and along the Southern Axis in preparation for Ukrainian counteroffensives, while the majority of active offensive operations remain confined to Izyum-Donetsk City arc and especially the Popasna-Severodonetsk area. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces are creating secondary defensive lines on the Southern Axis, indicating that the Russian grouping in this area may be preparing for a major Ukrainian counter-offensive and a protracted conflict.[i] Russian forces reportedly are holding defensive positions north of Kharkiv City following the success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive since May 5 and have conducted limited spoiling attacks either to give Russian forces time to complete their redeployment back to Russia in good order or to allow reinforcements to arrive to defend territory in Kharkiv Oblast. Significant Russian offensive operations are confined to the area of Severodonetsk. Russian troops have made marginal gains to the north, west, and south of the city, especially around Popasna, in order to attempt to take control of Severodonetsk.
Key Takeaways
  • Russian forces may have made marginal gains to the north, west, and south of Popasna in order to continue their offensive on Severodonetsk from the south.
  • Russian sources may be overstating the number of Ukrainian defenders who have been evacuated from Azovstal to either maximize the number of Russian prisoners of war who may be exchanged for Ukrainian soldiers or to avoid the embarrassment of admitting they have been locked into a months-long siege against only “hundreds” of Ukrainian soldiers.
  • Russian troops reportedly regained certain positions taken by the Ukrainian counteroffensive north of Kharkiv City.
  • Russian forces are likely preparing for a major Ukrainian counteroffensive and protracted conflict on the Southern Axis.

We do not report in detail on Russian war crimes because those activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We will continue to evaluate and report on the effects of these criminal activities on the Ukrainian military and population and specifically on combat in Ukrainian urban areas. We utterly condemn these Russian violations of the laws of armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, and humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.
ISW has updated its assessment of the four primary efforts Russian forces are engaged in at this time. We have stopped coverage of supporting effort 4, ”Sumy and northeastern Ukraine,” because it is no longer an active effort.:
  • Main effort—Eastern Ukraine (comprised of one subordinate and three supporting efforts);
  • Subordinate main effort- Encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the cauldron between Izyum and Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts
  • Supporting effort 1—Mariupol;
  • Supporting effort 2—Kharkiv City;
  • Supporting effort 3—Southern axis.
Main Effort—Eastern Ukraine
Subordinate Main Effort—Southern Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk Oblasts (Russian objective: Encircle Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine and capture the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas)
Russian forces conducted unspecified offensive operations in the direction of Slovyansk but did not make any confirmed advances on May 20.[ii] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian troops are attempting to erect a pontoon bridge over the Severskyi Donets River in the vicinity of Yaremivka, about 25 kilometers southeast of Izyum in the direction of Slovyansk.[iii] Russian forces additionally conducted artillery strikes on Dovhenke and Dolyna, both southeast of Izyum heading towards Slovyansk.[iv]
Russian forces reportedly intensified efforts to break through Ukrainian defenses around Popasna in order to push towards Severodonetsk from the south on May 20. Pro-Russian news sources reported that Russian forces made advances through Ukrainian lines of defense in three directions. Russian Airborne (VDV) forces reportedly took control of Volodymirivka and Lypove, and broke through Ukrainian defenses in Komyshuvakha, all north of Popasna.[v] Troops of the Russian ”Wagner” Private Military Company reportedly took control of Trypillya and Vyskrivka to the west of Popasna.[vi] Ukrainian sources noted that offensive operations are on-going in Vyskrivka.[vii] Russian forces additionally reportedly took control of Troitske, south of Popasna.[viii] Such reports are consistent with Ukrainian General Staff statements that the Russian grouping around Popasna is trying to take new frontiers in the area.[ix] NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management (FIRMS) data, however, does not show a concentration of fires in this area, which may suggest that the Russian sources are exaggerating the scale or significance of the attacks, although the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.[x] The purported encirclement of the Popasna area may be an effort to break through Ukrainian defenses in order to provide support for the on-going battle for Severodonetsk, where Russian troops are making marginal gains and reportedly took control of Shchedryshcheve and Syrotne, just north of Severodonetsk.[xi]
Russian forces reportedly made marginal gains during ground attacks in Donetsk Oblast on May 20. Pro-Russian Telegram channels stated that Russian forces are trying to encircle a Ukrainian grouping around Svyatohirsk and are storming Yarova, both west of Lyman and within 10 kilometers of the border with Kharkiv Oblast.[xii] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces are continuing offensive operations around Lyman and will likely continue to push west to meet Russian forces in Southern Kharkiv Oblast.[xiii] Russian forces are additionally conducting unsuccessful assault operations around Donetsk City in the vicinity of Avdiivka and Novobakhmutivka.[xiv]

Supporting Effort #1—Mariupol (Russian objective: Capture Mariupol and reduce the Ukrainian defenders)
Russian sources may be overstating the number of Ukrainian defenders who have been evacuated from the Azovstal Steel Plant as of May 20. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu stated that nearly 2,000 Ukrainian fighters have left Azovstal since evacuations began, whereas the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that it has registered only “hundreds” of Ukrainian prisoners of war.[xv] The discrepancy could result merely from delays in ICRC registrations or reporting. Official Russian sources may also be obfuscating the true number of evacuees for various reasons, however. The Russians might claim that they have captured more Ukrainian soldiers than they actually did in order to maximize the number of Russian prisoners that can be exchanged should they agree on a prisoner swap with Ukraine. The Russian leadership may also seek to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that their forces have been locked in a months-long siege by ”hundreds” rather than ”thousands” of Ukrainian defenders. Commander of the Azov Regiment Denis Prokopenko additionally stated that he has given the command to stop the defense of Mariupol to save the lives of the defenders of Azovstal, so evacuation numbers will likely rise in the coming days.[xvi]
The Ukrainian General Staff reports that Russian forces are continuing filtration measures in Mariupol.[xvii] Advisor to the Mayor of Mariupol Petro Andryushchenko additionally made a number of claims that ISW cannot independently verify. He asserted that Russian troops are planning to use filtration camps in Mariupol to forcibly mobilize men into the militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR).[xviii] He claimed that the Russian occupation administration in Mariupol is planning a census for men aged 18 to 50 to further force mobilization into the DNR.[xix] He also asserted that four schools in Mariupol are set to open by the end of May under ”Russian standards and Russian programs,” with a full implementation of Russian curricula reportedly slated for fall of 2022.[xx] Andryushchenko’s claims are consistent with overall trends of filtration and occupation processes in Mariupol that ISW has been able to verify through other sources, although these particular claims are unverified at this time.

Supporting Effort #2—Kharkiv City (Russian objective: Withdraw forces to the north and defend ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Izyum)
Russian forces focused on regaining positions taken by Ukrainian forces during the counteroffensive north of Kharkiv City on May 20.[xxi] Russian forces are reportedly fighting in Vesele, Tsyrkuny, Zolochiv, and Ternova and may have recaptured Ternova and Rubizhne, although ISW cannot independently confirm these claims at this time.[xxii] Such efforts are likely spoiling attacks meant to disrupt the Ukrainian counteroffensive in northern Kharkiv Oblast with the intention of either buying Russian forces time to withdraw and redeploy to other axes of advance or to reinforce defensive positions to the north of Kharkiv City. Russian forces additionally continued to shell Kharkiv City and its environs, likely to further distract Ukrainian forces from cohering offensive actions towards the Russian border.[xxiii]

Supporting Effort #3—Southern Axis (Objective: Defend Kherson against Ukrainian counterattacks)
Russian forces focused on strengthening existing defensive lines and creating secondary defensive lines on the Southern Axis but did not make any confirmed advances on May 20.[xxiv] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian troops are bringing engineering equipment to frontlines on the Southern Axis to construct a second line of defense, which likely indicates that Russian forces are preparing to defend against possible Ukrainian counter-offensives and settling in for protracted operations in Southern Ukraine.[xxv] Russian forces conducted rocket, missile, and artillery attacks against Kherson, Zaporizhia, Dnipropetrovsk, and Odesa Oblasts.[xxvi]
The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian special services are continuing to destabilize the situation in Transnistria through disseminating disinformation about the mining of social infrastructure and state institutions in Tiraspol, Bender, Dubossary, and Rybnytsia.[xxvii]

Immediate items to watch
  • Russian forces will likely complete their withdrawal from the vicinity of Kharkiv City but attempt to hold a line west of Vovchansk to defend their GLOCs from Belgorod to Izyum. It is unclear if they will succeed.
  • The Russians will continue efforts to encircle Severodonetsk and Lysychansk at least from the south, possibly by focusing on cutting off the last highway connecting Severodonetsk-Lysychansk with the rest of Ukraine.
  • Russian forces are likely preparing for Ukrainian counteroffensives and settling in for protracted operations in Southern Ukraine.
[v] https://t.me/swodki/99656; https://t.me/swodki/99529https://t.me/swodki/99515https://riafan dot ru/23447841-_tsvetok_popasnoi_rossiiskie_sili_prodvigayutsya_na_severnom_i_zapadnom_napravleniyah
[vi] https://riafan dot ru/23447841-_tsvetok_popasnoi_rossiiskie_sili_prodvigayutsya_na_severnom_i_zapadnom_napravleniyah
[viii] https://riafan dot ru/23447841-_tsvetok_popasnoi_rossiiskie_sili_prodvigayutsya_na_severnom_i_zapadnom_napravleniyah; https://t.me/swodki/99656; https://t.me/swodki/99529https://t.me/swodki/99515



2. President Biden Announces John Kirby as NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications

As I asked previously I wonder if this is a step toward developing an effective comprehensive holistic national level strategic influence capability. It requires the right personality and excellent leadership. Perhaps that is Admiral Kirby.Maybe he will be the Strategic Influence Czar. (and it is ironic we used the Russian word Czar for all these "special" positions, e.g., Asia Czar, Drug Czar, etc))

President Biden Announces John Kirby as NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications | The White House
whitehouse.gov · May 20, 2022
Today, President Biden announced that John Kirby, who is currently the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, will be the new National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the White House. In this role, Kirby will coordinate interagency efforts to explain United States policy and will serve as a senior administration voice on related matters, including as appropriate at the White House podium. This position will be housed at the NSC and report to the National Security Advisor.
Statement from President Biden:
“John Kirby is uniquely qualified for this position, and I look forward to bringing his background, knowledge, and experience to the White House. From his work as the Assistant Secretary and Spokesperson at the State Department to his work at the Pentagon, most recently as Assistant to the Secretary for Public Affairs and Press Secretary, John understands the complexities of U.S. foreign and defense policy, and he will ably represent the Administration on important national security issues.”
Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan:
“I am proud to welcome John to the team. I’m excited to see him get to work on behalf of the president and the entire national security enterprise.”
Statement from John Kirby:
“I am incredibly honored to be given this opportunity to continue serving my country and this Administration. I am very grateful to President Biden for his confidence in me and to Secretary Austin for his tremendous support and leadership these last 18 months. Secretary Austin has been more than just my boss; he’s been a mentor and a confidante, and he has helped make me a better communicator. He has trusted me to speak for the Department, and he has trusted me to speak for him. Those are precious responsibilities, the weight of which I felt and respected every day. I thank him for that. I also thank my entire team at OSD Public Affairs. When I messed up, they fixed it. When I did well, they made it so. I’ve never known a better team of professionals. I am excited to start this next assignment very soon, but I will surely miss each and every one of them.”
John Kirby, NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications
John Kirby is currently the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. In this role, he advises Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks and serves as the Department’s chief spokesperson. Kirby previously served at the Department of State, as the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs from December 2015 to January 2017 and as the State Department’s spokesperson from May 2015 to January 2017. Prior to the State Department, Kirby served as the Pentagon Press Secretary under Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
Kirby commissioned in the U.S. Navy in September 1986 and served in uniform for more than 28 years, before retiring in 2015 at the rank of Rear Admiral. He is a 1985 graduate of the University of South Florida and holds a Master of Science degree in International Relations from Troy State University and a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.
whitehouse.gov · May 20, 2022



3. Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and other like-minded intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine war

This is a very interesting and fascinating read. It is one of the best takedowns I have read.

Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and other like-minded intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine war
blogs.berkeley.edu · May 20, 2022
coauthored with Bohdan Kukharskyy (City University of New York), Anastassia Fedyk (UC Berkeley) and Ilona Sologoub (VoxUkraine)
Dear Professor Chomsky,
We are a group of Ukrainian academic economists who were grieved by a series of your recent interviews and commentaries on the Russian war on Ukraine. We believe that your public opinion on this matter is counter-productive to bringing an end to the unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine and all the deaths and suffering it has brought into our home country.
Borodyanka, Ukraine, Wednesday, Apr. 6, 2022. Source: https://apimagesblog.com/russia-ukraine-war-drafts/2022/4/6/day-42-rows-of-body-bags-in-ukraines-bucha
Having familiarized ourselves with the body of your interviews on this matter, we noticed several recurring fallacies in your line of argument. In what follows, we wish to point out these patterns to you, alongside with our brief response:
Pattern #1: Denying Ukraine’s sovereign integrity
In your interview to Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept from April 14, 2022 you claimed: “The fact of the matter is Crimea is off the table. We may not like it. Crimeans apparently do like it.” We wish to bring to your attention several historical facts:
First, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has violated the Budapest memorandum (in which it promised to respect and protect Ukrainian borders, including Crimea), the Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (which it signed with Ukraine in 1997 with the same promises), and, according to the order of the UN International Court of Justice, it violated the international law.
Second, “Crimeans” is not an ethnicity or a cohesive group of people – but Crimean Tatars are. These are the indigenous people of Crimea, who were deported by Stalin in 1944 (and were able to come back home only after the USSR fell apart), and were forced to flee again in 2014 when Russia occupied Crimea. Of those who stayed, dozens have been persecuted, jailed on false charges and missing, probably dead.
Third, if by ‘liking’ you refer to the outcome of the Crimean “referendum” on March 16, 2014, please note that this “referendum” was held at gunpoint and declared invalid by the General Assembly of the United Nations. At the same time, the majority of voters in Crimea supported Ukraine’s independence in 1991.
Pattern #2: Treating Ukraine as an American pawn on a geo-political chessboard
Whether willingly or unwillingly, your interviews insinuate that Ukrainians are fighting with Russians because the U.S. instigated them to do so, that Euromaidan happened because the U.S. tried to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence, etc. Such an attitude denies the agency of Ukraine and is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who are risking their lives for the desire to live in a free country. Simply put, have you considered the possibility that Ukrainians would like to detach from the Russian sphere of influence due to a history of genocide, cultural oppression, and constant denial of the right to self-determination?
Pattern #3. Suggesting that Russia was threatened by NATO
In your interviews, you are eager to bring up the alleged promise by [US Secretary of State] James Baker and President George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev that, if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin NATO, the U.S. would ensure that NATO would move ‘not one inch eastward.’ First, please note that the historicity of this promise is highly contested among scholars, although Russia has been active in promoting it. The premise is that NATO’s eastward expansion left Putin with no other choice but to attack. But the reality is different. Eastern European states joined, and Ukraine and Georgia aspired to join NATO, in order to defend themselves from Russian imperialism. They were right in their aspirations, given that Russia did attack Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Moreover, current requests by Finland and Sweden to join NATO came in direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, consistent with NATO expansion being a consequence of Russian imperialism, and not vice versa.
In addition, we disagree with the notion that sovereign nations shouldn’t be making alliances based on the will of their people because of disputed verbal promises made by James Baker and George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev.
Pattern #4. Stating that the U.S. isn’t any better than Russia
While you admittedly call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “war crime,” it appears to us that you cannot do so without naming in the same breath all of the past atrocities committed by the U.S. abroad (e.g., in Iraq or Afghanistan) and, ultimately, spending most of your time discussing the latter. As economists, we are not in a position to correct your historical metaphors and, needless to say, we condemn the unjustified killings of civilians by any power in the past. However, not bringing Putin up on war crime charges at the International Criminal Court in the Hague just because some past leader did not receive similar treatment would be the wrong conclusion to draw from any historical analogy. In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future.
Pattern #5. Whitewashing Putin’s goals for invading Ukraine
In your interviews, you go to great lengths to rationalize Putin’s goals of “demilitarization” and “neutralization” of Ukraine. Please note that, in his TV address from February 24, 2022, marking the beginning of the war, the verbatim goal declared by Putin for this “military operation” is to “denazify” Ukraine. This concept builds on his long pseudo-historical article from July 2021, denying Ukraine’s existence and claiming that Ukrainians were not a nation. As elaborated in the ‘denazification manual’ published by the Russian official press agency RIA Novosti, a “Nazi” is simply a human being who self-identifies as Ukrainian, the establishment of a Ukrainian state thirty years ago was the “Nazification of Ukraine,” and any attempt to build such a state has to be a “Nazi” act. According to this genocide handbook, denazification implies a military defeat, purging, and population-level “re-education”. ‘Demilitarization’ and ‘neutralization’ imply the same goal – without weapons Ukraine will not be able to defend itself, and Russia will reach its long-term goal of destroying Ukraine.
Pattern #6. Assuming that Putin is interested in a diplomatic solution
All of us very much hoped for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement, which could have saved many human lives. Yet, we find it preposterous how you repeatedly assign the blame for not reaching this settlement to Ukraine (for not offering Putin some “escape hatch”) or the U.S. (for supposedly insisting on the military rather than diplomatic solution) instead of the actual aggressor, who has repeatedly and intentionally bombed civilians, maternity wards, hospitals, and humanitarian corridors during those very “negotiations”. Given the escalatory rhetoric (cited above) of the Russian state media, Russia’s goal is erasure and subjugation of Ukraine, not a “diplomatic solution.”
Pattern #7. Advocating that yielding to Russian demands is the way to avert the nuclear war
Since the Russian invasion, Ukraine lives in a constant nuclear threat, not just due to being a prime target for Russian nuclear missiles but also due to the Russian occupation of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
But what are the alternatives to fighting for freedom? Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)? Have you ever wondered why President Zelenskyy, with the overwhelming support of the Ukrainian people, is pleading with Western leaders to provide heavy weapons despite the potential threat of nuclear escalation? The answer to this question is not “Because of Uncle Sam”, but rather due to the fact that Russian war crimes in Bucha and many other Ukrainian cities and villages have shown that living under Russian occupation is a tangible “hell on earth” happening right now, requiring immediate action.
Arguably, any concessions to Russia will not reduce the probability of a nuclear war but lead to escalation. If Ukraine falls, Russia may attack other countries (Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Finland or Sweden) and can also use its nuclear blackmail to push the rest of Europe into submission. And Russia is not the only nuclear power in the world. Other countries, such as China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are watching. Just imagine what will happen if they learn that nuclear powers can get whatever they want using nuclear blackmail.
Professor Chomsky, we hope you will consider the facts and re-evaluate your conclusions. If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine by spreading views very much akin to Russian propaganda.
Should you wish to engage further on any of the above-mentioned points, we are always open to discussion.
Kind regards,
Bohdan Kukharskyy, City University of New York
Anastassia Fedyk, University of California, Berkeley
Yuriy Gorodnichenko, University of California, Berkeley
Ilona Sologoub, VoxUkraine NGO
blogs.berkeley.edu · May 20, 2022


4. Ukraine’s information war is winning hearts and minds in the West

Analysis of Ukrainian strategic influence.
Ukraine’s information war is winning hearts and minds in the West | Nieman Journalism Lab
“Ukraine’s successful strategy in the battle over information demonstrates the connection between armed conflict and information warfare.”
Nieman Lab · by Michael Butler · May 18, 2022
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has dominated headlines since late February 2022. The war struck a nerve among Western audiences, evoking a high degree of support for Ukraine.
The reasons for the prominence of the war in the West are many and varied.
A ground war in Europe launched by a major military power evokes the ghosts of World War II. This is especially true when the attacking country has designs on territory it considers integral to its nation, and is led by a personalist authoritarian regime where all power is concentrated in a single leader. The deep involvement of the U.S. and European countries, both individually and collectively through NATO and the European Union, also inspires Cold War comparisons.
The resulting humanitarian crisis, including the mass exodus of over 5 million refugees, underscores the ethical and moral implications of the war.
These historical analogies and simplifying ideas help explain why the West’s imagination has been captured by this war.
But there’s more to the West’s captivation with the war than is immediately apparent. As a scholar of armed conflict and security, I also find a compelling explanation for why the West is so focused on Ukraine in the Ukrainian government’s ability to provide information about the war in a way that appeals to Western sensibilities.
Weaponizing information
Russia’s use of propaganda and symbols during the conflict, most recently in the “Victory Day” celebrations attempting to draw its own distorted parallels to World War II, has gotten a lot of attention. In the process, Ukraine’s skillful use of information warfare should not be overlooked.
Information warfare entails one party denying, exploiting or corrupting the delivery and function of an enemy’s information. It is used both to protect oneself against the enemy’s information and to create a favorable environment for one’s own information.
With the charismatic President Volodymyr Zelenskyy leading the way, Ukraine’s savvy use of traditional and social media as well as direct appeals to the U.S. Congress, European Parliament and the court of world opinion have provided a clear and compelling framing of the war.
That frame is structured around five affecting themes: the inherently just cause of Ukrainian self-defense; the tenacity of Ukrainian resistance; the barbarity of Russian conduct; Russia’s flawed military strategy and general ineptitude; and Ukraine’s desperate need for more, and more sophisticated, military hardware.
Ukraine’s successful strategy in the battle over information demonstrates the connection between armed conflict and information warfare. Ukraine has forged a stalemate with Russia by stressing these themes of a just war for national liberation using not only traditional tools of warfare — bullets, missiles, tanks — but also by shaping the Western public’s perceptions of the war.
Learning from the enemy
The information front in the Russia-Ukraine war is nothing new. It was opened by Russia in 2014 during its annexation of Crimea and incursion in the Donbas region. Russia took the offensive to cover up its territorial aims, saying instead that it was there to protect civilians and resist the further spread of Western imperialism.
At the time, Ukrainians and Russians alike were buffeted with this disinformation through Russia’s state-controlled international English-language service RT and viral videos on YouTube and various social media outlets.
Since then, Ukraine’s security and defense establishment has focused on improving its ability to counter such disinformation tactics. Zelenskyy’s surprise landslide victory in the 2019 presidential election gave Ukraine what has proved to be its biggest asset. A skilled communicator and performer, Zelenskyy regularly and effectively uses available information to present Ukraine’s version of the war and debunk Russia’s. His initial selfie videos from the streets of Kyiv underscored Ukrainian bravery and unity in a war of self-defense — “the citizens are here, and we are here.
Zelenskyy’s mid-March virtual address to the U.S. Congress drew a direct line from Russian atrocities — featured in a graphic video clip he showed to lawmakers — to the need for the West to “do more.” His address to the U.N. in early April expanded the scope and terms of the war, defining it as an existential struggle against tyranny and evil and for the very soul of the U.N.:
“If this continues, the finale will be that each state will rely only on the power of arms to ensure its security, not on international law, not on international institutions. Then, the U.N. can simply be dissolved. Ladies and gentlemen! Are you ready for the dissolving of the U.N.? Do you think that the time of international law has passed? If your answer is no, you need to act now, act immediately.”
Getting by with a little help …
Ukraine’s use of the techniques of information warfare as well as its compelling messaging and messengers account for much of its success on that front. Among those messengers are former champion boxers the Klitschko brothers, one of whom is the mayor of Kyiv, and both of whom are now prominent advocates for the defense of their country.
Ukraine has also benefited from pro bono public relations services from major Washington, D.C., firms such as 5WPR and SKDK as well as some of their U.K. counterparts.
SKDK’s managing director, Anita Dunn, served as senior adviser to President Joe Biden throughout his presidential campaign and in the early months of his administration and is reportedly returning to the White House in advance of the upcoming midterm elections. SKDK assisted in drafting Zelenskyy’s speeches condemning Russian aggression and war crimes to the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council. This parallels pro bono legal support from Washington, D.C., law firms such as Covington & Burling, which filed a brief to the International Court of Justice on Ukraine’s behalf in March.
A section of PR and lobbying firm SKDK’s disclosure form that stated it was providing free help to the Ukrainian government ‘in connection with the foreign. principal’s remarks to the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly.’ (FARA Registration Unit)
The limits of framing
In a textbook example of hybrid warfare — warfare fought in domains other than the physical battlefield — Ukraine has transformed successes on the information battleground into effective defense of its homeland from Russian aggression. The West has massively increased its support of the country through weapons shipments, intelligence sharing and other aid.
Still, questions remain about the long-term viability of this strategy. Can Ukraine’s strategic use of information continue to offset Russia’s material advantages?
By definition, information warfare obscures and distorts reality in order to tilt perceptions of a conflict to a country’s advantage. Paraphrasing an age-old adage, the war between Russia and Ukraine is a reminder that the first battle in contemporary wars may be for the truth.
Michael Butler is an associate professor of political science at Clark University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Photo of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaking to the U.S. Congress by J. Scott Applewhite-Pool/Getty Images is being used with permission from The Conversation.
Nieman Lab · by Michael Butler · May 18, 2022


5. Retired Kremlin colonel who disparaged Ukraine war makes sudden U-turn

He must have thought he could act like the unconstrained and unrestrained Colonels in democracies. But he could not get away with it in Russia.

Retired Kremlin colonel who disparaged Ukraine war makes sudden U-turn
What I mean to say, Comrade… Russian colonel who dared to criticise Putin’s Ukraine invasion on state TV changes his tune days later to hail Russia's military might
  • Mikhail Khodaryonok, a former air defence commander, made a startling U-turn
  • He boasted of Russia's superior weaponry, military and economic capabilities 
  • But directly contradicted comments he made less than a week ago on state TV
  • He had previously given a damning assessment of the invasion of Ukraine
  • The former commander said Russia was totally 'geopolitically isolated' and warned the invasion had turned 'the whole world against us'
  • Meanwhile, experts have said that elites in Russia's security services could likely mount a coup on the Kremlin 
PUBLISHED: 08:37 EDT, 20 May 2022 UPDATED: 10:25 EDT, 20 May 2022
Daily Mail · by David Averre · May 20, 2022
A retired Russian military commander has re-appeared on state television warning Ukrainian officials not to underestimate Russia's military and economic might, despite having disparaged his nation's war efforts live on air just days ago.
Mikhail Khodaryonok, a former air defence commander and graduate of some of the Soviet Union's top military schools, took to the stage yesterday where he waxed lyrical about the quality of Russian weapons and boasted about the strength of the military.
'The Russian Federation has not yet committed even a tenth of its military and economic potential.. so be careful what you wish for, gentlemen!' the colonel quipped.
'When a country buys Western-made equipment, it sometimes stops working or malfunctions right in the heat of battle.... our arms are different in their reliability - you get exactly the weapons described,' he declared.
But his comments directly contradicted his interview broadcast just days ago, when he appeared on the same show and gave a distinctly bleak prognosis for Russia's war.
The retired commander last weekend told viewers that Ukraine 'intends to fight to the last man' and has mobilised a million-strong army of Western-trained fighters equipped with an endless stream of modern weaponry - much to the display of Kremlin propagandists stood alongside him.
Russia's position on the world stage is no better, Khodaryonok added, pointing out 'we are in full geopolitical isolation, and that, however much we would hate to admit this, virtually the entire world is against us. And it's that situation that we need to get out of.'
The sudden U-turn has stoked suspicions Khodaryonok was subject to a stern talking-to from Vladimir Putin behind the scenes.
Though the colonel has seemingly reversed his publicly negative perception of Russia's invasion, he continued to refer to the conflict as a 'war', rather than a 'special military operation' or 'demilitarisation operation' as Putin prefers.

Mikhail Khodaryonok, a former air defence commander and graduate of some of the Soviet Union's top military schools, took to the stage yesterday where he waxed lyrical about the quality of Russian weapons and boasted about the strength of the military

But his comments directly contradicted his interview broadcast just days ago, when he appeared on the same show and gave a distinctly bleak prognosis for Russia's war, stoking suspicions Khodaryonok was subject to a stern talking-to from Vladimir Putin (Khodaryonok speaks on Russia One yesterday)

'The situation... is that the Ukrainian armed forces are able to arm a million people,' Khodaryonok said last week, arguing such a force will be equipped with western weapons and trained how to use them by armies that are part of NATO (Ukrainian soldiers conduct a patrol and monitoring operation on the outskirts of the separatist region of Donetsk, May 17, 2022)

Even before the war started, Khodaryonok wrote that Ukrainians would fight like hell to defend their country and that Russia was walking into a longer, bloodier, and far more costly conflict than it was preparing for (local residents scavenge pieces of aluminum from destroyed Russian tanks on May 16, 2022 in Biskvitne, Ukraine)

Last week, Khodaryonok declared that Russia's tried and tested policy of nuclear sabre-rattling will do little to deter Russia's enemies and in fact 'actually looks quite amusing' when the whole world is arrayed against the Kremlin
Speaking last week on the talk show of Olga Skabeyeva - who is known as the iron doll' of Putin TV for her strict adherence to the party line - Khodaryonok let loose on the situation in Ukraine and shocked the Kremlin propagandists sharing the stage with him.
First of all, he said that rumours of a 'moral and psychological breakdown in the Ukrainian armed forces' were 'to put it mildly, false'.
'The situation... is that the Ukrainian armed forces are able to arm a million people,' he added, arguing such a force will be equipped with western weapons and trained how to use them by armies that are part of NATO.
'So a million armed Ukrainian soldiers needs to be viewed as a reality of the very near future,' he insisted.
Batting aside objections from Skabeyeva that most of those men will be conscripts, he insisted that what really matters isn't how an army is recruited, but its willingness to fight.
'A desire to protect one's homeland, in the sense that it exists in Ukraine - and it really does exist there - they intend to fight to the last man,' he said.
'Ultimately victory on the battlefield is determined by a high level of morale among personnel, who shed blood for their ideals.'
On the world stage, Khodaryonok said, things hardly look better.
'We are in full geopolitical isolation,' he said, adding: 'However much we would hate to admit this, virtually the entire world is against us.'
Khodaryonok declared that Russia's tried and tested policy of nuclear sabre-rattling will do little to deter Russia's enemies and in fact 'actually looks quite amusing' when the whole world is arrayed against the Kremlin.

A local resident looks at a destroyed Russian tank next to a residential house in the village of Mala Rogan, east of Kharkiv

Ukrainian solders examine the wreck of a Russian tank in an image released earlier this week
Urging those around him to 'maintain a sense of realism', he warned that 'sooner or later the reality of history will hit you so hard that you'll regret it.'
The shockingly frank series of declarations was hardly the first time that Khodaryonok has voiced concerns over Russia's lack of success in Ukraine.
Even before the war started, he wrote that Ukrainians would fight like hell to defend their country and that Russia was walking into a longer, bloodier, and far more costly conflict than it was preparing for.
It is not even the first time he has spoken out on state TV - ahead of Putin's Victory Day speech on May 9, he warned that a rumoured mass mobilisation of troops would not solve the problems Russia's military is facing.
The former commander's U-turn yesterday came as Bulgarian journalist and Russia expert Christo Grozev said he believes Russia's security service officials know the war has already been lost and could mount a coup on the Kremlin.
Grozev, a lead investigative reporter with Bellingcat, said elites in Russia's GRU and FSB secret services are the most likely to try and topple Putin, because they know the truth of what is happening on the ground.
And those elites are already looking for ways to move their money and families out of the country in anticipation of Putin falling, he claims.

FSB and GRU elites are most-likely to try and topple Putin because they know the truth of what is happening in Ukraine (pictured, Putin with his elites before the war)
Speaking to Radio Liberty about what may spark the coup, Grozev said the moment could come if or when Putin orders his generals to carry out a nuclear strike.
'If Putin decides to give an order to use nuclear weapons, he must be sure that everyone along the chain will carry out this order,' he said.
'If one does not comply, then this will be a signal of insubordination. And perhaps even the physical death of Putin.
'Until he is sure that everyone will comply, he will not give this order.'
Grozev believes similar fears are preventing Putin from giving the order for a general mobilisation of the Russian armed forces and population.
Such an order would allow him to massively boost troop numbers in Ukraine, perhaps shifting the tide of the war in his favour.
But the order would also cause a 'social explosion' among ordinary Russians, Grozev says, because it would mean admitting the 'special military operation' - which until now Putin has presented as a resounding success - has failed.
Daily Mail · by David Averre · May 20, 2022


6. Secret Service response to latest scandal shows commitment to accountability: ANALYSIS
Soju and taxi drivers and after midnight do not mix well in South Korea.
Secret Service response to latest scandal shows commitment to accountability: ANALYSIS
ABCNews.com · by ABC News
An alleged alcohol-fueled incident involving two Secret Service personnel in Seoul, South Korea, is raising new questions about prior scandals involving the agency’s staff and its ability to maintain the integrity of its mission.
The news, ahead of President Joe Biden’s visit to the country this week, evokes the 2012 scandal in which Secret Service employees were investigated for drinking heavily and hiring prostitutes while preparing for a trip by then-President Barack Obama to Cartagena, Colombia.
In the latest incident, the Secret Service responded quickly by sending the two agents home. The agency’s response demonstrates its renewed commitment since the 2012 scandal to hold staff accountable for off-duty behavior.
Context is important to understanding how the agency functions and the protocols in place to ensure its operations and personnel operate smoothly.

Andrew Harnik/AP
U.S. Secret Service agents stand watch as President Joe Biden visits O'Connor Farms, May 11, 2022, in Kankakee, Ill.
When the president or any protected person embarks on a visit domestically or overseas, the Secret Service advance process begins. The bedrock of its protective methodology, this entails agents being sent to the location anywhere from two weeks (for a foreign visit) to a week (domestic) for the planning of the logistics and security of the visit.
These agents are often the more seasoned agents who have been assigned to the president’s detail for a few years. Additionally, agents from the agency’s protective intelligence division arrive to handle the wide-ranging intelligence and threat issues that may occur during the visit.
On average, the Secret Service says it handles over 2,000 threats per year directed towards the president. A recent high-profile example is the arrest in Pennsylvania of Mohamed Farah, who authorities say threatened to assassinate President Biden and former President Donald Trump.

Pool/Reuters
President Joe Biden disembarks Air Force One as he arrives at the Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, May 20, 2022.
The advance team, once in place, works with both the local nation and the State Department Diplomatic Security Service’s regional security officer to plan and implement the security apparatus for the visit.
While there, this advance team is subject to Secret Service ethics regulations regarding foreign travel and conduct as well as State Department oversight and host nation protocols. The Secret Service supervisors assigned to the advance oversee the planning and address personnel issues that arise, such as family emergencies. This occurs while the advance team typically works over 20-hour days on timelines, briefing schedules and logistical needs.
A few days prior to the visit, a support element of personnel, cars and other technical assets arrive via military transport in support of the advance team’s work. The personnel implicated in Seoul were reported to be part of this element.
This supporting team of agents fall under the same ethics and management guidelines that the advance team works under. They must also attend briefings to understand the roles they will play during the visit.

Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
A US Secret Service agent keeps watch as the US President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden leave the White House aboard Marine One on May 17, 2022.
One of the pivotal briefings is the personnel security briefing provided by the Secret Service Intelligence Division and the regional security officer with input from the foreign nation’s security forces. This briefing covers threats the personnel may face as well as the “do’s and do not’s” while in the nation.
In the wake of the Cartagena incident, one of the changes the Secret Service made was to teach personnel that you are never “off duty” and that conduct is always accountable. This is ingrained in the agency’s ethics and disciplinary guidelines.
Despite the recent bad headlines, the Secret Service says in 2021 it handled 4,887 protective visits including 787 foreign visits, while handling 6040 protective intelligence investigations. Through it all, the president, 58 permanent protectees and hundreds of temporary protectees were kept safe.
While future incidents involving bad behavior may occur, the agency has worked put personnel on notice that while mistakes can happen, if they do, no matter where or when, the agency will hold them accountable.
Donald J. Mihalek is an ABC News contributor, retired senior Secret Service agent and regional field training instructor who served during two presidential transitions. He was also a police officer and served in the U.S. Coast Guard.
ABCNews.com · by ABC News


7. Russian info war matches its land war: Loud, but unsophisticated

"Loud, but unsophisticated" might be a useful theme for the PSYOP people.


Russian info war matches its land war: Loud, but unsophisticated
The Christian Science Monitor · by The Christian Science Monitor · May 16, 2022
KYIV, UKRAINE
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been accompanied by a high-volume, multilingual disinformation campaign that has jolted fact-checking experts in Ukraine and the West into action.
But experts have been surprised at just how unsophisticated that campaign has been. They say Russia has been taking the same approach to deploying fakes as it does to soldiers on the battlefield: large numbers but with poor ammunition.
Why We Wrote This
Russia’s war in Ukraine isn’t just on the battlefield. It’s online, too. But experts have been surprised that Russia’s disinformation strategies are as unsophisticated as their real-life ones.
“The strongest side of Russian disinformation is not the quality, but continuation and repetition,” says Ukrainian fact-checker Oksana Iliuk. “They do not care about each fake being sophisticated and deliberate. They just want to flood the information space.”
“It’s actually been surprising how bad Russian disinformation has been,” said Eliot Higgins, founder of the investigative journalism group Bellingcat, at a Chatham House event. “I mean, we’ve had years of disinformation from Syria and Ukraine being debunked and kind of thought we would see Russia upping its game. ... Russia’s disinformation has not improved. It’s almost as if they’ve swapped the words Syria with Ukraine and jihadists with Nazis in many cases. It’s almost absurd, but it’s still very important to address that information.”
Kyiv, Ukraine
The letter circulating on Telegram recently offered an explanation for why Ukrainian fighters in Mariupol continue to resist despite overwhelming odds. Ukrainian soldiers, it said, face execution if they are found to have surrendered to Russian forces.
But Ukrainian fact-checkers quickly leaped into action to debunk it – a task that proved relatively easy. The letter contained layout anomalies when compared with other National Guard documents, as well as linguistic errors. That, combined with the illogic of the letter’s claims – why would the Ukrainian military threaten to execute soldiers no longer within its command structure? – showed it was another instance of Russian disinformation.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been accompanied by a high-volume, multilingual disinformation campaign that has jolted fact-checking experts in Ukraine and the West into action. But experts have been surprised at just how unsophisticated that campaign has been. They say Russia has been taking the same approach to deploying fakes as it does to soldiers on the battlefield: large numbers, but with poor ammunition.
Why We Wrote This
Russia’s war in Ukraine isn’t just on the battlefield. It’s online, too. But experts have been surprised that Russia’s disinformation strategies are as unsophisticated as their real-life ones.
“The strongest side of Russian disinformation is not the quality, but continuation and repetition,” says Ukrainian fact-checker Oksana Iliuk, on a Zoom call from the southwestern town of Chernivtsi, near the border with Romania. “They do not care about each fake being sophisticated and deliberate. They just want to flood the information space.”
That doesn’t make them less dangerous. The atrocities against civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha – which Russian officials and media falsely claimed were staged “fakes” involving the use of “crisis actors” – underscored the seriousness of separating fact from fiction in times of war.
“The strategy of the Russians is what they call the fire hose of falsehood,” says Sam Gregory, program director at Witness, a New York-based organization using technology and video to defend human rights. “Basically pumping out lots of different, contradictory accounts. You are not trying to establish a conclusive truth. You’re trying to muddy the waters, make people believe that they can’t really believe anything, and then make it easier for people to throw their hands up in the air and say, ‘Well, we just don’t know what is going on here.’”
“It’s almost absurd”
Many expected that Russia’s disinformation campaign would be sharper and slicker, drawing on technological advances and lessons learned in Syria. But the quality of the fakes circulated by pro-Kremlin, Russian-language accounts on platforms like Telegram has been underwhelming. Often the material is recycled from earlier stages of the conflict and quickly debunked.
Fakes – news without clear sources of information or facts – have been constant in the war and have taken many forms. They spread across messaging platforms like Viber and Telegram and social media networks like Facebook, which is particularly popular with Ukrainians. On TikTok, video game footage quickly emerged claiming it was from the Ukraine conflict. Early on, Ukrainian soldiers received SMS messages urging them to lay down their weapons and go home. That did not happen in part because they knew that kind of attack could be coming.
“It’s actually been surprising how bad Russian disinformation has been,” said Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, a Netherlands-based investigative journalism group focused on social media fact-checking and open-source intelligence, at a Chatham House event. “I mean, we’ve had years of disinformation from Syria and Ukraine being debunked and kind of thought we would see Russia upping its game. ... Russia’s disinformation has not improved. It’s almost as if they’ve swapped the words Syria with Ukraine and jihadists with Nazis in many cases. It’s almost absurd, but it’s still very important to address that information.”
In the case of the Bucha massacre, Russian authorities tried to cast doubt on Russian military involvement by challenging the timeline of events, as well as claiming that the arm of one of the dead seen in a video of the scene moved. Analyzing Telegram channels – a major vehicle for Russian-language disinformation in Ukraine – Ms. Iliuk says she identified 18 variations of the message that the massacre was staged by Ukrainians. They advanced theories such as this was a ploy to get more weapons from the West and Bucha’s civilians were killed by the Ukrainian territorial defense forces.

Efrem Lukatsky/AP
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stands near a mass grave in Bucha, Ukraine, May 10, 2022. The suburb of Kyiv was a major focus of Russian disinformation after Russian troops withdrew from it, leaving behind evidence of multiple war crimes against civilian residents.
But on-site media investigations and multiple cross-checks of photos and videos succeeded in debunking Russian claims. Experts concluded that the seeming “movement” was an optical illusion caused by a rain droplet on the windshield of the car from within which the video was filmed. And a New York Times investigation backed by satellite images conclusively showed that the corpses were already there when Russians controlled Bucha.
“The war is not just on the ground; it is in the information space,” says fact-checker Alona Romanyuk, who launched the website putinlies.com.ua. “A lot of the fakes for February and the first days of March aimed to spread panic. ... A lot of Russian fakes were stillborn. But a lot of these fakes [did] spread panic.”
Equipping an international audience
Russian disinformation is not a new phenomenon. Ukrainians have been dealing with it since 2014; indeed, the country boasts a healthy constellation of fact-checking and media-literacy organizations.
But the Russian messaging isn’t solely for Ukraine. “Russia uses the information space to explain to their own audience and foreigners why they brought about a war,” says Ms. Romanyuk, who is also an analyst at Detector Media, a Ukrainian think tank focused on media literacy and battling misinformation. “There were no reasons to invade Ukraine and do these terrible things, to destroy Ukrainian cities and kill civilians. There isn’t any reason. But in the information space, Russia explains it.”
But “the international audience is at a bigger risk of believing Russian fakes than Ukrainian people because we have faced Russian disinformation for years,” she adds. “We [Ukrainians] are used to how aggressive it can be.”
So Ukrainian fact-checkers are working to educate broader audiences, too. One key example is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s now infamous essay on the so-called historical unity of Russia and Ukraine, published about a month before putinlies.com.ua was launched. The article has proved a foundation for Mr. Putin’s efforts to justify war against Ukraine, including its theme that Ukraine is a failed state run by Nazis.
Ms. Romanyuk worked with a team of historians, journalists, and teachers to review the 130 claims contained in the article. Within those claims, they found 105 manipulations – statements mixing truths with lies, things taken out of context, misinterpretations of the facts, or labeling – and 58 fakes, or falsehoods. Now they are working to translate that website into English to offer the Ukrainian take on history to international audiences.
European fact-checkers are also busy battling Russian disinformation. The European Digital Media Observatory, a disinformation expert network and online platform, created a specialized 14-person task force to tackle Ukraine. Fake stories that appear in one European country – such as a report that Polish clinics were kicking out cancer patients to accommodate Ukrainian refugees – typically take a day or two to spread to another language or geography.
“The same networks that were spreading COVID-19 disinformation are now spreading disinformation on the war in Ukraine,” notes Paula Gori, the organization’s secretary-general. “The same accounts and also the same channels ... and often the same strategies: It’s a fiction. So COVID-19 doesn’t exist. The war is staged.”
The flood of information
Ultimately, experts say, the risk from Russia’s disinformation campaign isn’t in its sophistication, which is lacking. (Ms. Romanyuk notes that one of the few apparent Russian uses of a “deep fake” video forgery, of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy allegedly surrendering, was “school level” and “really funny.”) It’s in the sheer volume of it, and how easily it seeps into the already massive amount of news information that people already consume, especially via images.
“Disinformation spreads more with images because images have a powerful impact on our brains,” says Ms. Gori. “That’s why we see lots of videos or pictures, and unfortunately, in a war, this is even more impactful.” Part of the problem is that average news consumers rush through information and rarely stop to look at images critically, she says. They lack or are unfamiliar with tools that fact-checkers use to identify fake or recycled images.
And even well-intentioned amateur efforts can sometimes muddy the waters even further, warns Mr. Gregory. The best defense? He highlights the SIFT method: stop, investigate the source, find alternate coverage, and trace the original. Ms. Iliuk highlights that many of the fakes in circulation now have already appeared and been debunked before, allowing for easy cross-checks through a simple Google search.
“If you read emotional news, don’t share it,” says Ms. Romanyuk. “Go to the kitchen, have a cup of tea or a coffee. When you calm down, only then you can make a conclusion. Is it true or fake?”


The Christian Science Monitor · by The Christian Science Monitor · May 16, 2022

8. Pro-Russia online operatives falsely claimed Zelensky committed suicide in an effort to sway public opinion, cybersecurity firm says


Pro-Russia online operatives falsely claimed Zelensky committed suicide in an effort to sway public opinion, cybersecurity firm says
By Sean Lyngaas, CNN
Updated 10:07 AM ET, Thu May 19, 2022
CNN · by Sean Lyngaas, CNN
Washington (CNN)Pro-Russia online operatives falsely claimed weeks into Moscow's war against Ukraine that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had committed suicide, as part of an aggressive effort to dent public morale and undermine the Ukrainian government, US cybersecurity firm Mandiant said Thursday.
The false Zelensky suicide claim is just one of several information operations tracked by Mandiant from suspected Russian and Belarusian actors that were aimed at deceiving audiences in Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere in Europe -- or at least muddling the truth about the brutal war.
The influence campaigns, analysts say, underscore how the Kremlin is committed as ever to information warfare and efforts to shape perceptions of the conflict even as its soldiers suffer heavy losses on the battlefield.
In another case, Belarus-linked operatives falsely asserted that a Polish crime ring was harvesting the organs of Ukrainian refugees, with the complicity of Polish officials.
"The proliferation of Russia-aligned information operations, in both scale and tempo, suggests the importance that Russia places on shaping the information environment," Alden Wahlstrom, a senior analyst at Mandiant, told CNN. "We've observed known actors leverage longstanding campaign assets and infrastructure to target Ukraine during the invasion, using capabilities they've invested in developing over time."
Read More

Mandiant did not directly point the finger at the Russian government for the fake Zelenksy suicide narrative but described the activity as a "suspected Russian influence campaign." For decades and dating back to Soviet times, disinformation and other so-called "active measures" have been a key part of Russia's foreign policy strategy, according to scholars.
Facebook and YouTube in March removed a widely disseminated "deepfake," or digitally altered, video purporting to show Zelensky asking Ukrainian troops to lay down their arms. The real Zelensky appeared in a video shortly afterward saying the defense of Ukraine continued.
At least some of the disinformation analyzed by Mandiant appeared to gain little online traction. And Ukrainian citizens and soldiers show no signs of letting up in their resistance to the Russian invasion.
Suspected Russian operatives, for example, planted false statements "on a very limited number" of websites and blogs that Zelensky had killed himself in a military bunker in Kyiv in March, according to Mandiant.
The Russian government has falsely portrayed its invasion of Ukraine as a "de-Nazification" campaign despite the fact that Zelensky is Jewish. The fake suicide story bears some resemblance to how Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler died in 1945, by suicide in a bunker as Soviet troops advanced.
CNN has requested comment from the Russian Embassy in Washington and the Belarusian Foreign Ministry on the Mandiant research.
With the eyes of the world on Ukraine, other world powers have moved to influence public opinion about the war or sow discord among their rivals.
One pro-Iran information operation impersonated a Russian journalist and published tweets claiming that Israeli intelligence supported Ukraine against Russia on the eve of the war, according to Mandiant. It was an apparent attempt to increase intensions between Russia and Israel. The Israeli and Iranian governments are bitter enemies.
The US government has tried to shape public perceptions of the Ukraine war in its own ways, including by setting up a State Department account on Telegram, a messaging app popular with Russians.
CNN · by Sean Lyngaas, CNN

9. The IO Offensive: Information Operations Surrounding the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

The IO Offensive: Information Operations Surrounding the Russian Invasion of Ukraine | Mandiant
ALDEN WAHLSTROM, ALICE REVELLI, SAM RIDDELL, DAVID MAINOR, RYAN SERABIAN
MAY 19, 2022
15 MINS READ

The recent phase of Russian aggression toward Ukraine, manifested by Russia’s full-scale invasion, has flooded the information environment with disinformation promoted by a full spectrum of actors. Concerted information operations have proliferated, ranging from cyber-enabled information operations, including those that coincided with disruptive and destructive cyber threat activity, to campaigns leveraging coordinated and inauthentic networks of accounts to promote fabricated content and desired narratives across various social media platforms, websites, and forums.
While the full extent of this activity has yet to be seen, more than two months after the start of the invasion, Mandiant has identified activity that we attributed to information operations campaigns conducted by actors we judge to be operating in support of the political interests of nation-states such as Russia, Belarus, China, and Iran, including ongoing campaigns that we have tracked for years. This report examines a slice of this activity, highlighting significant information operations Mandiant has observed in our work responding to the invasion and presenting our early analysis of those events.
Information Operations Aligned with Russian Interests Concurrent with Disruptive and Destructive Cyber Threat Activity
Mandiant identified information operations aligned with Russian political interests that occurred concurrently with disruptive and destructive, likely Russian sponsored cyber threat activity in the weeks immediately preceding and following the start of the invasion, including incidents involving the deployment of wiper malware disguised as ransomware (Table 1). Cyber-enabled information operations by nature require access to diverse skillsets to support different operational components, which varies based on the complexity of the operation. While we cannot link these operations to the concurrent disruptive and destructive activity, this limited pattern of overlap may suggest that some of the actors behind information operations observed in this conflict are linked to groups with extensive capabilities.
Table 1: Significant information operations that occurred concurrent with other disruptive or destructive cyber threat activity
Date
Information Operation
Concurrent Disruptive and Destructive Activity
Jan. 14, 2022
Multiple Ukrainian government websites, including that of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were defaced with a message in Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish claiming that data had been deleted from government servers and would be released.
The defacements likely coincided with the January deployment of destructive tools PAYWIPE, an MBR wiper disguised as ransomware, and the SHADYLOOK file corrupter against Ukrainian government and other targets.
Feb. 23, 2022
Dozens of Ukrainian government websites were defaced with the same image displayed in the Jan. 14 incident.
This incident coincided with destructive attacks against Ukrainian government targets using the NEARMISS master boot record (MBR) wiper and PARTYTICKET wiper disguised as ransomware.
March 16, 2022
An information operation targeting Ukraine promoted a fabricated message alleging Ukraine's surrender to Russia via the suspected compromise and defacement of the Ukraine 24 website and news ticker in a Ukraine 24 TV broadcast with a written message, as well as via an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated "deepfake" video impersonating Ukrainian President Zelenskyy delivering that same text.
On the same day, Mandiant identified the JUNKMAIL wiper targeting a Ukrainian organization. The malware was configured via a scheduled task to execute approximately three hours before Zelenskyy was scheduled to deliver a speech to the U.S. Congress.
Russian and Belarusian Information Operations Include Cyber-Enabled Operations, Use of Established Assets
Russian and Belarusian information operations actors and campaigns, including those that have historically been linked to cyber threat activity such as hack-and-leak operations, have engaged in activity surrounding the invasion that is consistent with their previously established motives. Their use of developed campaign infrastructure, including in some instances the refocusing of established assets, demonstrates how years-long efforts of Russian, pro-Russian, and Belarusian information operations targeting Ukraine and the broader region have been leveraged to address emerging security interests. In addition to known campaigns, we have also identified information operations activity promoting pro-Russian content on the invasion that we have not attributed to a previously observed campaign or actor.
Figure 1: Vectors leveraged by identified Russia-aligned actors and campaigns in observed information operations surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. "Russia-aligned" refers to Russian, Belarusian, and pro-Russia activity; this graphic does not reflect activity pre-dating this conflict
APT28: Telegram channels that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has attributed as information operations assets of the 85th Main Special Service Center of the Russian General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), the same organization to which the U.S. and UK governments attributed APT28 activity, have continued to post content pertaining to the current conflict. These channels were active prior to the invasion, and while we were unable to independently confirm the SBU’s attribution, we note that the channels’ activity includes promoting content that appears intended to weaken Ukrainians’ confidence in their government and its response to the invasion. The content also appears intended to undermine support for Ukraine from its Western partners, interspersed with more seemingly benign posts relaying apolitical content or news reporting.
  • APT28 has an extensive history of involvement in information operations, ranging from hack-and-leak operations to disruptive activity. Prominent operations involving APT28 have included compromises of the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and U.S. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in 2016, documents from which were subsequently leaked by the false hacktivist persona Guccifer 2.0, and the 2014 compromise, defacement, data leak, and data destruction of the Ukrainian Central Election Commission’s network and website.
Ghostwriter: A suspected Ghostwriter operation in April leveraged a suspected compromised website and multiple suspected compromised or otherwise actor-controlled social media accounts to publish fabricated content to promote a narrative that appeared intended to foment distrust between Ukrainians and the Polish government. Inauthentic personas we attributed to the Ghostwriter campaign have also continued to publish and promote opinion articles criticizing NATO and its presence in the Baltic States, with increased references to Ukraine in that context. We have assessed with moderate confidence that Belarus is likely at least partially responsible for the Ghostwriter campaign.
  • In the weeks leading up to the invasion and subsequent weeks thereafter, we observed multiple campaigns conducted by Belarusian espionage group UNC1151 targeting European countries, including a recent spear-phishing campaign targeting Lithuania. Observed targeting associated with UNC1151 threat activity is notable, given the group’s technical support to information operations attributed to Ghostwriter.
Niezależny Dziennik Polityczny (NDP): Immediately following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we observed assets associated with NDP, an information operations campaign centered around an online journal of the same name, shift toward an aggressive defense of Russian strategic interests. During this period, we observed the campaign’s concerted promotion of narratives seeded by both overt and covert sources within Russia’s propaganda and disinformation ecosystem. We do not attribute the NDP campaign to a specific actor. However, we have observed overlaps between NDP and the Ghostwriter campaign that may suggest some degree of coordination or advanced shared knowledge of operational planning between the two campaigns.
Secondary Infektion: Both prior to and during the invasion, the ongoing suspected Russian influence campaign referred to as “Secondary Infektion” has continued its operations, targeting audiences with fabricated narratives that are often supported by falsified source materials, such as forged documents, correspondence, pamphlets, and screenshots, as well as counterfeit petitions and interviews. All specific Secondary Infektion activity referenced in this blog are operations that we are sharing our attribution of publicly for the first time.
Internet Research Agency (IRA): Reporting from the Russian newspaper Fontanka.ru suggested the existence of covert influence operations related to the Telegram channel “Cyber Front Z.” The channel is overtly dedicated to organizing the coordinated promotion of pro-Russia content pertaining to the invasion to audiences in Russia, Ukraine, and the West on social media (Figure 2). The Fontanka.ru report claimed that Cyber Front Z may be run by individuals linked to entities sanctioned by the U.S. as related to the IRA, and that the paid positions promoted by this Telegram channel are part of a “troll factory” that uses inauthentic personas to promote pro-Russia content on multiple platforms. We are unable to independently confirm these claims, but note that such activity is aligned with what we have previously observed from known IRA assets.
Figure 2: Example of content posted to the Cyber Front Z Telegram channel, which it encourages its followers to post on the social media accounts of specified targets. Provided content often includes crude or offensive imagery; featured here is a meme of Ukrainian forces trapped at the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol while a cartoon Russian soldier calls in an airstrike
Russian Intelligence-Linked Covert Media Outlets: We observed outlets that self-present as independent entities, but have been publicly reported to be linked to Russian intelligence entities, engaged in the publication and amplification of pro-Russia narratives related to the invasion. These include outlets with reported links to the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation (SVR), Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), and Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU).
Russia-Aligned “Hacktivist” Groups: Established hacktivist personas JokerDNR and Beregini have remained active in their targeting of Ukraine in the leadup to and since Russia’s invasion, including through their publication of allegedly leaked documents featuring possible personally identifiable information (PII) of Ukrainian military members. Additionally, newly established “hacktivist” groups, whose degrees of affiliation to the Russian state are yet unknown, like Killnet, Xaknet, and RahDit, have engaged in hacktivist-style threat activity in support of Russia, including distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, hack-and-leak operations, and defacements.
Observed Pro-Russia Narratives Seek to Demoralize Ukrainians, Sow Division Between Ukraine and Western Allies, Bolster Public Perception of Russia
Disinformation narratives promoted through concerted information operations have made an array of claims attempting to shape perceptions of the invasion and the larger geopolitical context surrounding it. Many of the narratives we have observed promoted appear intended to serve at least one of these three functions: demoralizing Ukrainians and fomenting internal unrest; dividing Ukraine from its allies; and bolstering perceptions of Russia (Figure 3). Much of this activity has targeted audiences in Ukraine and Europe. However, we have also identified information operations assets promoting messaging that we judge to be aimed at Russian domestic audiences, underscoring Russia’s need to sell the war to its own people.
Figure 3: Observed Russia-aligned narrative themes related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Demoralize the Ukrainian Population
We have identified multiple narratives that appeared intended to demoralize Ukrainians and incite internal unrest within Ukraine, including false claims of the surrender of the Ukrainian government or military.
  • An information operation in March disseminated an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated “deepfake” video of Zelenskyy stating that Ukraine had surrendered to Russia, and defaced the Ukraine 24 website and news ticker in a Ukraine 24 TV broadcast with an identical message or screenshot from the deepfake video (Figure 4). Since the start of the war, other Ukrainian websites have also been defaced with messages alleging Ukraine’s surrender.
  • A Secondary Infektion operation in March falsely claimed that Zelenskyy had committed suicide in the military bunker in Kyiv where he had been leading the fight against the invasion, alleging that he had been contemplating suicide due to Ukraine’s military failures.
  • Another Secondary Infektion operation from April alleged that the Azov “gang” sought vengeance against Zelenskyy for abandoning their fighters to die in Mariupol, and claimed that Azov commanders had attempted to escape the city by pretending to be civilians. (The narrative here specifically refers to Ukraine's Azov Regiment, a special operations detachment within the Ukrainian National Guard, which is itself part of a broader ultranationalist movement—segments of which have been known to espouse white nationalist rhetoric; Azov has frequently appeared in pro-Russia narratives seeking to cast the Ukrainian government, and Ukrainians more broadly, as Nazis.)
  • Telegram channels attributed by Ukraine to the GRU highlighted alleged corruption and incompetence on the part of the Ukrainian government, such as claims that Ukraine was unprepared for the conflict, and that Ukrainian oligarchs had “paid Zelenskyy for the right to leave the country.”
Figure 4: Screenshot from an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated “deepfake” video of Zelenskyy stating that Ukraine would surrender to Russia
Divide Ukraine from Its Allies
  • A recent Ghostwriter operation, which we are making our attribution of public for the first time, leveraged compromised assets to publish fabricated content promoting the narrative that a Polish criminal ring was harvesting organs from Ukrainian refugees to illegally traffic in the European Union, and that Poland’s Internal Security Agency was investigating the criminal enterprise, which was said to involve “high-ranking Polish officials.”
  • Opinion articles published by suspected inauthentic personas associated with NDP promoted narratives seemingly intended to damage Polish-Ukrainian relations by creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) surrounding Poland’s acceptance of Ukrainian refugees. These narratives included falsehoods that sought to portray the refugees as overly burdening Poland’s economy and healthcare system and to stoke fears among Polish citizens that “neo-Nazis”, or other undesirable immigrants, would begin exploiting mass border crossings to carry out attacks on Polish soil.
  • The Jan. 14 and Feb. 23 defacements of Ukrainian government websites referenced war crimes committed by the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) against ethnic Poles during World War II, a theme previously observed in Russian and Belarusian information operations. For example, a November 2021 Ghostwriter operation featured a fabricated account from a retired Polish general, stating that the alleged presence of Ukrainian volunteers with far-right political leanings in Poland was “an insult” to the victims of the same war crimes.
  • Recent Ukrainian- and Russian-language Secondary Infektion operations claimed that the Ukrainian and Polish governments sought to enable Polish troops to deploy in western Ukraine, a move they portrayed as anathema to the Ukrainian people. One operation in early April claimed that Poland attempted to use an alleged “provocation,” staged by Ukraine, showing Russian troops committing atrocities in Bucha to justify stationing troops in the country, while an operation in early February involved the dissemination of a map showing specific locations where Polish troops would be located, with the suggestion that those troops would occupy large swaths of Ukraine for years (Figure 5).
  • Observed narratives from Telegram channels Ukraine attributed to the GRU included suggestions that the West would soon forget about and abandon Ukraine, due in part to the diversion of its attention to impending conflicts elsewhere, such as a potential war launched by the U.S. against Iran.
Figure 5: A map disseminated in a suspected Secondary Infektion operation claimed to show specific locations where Polish troops would be stationed in western Ukraine
Bolster Perceptions of Russia
Multiple identified narratives have appeared intended to bolster perceptions of Russia through denial and deflection, including by refuting Russian war crimes in Ukraine and making counter-allegations against Ukrainian forces.
  • Cyber Front Z, in its coordinated promotion of pro-Russia commentary, called on social media users to claim that Ukrainian “Nazis” forced civilians into a theater in Mariupol, which they then detonated.
  • We identified a coordinated and inauthentic network of social media accounts that promoted Russian-language messaging, including assertions that Ukrainian forces had used chemical weapons.
  • These accounts also denied the effects of the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, such as sanctions on Russia, and claimed that such measures had negative consequences for the West.
Pro-PRC Information Operations Campaign DRAGONBRIDGE Messaging Includes Echoes of Russian State-Promoted Narratives
DRAGONBRIDGE, a pro-PRC campaign which comprises a network of thousands of inauthentic accounts across numerous social media platforms, websites, and forums that we first reported to customers in 2019, has shifted its messaging in response to the Ukraine crisis and subsequent invasion. DRAGONBRIDGE content in English and Chinese has included echoing narratives promoted by Russian state media and influence campaigns, such as alleging the existence of Pentagon-linked laboratories conducting biological weapons research in Ukraine. Notably, such echoing of narratives is not unusual, and charging the U.S. with malfeasance and interference in other countries is likewise in line with PRC political interests; we have previously observed both pro-PRC and pro-Russia information operations promoting content on the alleged involvement of U.S. biolabs in hazardous research. The campaign’s leveraging of Russia-aligned narratives on Ukraine may constitute a form of political opportunism in its continued attempts to target the U.S. and the West’s global standing.
  • On March 6, Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson Igor Konashenkov claimed that Russia’s military operation in Ukraine had uncovered evidence of Pentagon-linked laboratories in Ukraine conducting bioweapons research. DRAGONBRIDGE accounts subsequently amplified this claim, including allegations that U.S.-funded biolabs existed not only in Ukraine, but also around the world.
  • DRAGONBRIDGE accounts also insinuated that the alleged biolabs in Ukraine were responsible for “mysterious outbreaks,” the nature of which went unexplained, and that biolabs elsewhere in the world were likewise harming local populations (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Screenshot from DRAGONBRIDGE video insinuating a connection between the presence of a U.S. biolab in Ukraine and the occurrence of multiple “mysterious outbreaks”
DRAGONBRIDGE messaging on the invasion also appeared to take aim at U.S. foreign policy and its relations with other countries through claims that the U.S. is self-serving in its actions and that it is an unreliable partner in its alliances. Some accounts alleged that the U.S. sought to fan the flames of the conflict as it stood to benefit the most, citing its arms sales to Ukraine, while others cast doubt on the U.S. and Europe’s seeming policy alignment on sanction measures against Russia, suggesting that the U.S. had bullied Europe into enacting those sanctions, despite deepening energy woes on the continent.
Pro-Iran Information Operations Denigrate Western Response to Conflict, Take Aim at Russia-Israel Relationship
Similarly, Mandiant has observed Iranian and pro-Iran information operations leveraging narratives pertaining to the invasion to take aim at the West, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Involved campaigns have included the Liberty Front Press (LFP) campaign, as well as activity from a pro-Iran campaign we have not previously named that we are dubbing “Roaming Mayfly”, due to its potential links to the Iran-aligned Endless Mayfly influence campaign that Citizen Lab reported on in 2019.
  • Messaging directed at Arabic-language audiences asserted that the U.S. fled from Afghanistan in 2021, and had now abandoned Ukraine, which deserved its fate due to its alliance with the “American axis of evil.” Similarly, English-language content averred that NATO had sacrificed Ukraine to avoid engaging in a war with Russia.
  • Pro-Iran information operations assets also declared that Ukraine should not have surrendered its nuclear weapons, implying that such a concession had left it vulnerable to the subsequent invasion.
  • Pro-Iran information operations have also leveraged the conflict to accuse the West of hypocrisy in its dealings with Saudi Arabia compared to Russia, by juxtaposing the war in Ukraine against the war in Yemen. Tangentially, assets leveled accusations of racism on the part of the West against Arabs and Muslims, noting alleged differences in its response to the conflict in Ukraine in comparison to conflicts in the Middle East.
We also observed Roaming Mayfly target Russian audiences on the eve of the war in what appeared to be an attempt to use the crisis in order to drive tensions between Russia and Israel. Namely, the campaign leveraged a (now-suspended) impersonator of the Russian journalist and foreign policy thinker, Fyodor Lukyanov, to publish tweets suggesting that Israeli intelligence was supporting Ukraine against Russia in the current crisis, and that Israel had supported the “Ukrainian color [revolutions]” of 2000, 2004, and 2014 (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Tweets by suspected Fyodor Lukyanov impersonator suggesting that Israeli intelligence was supporting Ukraine against Russia in the current crisis and that Israel had supported the “Ukrainian color [revolutions]” of 2000, 2004, and 2014
Outlook
Information operations observed in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have exhibited both tactical aims responding to, or seeking to shape, events on the ground and strategic objectives attempting to influence the shifting geopolitical landscape. While these operations have presented an outsized threat to Ukraine, they have also threatened the U.S. and other Western countries. As a result, we anticipate that such operations, including those involving cyber threat activity and potentially other disruptive and destructive attacks, will continue as the conflict progresses.
One notable feature of operations attributed to known actors thus far is their apparent consistency with the respective campaign’s established motives. Russia-aligned operations, including those attributed to Russian, Belarusian, and pro-Russia actors, have thus far employed the widest array of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to support tactical and strategic objectives, directly linked to the conflict itself. This is especially beneficial when the facts on the ground shape Russia’s need to influence events in Ukraine, marshal domestic Russian support, and manage global perceptions of Russia’s actions. Meanwhile, pro-PRC and pro-Iran campaigns have leveraged the Russian invasion opportunistically to further progress long-held strategic objectives. We likewise expect this dynamic to continue, and are actively monitoring for expansions in their scope of information operations activity surrounding the conflict.

10.  China's Bid to Topple US Without Fighting


Everyone should read (or hopefully reread) Unrestricted Warfare. For those who have not or those who need a copy, here is a link to the first 1999 translation from FBIS.


I have relayed this anecdote before. When I was a student at the National War College in 2003-2004, the Chinese Minister of defense came to give a talk to the students. I asked one question the entire year and it was this. I said Unrestricted Warfare seemed to be very prescient for being written in 1999. I asked if it is being used as the foundation for Chinese doctrine and concept development? He walked off the stage and consulted with his handlers and then looked right at me and said that the book has been debunked and do not believe everything you read. I assessed by that response that Unrestricted Warfare has very much influenced Chinese strategic thinking.

China's Bid to Topple US Without Fighting
ntd.com · by NTD Newsroom · May 20, 2022
A war without bullets.
The Chinese regime has a strategy to win without fighting. To destroy a country from within.
In this special report, we look at how the Chinese regime uses unrestricted warfare, how that’s playing out in America, and how lives are already being impacted.



11. The United States is Sending Billions in Military Aid to Ukraine—Just Not the Systems It Needs

Excerpts:
There are clearly concerns about escalation at play, but there is little logical distinction between a weapon that kills tanks one mile away, as man-portable systems such as the Javelin are capable of doing, or fifty miles away, as only a long-distance strike drone can do with certainty. The difference to the operator, however, is significant. And Washington needs to understand that in any conflict between democracy and autocracy of the sort playing out in Ukraine, US interests are at stake. It needs to embrace the real prospect of Ukrainian victory—and to understand that such an outcome is the only one acceptable, not just for Ukraine but for global perceptions of the rule of law between sovereign nations and of the role that the United States plays in upholding such a thing. A Ukrainian victory will bring with it the opportunity for a massive international reconstruction program, EU membership, a buffer against further Russian aggression, and a totemic watershed for the global rule of law.
A ceasefire or stalemate, by contrast, would leave Ukrainians under Russian occupation, subject to torture, rape, and execution. It would enable the Russians to regroup and rearm. It would allow Putin to claim victory, to posture and reposition for further offensive action. In short, it would be a de facto defeat—sending the world a message about the power of autocracy on the global stage, and a sobering reminder that a partnership with the United States can, in real terms, mean very little indeed.
The United States is Sending Billions in Military Aid to Ukraine—Just Not the Systems It Needs - Modern War Institute
mwi.usma.edu · by Andrew Milburn · May 20, 2022
Twisted metal, still smoldering; the eviscerated hull of a vehicle, its top half ripped off—this is what the Turkish Bayraktar TB-2 leaves in its wake. There were two such drones involved in this attack on a Russian armored column north of Kyiv—quite a bargain for the West at just under $2 million a platform.
By contrast, the much-vaunted Javelin and NLAW, both man-portable antitank guided missiles, belong to a previous era. They require an operator (or two, in the case of the Javelin) to ambush armored vehicles within the adversary’s weapons engagement zone. Their high success rate here in Ukraine owes everything to designer defects in Soviet-era armor.
The Russian BRDM armored reconnaissance vehicles are made of aluminum alloy, which burns incandescently after contact with a high-explosive round. And the manufacturer of the T-72 tank overlooked one fatal design defect: the tank’s ammunition is stored below the crew spaces without a hardened bulkhead for insulation. Even a rocket-propelled grenade fired from the flank will result in a catastrophic kill more often than not. Both these flaws are a result, in part, of the corruption and incompetence endemic throughout the Russian military procurement system—and have proven to be a great benefit for the defenders of Ukraine.
Why doesn’t the United States produce a blue-collar drone like the TB-2 for export? The answers are complex. Since July 2020, there have been no legal restrictions on the export of such a platform. But the US defense industry has no incentive to manufacture a low-cost drone with similar capabilities to the TB-2, and the Pentagon has yet to send a demand signal. As a result, Turkish and Israeli firms dominate the market—two countries whose national interests do not always overlap neatly with those of the United States.
While the United States has so far provided the Ukrainians with few drones, it has provided heavier weapons and tens of billions of dollars in aid. But the provision of military aid to Ukraine does not appear to be aligned with battlefield requirements. Instead, the United States is throwing money at the problem in the hope that sheer expenditure will bring results. It is a mistake to conflate expenditure and resources with targeted capability. Military aid should be focused on actual requirements—and it is here where US policy breaks down.
The need for long-range precision fires is one example. The United States has made little attempt to meet this requirement, beyond the much-heralded M777 howitzer, which is in fact obsolete. The M777 is outranged by Russian rocket artillery, which has a proven ability to respond with counterbattery fires within five minutes—less time than it takes a battery of M777s to displace. There has been no serious discussion of providing the Ukrainians with the Multiple Launch Rocket System or long-range strike drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper or even its older cousin the MQ-1 Predator, perhaps because both these platforms cost considerably more than the TB-2—the unit cost of an MQ-9 is over $30 million.
Nor has NATO fielded logistics drones to meet the Ukrainian military’s requirement to resupply units cut off by Russian forces. Cargo drones such as the US K-MAX or the British Maloy T150 could well have prevented the fall of Mariupol’s garrison. Ukrainian helicopters did made it through the gauntlet of Russian air defense systems, but the risk of losing air crews made this method of resupply prohibitively expensive. It would have been a relatively simple task to flood the air with decoys such as cheap commercial drones, like the various models manufactured by DJI, overwhelming Russian air defenses, while a handful of logistics drones delivered vital supplies that would have allowed the garrison to fight on indefinitely.
Moreover, a policy that simply pushes logistics without any “pull” or supervision to ensure distribution according to prioritization of need simply does not work. A handful of US contractors in country could have made a world of difference in this regard—and it is hard to imagine that the deployment of a few personnel tasked with coordinating distribution would constitute a red line triggering World War III. Instead, the Territorial Defense Forces, the Ukrainian reserves in the west of the country, are often well-equipped while units on the front line go short of everything. Is this corruption? Perhaps—but from what I have seen it is simply a case of commanders trying to take care of their own, not realizing that there is only a limited amount of US largesse to go around.
The United States needs to reassess the equipment it plans to provide under its recently announced $37.4 billion aid package. The proposed package includes towed howitzers, Soviet-era helicopters, armored personnel carriers, and surveillance drones. This equipment is intended simply to replace Ukrainian losses but will make relatively little difference on the battlefield. It is as though Washington is deliberately avoiding giving Ukraine a qualitative military edge over Russia by providing its military what it really needs: squadrons of strike and logistics drones (along with counterdrone systems), battalions of rocket artillery with counterbattery radar, and anti–air defense systems.
There are clearly concerns about escalation at play, but there is little logical distinction between a weapon that kills tanks one mile away, as man-portable systems such as the Javelin are capable of doing, or fifty miles away, as only a long-distance strike drone can do with certainty. The difference to the operator, however, is significant. And Washington needs to understand that in any conflict between democracy and autocracy of the sort playing out in Ukraine, US interests are at stake. It needs to embrace the real prospect of Ukrainian victory—and to understand that such an outcome is the only one acceptable, not just for Ukraine but for global perceptions of the rule of law between sovereign nations and of the role that the United States plays in upholding such a thing. A Ukrainian victory will bring with it the opportunity for a massive international reconstruction program, EU membership, a buffer against further Russian aggression, and a totemic watershed for the global rule of law.
A ceasefire or stalemate, by contrast, would leave Ukrainians under Russian occupation, subject to torture, rape, and execution. It would enable the Russians to regroup and rearm. It would allow Putin to claim victory, to posture and reposition for further offensive action. In short, it would be a de facto defeat—sending the world a message about the power of autocracy on the global stage, and a sobering reminder that a partnership with the United States can, in real terms, mean very little indeed.
Andrew Milburn retired from the Marine Corps as a colonel in 2019 after a thirty-one-year career. His last position in uniform was as deputy commander of Special Operations Command Central, and prior to that, commanding officer of the Marine Raider Regiment and Combined Special Operations Task Force – Iraq. Since retiring, he has written a critically acclaimed memoir, When the Tempest Gathers, and articles for The Atlantic, USA Today, Joint Forces Quarterly, and War on the Rocks, in addition to the Military Times. He is on the adjunct faculty of the Joint Special Operations University and teaches classes on leadership, planning, ethics, command and control, mission command, risk, special operations, and irregular warfare at US military schools. He is a cohost of the Irregular Warfare Podcast.
Image credit: Master Sgt. Jeffrey Curtin, DoD
mwi.usma.edu · by Andrew Milburn · May 20, 2022
12. Special Operators Want AI to Help Discern Public Opinion

AI is great but if you want to have effective PSYOP you need to empower PSYOP professionals with the proper authorities and permissions and allow them to plan and rapidly execute.


Special Operators Want AI to Help Discern Public Opinion
New sentiment-analysis tools would improve psyops, SOCOM commander says.
defenseone.com · by Patrick Tucker
TAMPA, Florida—U.S. special operators have long understood that military advantage depends on how the public perceives the players. In the next few years, they hope to develop AI tools that can measure those perceptions better than ever—perhaps even well enough to vault U.S. influence operations past the larger efforts of China and Russia. “In the information space, I still don't think that we have all the tools that we need, and we need to…continue to develop that speed,” said Gen. Richard Clark, who leads U.S. Special Operations Command.
“The one thing that we're working on very hard at is just the sentiment analysis capability,” said Clark, who spoke Monday at the NDIA SOFIC conference here. “I think if we can apply big data, along with artificial intelligence and machine learning, I think it will give our people that are working in this space an advantage…I think we've got to continue to look at the authorities that go with that.” meaning the legal authorities.
Clark praised the Ukrainian government’s use of information operations to “bolster morale of the Ukrainian forces to ensure that the truth is getting out about what the Russian forces are doing.”
But Ukraine’s information environment is an “easy” one, he said, “because everybody can see what is happening...How are we going to do this against the near-peer adversaries who may not be as open or the whole world may not be pointing or it's a slow boil where we need to go?” Too often, he added, the U.S. government is reluctant to operate in the information space.
Sentiment analysis isn’t new. Today’s practice derives from public-opinion polling following the Cold War. But the rise of information technology in the 1990s and early 2000s enabled computational sentiment analysis. A seminal 1990 paper showed how crunching large amounts of scanned text to count how frequently words appear with other words can generate a sense whether people are feeling good or bad about a given subject.
The practice has exploded in recent years as the spread of social media has created new and easily structured data sets that reflect public mood. More than 99% of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject have appeared since 2004.
James Smith, the head of acquisition for SOCOM, said special operators “need to understand what the environment is where they're operating. What is the sentiment? As the [commanding general] said, we need to be able to message and counter-message in that environment at a speed and at a scale” that matches the pace of adversaries.”
Various heads of theater special operations command reiterated that message in a later panel.
Rear Adm. Milton Sands, who leads U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, said that the presence of Russian Wagner mercenaries in Africa has made it harder for the United States to operate in Mali.
“That's largely because of information operations,” Sands said. “You see a connection between both what's happening for example in the UN, when, in the UN, the ambassador from Russia is talking about Mali's airspace ‘being violated’—basically a false claim.”
That will likely lead the Malian government to ask Russia for some sort of air defenses, he said.
“So it gets very, very interesting, very complex, and it's very active,” he said. But U.S. troops are working hard as well: “We'll have soldiers tweeting from the field in firefights in order to stay ahead of Al Shabaab.”
Rear Adm. Keith Davids, who leads U.S. Special Operations Command South, said, “I would say that we are getting better, but [are] still a little bit slow as an intergovernmental team” at identifying misinformation and disinformation. “I will tell you Russia is very active,” in disinformation operations in Latin and South America, he said.
A tactical battlefield victory is moot if the public perception of it isn’t good, Davids said. So sentiment analysis will be essential to help special operators assess how well they are doing relative to China and Russia in places like South America.
“I think there's some cutting-edge work being done with the use of sentiment analysis and AI to get at those things,” he said.
One SOCOM official told Defense One on background that money had not yet been allocated to the effort and he expected the program to formally start in 2024.
defenseone.com · by Patrick Tucker

13.  US-supplied howitzers to Ukraine lack accuracy-aiding computers

Should we provide help to Ukraine while tying one hand behind their backs?

US-supplied howitzers to Ukraine lack accuracy-aiding computers
The computers improve efficiency and accuracy.
ABCNews.com · by ABC News
KYIV -- Dozens of artillery systems supplied by the United States to Ukraine were not fitted with advanced computer systems, which improve the efficiency and accuracy of the weapons, ABC News has learned.
The M777 155mm howitzers are now being used by the Ukrainian military in its war with Russia.
The Pentagon did not deny that the artillery pieces were supplied without the computers but said it had received "positive feedback" from the Ukrainians about the "precise and highly effective" weapons.
That positive sentiment was echoed by a Ukrainian politician, who spoke to ABC News on condition of anonymity. However, the politician also expressed frustration that the artillery pieces had not been the fitted with the digital computer systems.
Artillery is currently playing a crucial role in the fighting raging in eastern Ukraine as Russia continues its offensive in that part of the country.
U.S. officials recently confirmed that all but one of the 90 howitzers promised to Ukraine had now been delivered, along with tactical vehicles used to tow them.

Cpl. Austin Fraley/U.S. Marines via Reuters
U.S. Marine Corps M777 towed 155 mm howitzers are staged on the flight line prior to being loaded onto a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III aircraft bound for Europe for delivery to Ukrainian forces, at March Air Reserve Base, Calif., April 22, 2022.
If fitted to a howitzer, the digital computer system enables the crew operating the weapon to quickly and accurately pinpoint a target.
Howitzers without a computer system can still be fired accurately, using traditional methods to calculate the angle needed to hit a target. Modern computer systems, however, rule-out the possibility of human error.
Why the artillery pieces supplied to Ukraine did not have the digital targeting technology installed is unclear. The Pentagon said it would not discuss individual components "for operational security reasons."
ABC News contributor Steve Ganyard, a retired colonel in the United State Marine Corps, said the reason for not providing the computers would be "compromise."
"It’s a risk assessment the U.S. does with any export," he said.
"If this piece of kit ends up in Moscow, what is the damage to U.S. security? In this case they couldn’t share the best the U.S. has," he said.

Cpl. Austin Fraley/U.S. Marines via Reuters
U.S. Marine Corps M777 towed 155 mm howitzers are staged on the flight line prior to being loaded onto a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III aircraft bound for Europe for delivery to Ukrainian forces, at March Air Reserve Base, Calif., April 22, 2022.
The revelation about the lack of computer systems on the howitzers comes amid broader frustration in Ukrainian political circles that the U.S. has not yet supplied certain types of advanced weaponry.
To date, the U.S. and its allies have provided Ukraine with an impressive quantity and array of weapons including thousands of anti-tank missiles, thousands of anti-aircraft missiles, hundreds of armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers and hundreds of attack drones.

Cpl. Austin Fraley/U.S. Marines via Reuters
U.S. Marines load an M777 towed 155 mm howitzer into the cargo hold of a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III transport plane, to be delivered in Europe for Ukrainian forces, at March Air Reserve Base, California, April 21, 2022.
However, the Ukrainian government is currently lobbying the United States for multiple rocket launcher systems and western-made fighter jets, such as F16s
Ukrainian politicians interviewed by ABC News said it was urgent that Ukraine received these types of weapons now, because they believe that Russia is vulnerable following a string of failures on the battlefield.
"Russia is very weak now. Their army is very demoralized," said a Ukrainian politician.
"What we are saying is that we need all the multi-rocket-launcher systems now. This is the best time for us to get the Russians out of our country."
"To do that, we need really good U.S. weapons," the politician said.
ABC News' Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
ABCNews.com · by ABC News


14. What Does Bongbong Marcos’ Win Mean for the United States in Southeast Asia?

Excerpt:

Like Duterte, Bongbong will be limited in what moves he can make to meaningfully distance the Philippines from the United States. His country’s competition with China over territorial claims will make it difficult to refuse the powerful deterrent that U.S. military cooperation provides. He has said Filipinos “will not cede any one square inch to any country, particularly China, but will continue to engage and work on our national interest.” If China keeps up its aggression in the South China Sea, Bongbong may come to the same decision that bound his father and the United States together through the Cold War: the brutal politics of self-preservation trump all.

What Does Bongbong Marcos’ Win Mean for the United States in Southeast Asia?
georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org · by View all posts by Dan Spinelli · May 20, 2022
Credit: RPSantos / Flickr
Few countries are more vital to the United States’ strategy in Asia than the Philippines. Once a U.S. colony, the Southeast Asian archipelago remains a key ally to the United States and an important bulwark against China’s territorial ambitions in the South China Sea.
But in recent years, the Philippine government has shown a forceful desire to move away from its historic ties to the United States. President Rodrigo Duterte has long pushed for his country to be more independent on the international stage and nearly canceled a landmark visiting forces agreement, which establishes a legal framework for U.S. troops to maintain a presence in the Philippines. (After originally saying he would terminate the pact, Duterte eventually reversed his decision.)
Once Duterte leaves office next month, the Philippines will inaugurate a new, right-wing, populist leader: Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. Their politics are similar, though it is not clear if Marcos, Jr. will view the United States as disdainfully as Duterte, who repeatedly clashed with the Obama administration and even said that Obama himself can “go to hell.”
Even if Bongbong Marcos is less hostile to the United States than his predecessor, his election comes at an especially momentous time for Philippine politics. Though China has become more aggressive under leader Xi Jinping in asserting sovereignty over resource-rich tracts of the South China Sea, would-be rivals like Vietnam and the Philippines have still grown closer to Beijing. They are not alone. Other Southeast Asian countries, particularly Thailand, want a better relationship with the rising hegemon in the region.
Political scientist Zachary Abuza has described U.S.-China competition as “primarily” a “contest for partners.” For better or worse, Bongbong Marcos is that new partner. The United States will need to keep him as a reliable ally and, if his public statements are to be believed, its success may hinge on the very different, much-maligned U.S. courtship of another Marcos.
——
When Ferdinand Marcos was terrorizing Filipinos in the mid-20th century through widespread torture and arbitrary detention, the United States was his key backer. At the height of the Cold War, the Philippines was home to the largest overseas U.S. military base, a strategic boon for U.S. war planners. The arrangement was not too shabby for Marcos either, who was able to enact martial law and brutally repress journalists, activists, and other ostensible opponents of his regime.
When Filipinos finally forced him out following a popular, grassroots movement, Marcos and his family fled to the friendly confines of Hawaii, where President Ronald Reagan granted him asylum. “Mr. Reagan had determined that offering asylum to Marcos and his group of about 90 associates and family members was in the best interests of U.S.-Filipino relations,” Washington Times reporter Jeremiah O’Leary wrote at the time.
Marcos and his wife Imelda, who pillaged billions from the Philippine treasury before fleeing in exile, had stockpiled their wealth in U.S. assets. O’Leary reported that, at the time of Marcos’ abdication, nearly 40 properties in California were linked to his family. That war chest came in handy as Imelda, Bongbong, and the other Marcoses plotted a political comeback in the years following Marcos Sr.’s death. At least “900 civil and criminal cases” have been filed against the Marcoses in the United States and the Philippines, but Imelda and Bongbong have evaded any serious punishment.
Those memories linger in any assessment of Bongbong’s future policy toward the United States. He has spoken with reverence toward his father’s two-decade dictatorship, which depended in large part on cooperation with the U.S. government, and refrained from echoing some of Duterte’s more frank comments about pivoting away from the U.S. When Bongbong has discussed foreign policy—which is not often; he boycotted most campaign debates and shunned the press—he has reflected the views of a “Duterte-light leader who is China-friendly but who does not have the expressed intent, as Duterte did, of dismantling the Philippine-U.S. alliance,” as RAND Corporation analyst Derek Grossman put it.
“Duterte-light” may not be what the United States is looking for, but in Southeast Asia, it will take all the allies it can get. The same strategic calculations that drew Reagan and other U.S. presidents to the elder Marcos will have to repeat themselves, but the political landscape has certainly changed. Even before Corazon Aquino, the Philippine president who replaced Marcos, forced the United States to close its massive base on Subic Bay, Filipinos had questioned the value of hosting U.S. troops. Even in a visiting arrangement, those concerns have persisted. When Duterte crowed during a visit to China that it was “time to say goodbye” to the United States, he put a voice to that visible strain of anti-American sentiment.
Like Duterte, Bongbong will be limited in what moves he can make to meaningfully distance the Philippines from the United States. His country’s competition with China over territorial claims will make it difficult to refuse the powerful deterrent that U.S. military cooperation provides. He has said Filipinos “will not cede any one square inch to any country, particularly China, but will continue to engage and work on our national interest.” If China keeps up its aggression in the South China Sea, Bongbong may come to the same decision that bound his father and the United States together through the Cold War: the brutal politics of self-preservation trump all.
georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org · by View all posts by Dan Spinelli · May 20, 2022

15. ‘Deadly serious’: U.S. quietly urging Taiwan to follow Ukraine playbook for countering China

A resistance operating concept with Taiwanese characteristics is necessary. Let's re-establish. the Taiwan Resident Detachment that was permanently stationed in Taiwan from 1959 through 1974. Let's man it with cross-functional teams from the 1st Special Forces Command and advise and assist the Taiwanese SOF to develop an indigenous resistance capability.

Excerpts:
But Taiwan’s military is not well integrated with its civilian population, a disconnect that has roots in Taiwan’s long history of martial law. Many citizens still have physical and mental scars from Taiwan’s period of “White Terror,” when those believed to be anti-government were rounded up and imprisoned — thousands were executed.
Over the past few decades, Taiwan has gradually reduced its military service requirement from two years to just four months, said Bonnie Glaser, an East Asia analyst at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. She noted that “it is not considered to be really serious” and that some Taiwanese refer to it as “summer camp.” The problem is compounded by the fact that the active-duty military is not keen to work with the reserve force, which is seen as insufficiently trained, she added.
Taiwan’s defense ministry is assessing whether the four-month requirement is adequate, particularly as there appears to be a high degree of public support for extending the mandatory training, Hsiao said. But the change won’t happen overnight.


‘Deadly serious’: U.S. quietly urging Taiwan to follow Ukraine playbook for countering China
Yet Beijing is also learning lessons from Russia's botched invasion.

A Taiwanese military officer salutes to Taiwan's flag. | Chiang Ying-ying/AP Photo
05/19/2022 04:32 PM EDT
U.S. officials are pushing their Taiwanese counterparts with new urgency to look to Ukraine’s success in fending off Russian forces as a blueprint for countering a Chinese attack, former and current U.S. officials tell POLITICO.
But there is little doubt that China is also learning from Russia’s botched invasion as it looks to reunify Taiwan with the mainland — with or without force. Experts say Beijing is likely adjusting its plans for the island to reflect and improve on Russia’s failures.

“There is no question that the perceived reality of the possibility [of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan] is greater than it was three months ago,” said Aaron Friedberg, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. But “it’s not a trivial challenge for the Chinese, even as strong as they’ve become.”

Discussions about reshaping Taiwan’s military are intensifying as President Joe Biden heads out this week on his first trip as president to Asia. He will make stops in South Korea and Japan, where he will meet with the leaders of the other nations in the Quad security pact: Japan, India and Australia.
While Biden is not visiting Taiwan — the most likely flashpoint of a conflict — the China problem looms over the trip. The U.S. and its Pacific allies have been alarmed by Beijing’s tacit support for Moscow since the invasion, and U.S. officials believe the conflict has influenced China’s calculations about how and when to attempt to take control of Taiwan.
“Clearly the Chinese leadership is trying to look carefully about the lessons they should draw from Ukraine about their own ambitions in Taiwan,” CIA Director Bill Burns said this month. “I don’t think for a minute it’s eroded [President Xi Jinping’s] determination over time to gain control over Taiwan, but I think it’s something that’s affecting their calculation about how and when they go about doing that.”
While the United States does not formally have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the two governments maintain tight security ties under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. Washington has long supported Taipei’s self-defense capability with arms sales and a close military relationship — the two forces train together and Taiwanese cadets study at elite U.S. military academies.
Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine was a wakeup call for the Taiwanese people. Recent opinion polls show a significant increase in citizens who believe a Chinese invasion is likely, compared with surveys taken before the invasion. There is also more support for strengthening Taiwan’s self-defense, Hsiao Bi-khim, Taiwan’s official representative to the United States, told POLITICO in an interview Tuesday.
“We in no way want to see that same type of pain and suffering replicated in Taiwan,” she said. “The government as well as the public has to invest our efforts in our self-defense or preparedness. And I think there is a general acknowledgement that this is a priority right now.”
At the same time, the U.S. effort to reshape Taiwan’s military has taken on new urgency since the Russian invasion, officials and experts said. U.S. officials are pointing to Ukraine’s success with Stinger anti-aircraft and Javelin anti-tank missiles, as well as its spirited corps of civilian volunteers, as proof that the strategy they have long endorsed works.
“The Ukraine situation validated some long-standing steps we’ve been taking in Taiwan,” said one DoD official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.
Top U.S. military officials have said in recent weeks that Taipei is learning critical lessons from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that the island could apply to a Chinese attack. Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, noted in a recent hearing the importance of small unit tactics, a noncommissioned officer corps, and effective training “with the right weapons systems.”
“I think they’re learning some very interesting lessons from the Ukrainian conflict, like how important leadership is,” Berrier said.
The Pentagon and State Department declined to comment for this article.
‘Asymmetric’ weapons
Since 2010, Taipei has spent more than $23 billion on U.S. weapons, primarily large, conventional arms such as F-16 fighter jets and M109A6 self-propelled howitzers. But in recent years Washington has been urging Taipei to buy different types of weapons geared for so-called asymmetric warfare — smaller, more mobile ones that are difficult for a larger foe to target and counter.
On the heels of Russia’s invasion, the State Department in a March letter rebuffed Taipei’s request to purchase MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, designed for hunting submarines — a move experts said U.S. officials would not have made before the Ukraine invasion.
Similarly, the U.S. Army in a separate March letter urged Taiwan to buy an upgraded version of the howitzer Taipei had requested years ago. Meanwhile, officials plan to refuse any request for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early warning and battle management aircraft, former and current officials said.
Instead of these weapons, the U.S. believes Taiwan should invest in more mobile, cost-effective systems such as Stingers and Javelins, as well as sea mines and coastal anti-ship missiles.
“We are leaning on them in a way that we’ve not done in the past, in a way in fact that we’ve gone out of our way not to do,” Friedberg said. “The decision [to] turn down the Taiwanese request for the MH-60 helicopters, what that says to me is that OK, we are really deadly serious about this.”
These moves appear to reflect a shift in policy by the Biden administration. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and her colleagues briefed the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council in March that the administration would no longer support arms sales for Taiwan “outside their definition of ‘asymmetric’ defense,” according to a Tuesday press release from the council.
The council noted in the release that the administration “appears to have canceled” the Seahawks , Hawkeyes and M109 mobile artillery “for not meeting their ‘asymmetric’ criteria.”
The council pushed back on the new policy, noting in a Monday letter to Resnick that “far from accelerating Taiwan’s deterrent capabilities, we fear that the envisaged “asymmetric” focus for Taiwan security assistance will result in policy confusion and a substantial slowing of overall arms sales.”
In particular, the council expressed concern that the asymmetric policy focuses too much on a “D-day scenario,” leaving China free to continue its “gray-zone” operations — those short of all-out war, for instance flight intercepts and disinformation.
USTBC President Rupert Hammond-Chambers also pointed to America’s longstanding policy of “strategic ambiguity” about whether and how the U.S. would come to Taiwan’s aid in the event of an invasion, according to the release.
If the Biden administration “intends to dictate specific arms sales to Taiwan,” Hammond-Chambers urged some “clarity on when and where the U.S. would be willing to step in and fill the new gaps.”
Culture shift
Taiwan’s military may need a culture shift, as well as new weapons. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an April hearing that an important lesson Taiwan could draw from Ukraine is “a nation in arms.”
“If your opponent tries to invade you, and every military age man [and] woman is armed, and they have a little bit of training, that can be a very effective use,” Milley said.
Behind the scenes, U.S. officials are urging Taipei to modernize its reserve institution and lay the groundwork for mobilizing the population in the event of an invasion, officials said.
Taiwan late last year established an All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency, which is responsible for the mustering of reservists during wartime as well as disaster relief. The agency is drafting an “all-out defense handbook” that will increase the public’s knowledge of military response efforts for wartime and peacetime emergencies, officials said at the time.
But Taiwan’s military is not well integrated with its civilian population, a disconnect that has roots in Taiwan’s long history of martial law. Many citizens still have physical and mental scars from Taiwan’s period of “White Terror,” when those believed to be anti-government were rounded up and imprisoned — thousands were executed.
Over the past few decades, Taiwan has gradually reduced its military service requirement from two years to just four months, said Bonnie Glaser, an East Asia analyst at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. She noted that “it is not considered to be really serious” and that some Taiwanese refer to it as “summer camp.” The problem is compounded by the fact that the active-duty military is not keen to work with the reserve force, which is seen as insufficiently trained, she added.
Taiwan’s defense ministry is assessing whether the four-month requirement is adequate, particularly as there appears to be a high degree of public support for extending the mandatory training, Hsiao said. But the change won’t happen overnight.
Taiwan’s reserve force, meanwhile, is large but limited in capability, Glaser said.
“These people get called up for something like two days a year, so it’s not a serious reserve force,” she said.
Taiwan officials have had extensive communications with their American counterparts on ways to revamp the reserves system, Hsiao said. Officials recently began more intensive reserve training, she said, the timing of which coincided with the beginning of the Ukraine conflict.
The Pentagon is also urging Taiwan to increase cooperation between the military and civilian institutions, particularly with regard to protecting critical infrastructure, officials said. The department has also encouraged the Taiwanese military to consider introducing a civilian territorial defense force, but has not gotten much traction, Glaser said.
“Part of the problem in Taiwan is there really isn’t much enthusiasm among the civilians to work with the military or the military to work with civilians,” she said.
“That said, I think the Pentagon would really like Taiwan to draw some lessons from Ukraine, as everyone has seen that putting up resistance can be one of the most decisive factors in wartime.”
A ‘problematic’ analogy?
But some analysts believe using Ukraine as a model for Taiwan is the wrong approach. Randall Schriver, who served as the Pentagon’s top Asia policy official in the Trump administration, noted that Ukraine may have thwarted a swift Russian victory — but at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and millions of people displaced.
“If you tell Taiwan, ‘this is the plan for you,’ that’s not very comforting,” Schriver said.
The Ukraine analogy is also “problematic” because of Taiwan’s geography — the Chinese must cross 100 miles of ocean to get to the island, whereas Russia and Ukraine share a 1,200-mile land border, Schriver noted. Any Chinese invasion would be visible from miles away and vulnerable to standoff weapons. On the other side, resupply — an issue crucial to Ukraine’s defense — would be much more difficult in the case of Taiwan, a weakness Beijing may seek to exploit with an air and sea blockade.
The diplomatic situation also poses a challenge: Many countries, including the United States, do not recognize Taiwan’s independence from China, while Ukraine is internationally recognized as a sovereign nation, he added.
“There is no guarantee that the international community rallies around Taiwan the way it did Ukraine because of the non-diplomatic status,” he said.
Some analysts worry that, while a mobilized and trained civilian defense force might be useful, the goal should be deterring an attack in the first place. Dan Blumenthal, senior fellow and director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that Taiwan needs tools now to deal with near daily Chinese air incursions and other types of military intimidation around the island. Some factions in Taipei believe aircraft such as F-16s, MH-60Rs and E-2Ds are key to solving this problem.
“Taiwan’s political and military leadership need a number of things to deter, including being able to counter the daily coercive and intimidating threats that they face,” Blumenthal said. “They can’t just sit back and wait for an invasion.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin himself advised lawmakers in April not to make “direct comparisons” between Ukraine and Taiwan.
“These are two completely different scenarios, two different theaters,” Austin said during an April 5 hearing.
The economic toolbox
There’s also increased thinking in U.S. government and analytical circles about the non-military dimensions of a Chinese attack on Taiwan — including using sanctions to deter Beijing, or at least punish it.
Last summer, well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Eric Sayers of the American Enterprise Institute attended an informal meeting of about 15 former U.S. government officials, analysts and congressional staffers interested in Taiwan policy and sanctions and export control measures.
The goal of the Washington gathering was to brainstorm ways to sharpen the economic tools the United States and allies could use to prevent a Chinese attack. The idea was to “basically do the homework now so we have it ready to go later,” Sayers said.
Congress may need to pass legislation — similar to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which targeted Iran, North Korea and Russia — spelling out the sanctions China would face if it were to initiate a conflict, Sayers said. “Congress can play a bad cop role and initiate that,” he said.
That could prove one of the trickiest efforts of all. The United States is far more economically entangled with China than it was with Russia, although there have been efforts in recent years to reduce that dependency.
But at the same time, the Russian invasion raised questions about the efficacy of sanctions, Friedberg said, noting that the threat of sanctions “didn’t deter the Russians from doing what they did in Ukraine.”
“There is a question of whether we’d be willing to do the same thing with China, because the cost to us would be much greater,” he said.
Nahal Toosi and Phelim Kine contributed to this report.





16. Russia Gets a Taste of Its Own Medicine as Hackers Target the Country


Russia Gets a Taste of Its Own Medicine as Hackers Target the Country
Vladimir Putin thinks a switch to 'domestic technology' is the solution.
The world is used to Russian hackers being a serious threat to businesses and infrastructure, but the tables have turned, and now Russia is increasingly the focus of attacks.
As Reuters reports(Opens in a new window), Vladimir Putin held a meeting with the Russian government's Security Council today during which cyber attacks were a focus. Apparently the number of attacks targeting state-owned companies, financial institutions, medical providers, and news websites in the country have increased several-fold.
Putin said, "Targeted attempts are being made to disable the internet resources of Russia's critical information infrastructure," and that "Serious attacks have been launched against the official sites of government agencies. Attempts to illegally penetrate the corporate networks of leading Russian companies are much more frequent as well."
Notable targets for these attacks include Russia's second largest bank VTB, online marketplace Avito, e-commerce company Wildberries, tech company Yandex, food delivery company Delivery Club, and video hosting website RuTube. Putin believes the best countermeasure is a focus on domestic technology and equipment, while also acknowledging sanctions have meant technical support for foreign software and products has stopped.
Focusing on domestic technology to make IT systems more resilient may prove much more difficult than Putin realizes. With access to the latest PC hardware disappearing, it seems Russia's IT future relies on a slow Chinese x86 CPU and legalizing software piracy. And who is going to carry out the work required to improve the protection of state-owned systems, prisoners with IT skills?


17. Joe Biden has big plans for his first presidential trip to Asia

Excerpts:
The politics of the region complicate Mr Biden’s mission. India is essential to counterbalance China. Yet it has declined to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, largely because the Indian armed forces remain dependent on Russian weaponry. The Philippines, one of America’s oldest allies in Asia, just elected a new president who is thought to be close to China. And South Korea and Japan have long been divided by squabbles about how Japan should atone for its colonial rule.
America’s own politics are a potential source of instability, too. The prospect of a more isolationist president entering the White House in 2024 is omnipresent in the minds of Asian policy makers. For Mr Biden that means assuaging concerns not only that he will lose focus, as his predecessors have, but also that his successors might go even further astray. Asian countries do not need reminding of the importance of countering China—but they do need convincing that America can stay on course.
Joe Biden has big plans for his first presidential trip to Asia
OVER THE past quarter century, American presidents have repeatedly come up with plans to counter China, only to be sidetracked. George W. Bush branded China a “strategic competitor”, but soon became preoccupied with his War on Terror. Barack Obama spoke of a “pivot to Asia”, but was too mired in Afghanistan and the Middle East to make good on the talk. Donald Trump took a more confrontational approach with China, but alienated many American allies and withdrew from a trade deal widely seen as the best way to combat Chinese influence.
So Joe Biden has his work cut out for him as he makes his first visit to Asia as president this week. He hopes to reassure allies and partners in the region that, despite the war in Ukraine, he remains focused on the challenge from an increasingly aggressive China. He arrived in South Korea on May 20th, and will head to Japan on May 22nd for a summit of the Quad, a security grouping of countries worried about China, namely America, Australia, India and Japan. There he will unveil the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), a still-vague plan to shore up trade with and among Asian countries.
Given his predecessors’ unimpressive record in the region, Mr Biden should have nowhere to go but up. Yet it is that background that also makes the trip a challenge. He must convince his interlocutors that there is substance behind his words in two areas: security and trade.
Start with security. Japan, which suffers frequent Chinese incursions into its territorial waters, has long considered China an existential threat. Many South-East Asian countries worry about Chinese moves to enforce its maritime claims in the South China Sea. Bloody border clashes have also heightened India’s anxieties about its giant neighbour. And the war in Ukraine has amplified fears that China might take military action against Taiwan, the democratic island it claims as its own.
There are other risks, too. South Korea and Japan fret that it might be unwise to rely on America’s nuclear deterrent given how fickle an ally it seemed under Mr Trump in particular. Those misgivings are especially salient given that North Korea continues to expand its nuclear arsenal and develop missiles capable of carrying warheads as far as America. An expansion of joint military exercises in Asia since Mr Biden entered office and the signing of AUKUS, an agreement for America and Britain to help Australia build nuclear submarines, are encouraging signs. But Mr Biden will need to spell out more clearly how America intends to contribute to the region’s defence.
He must also clarify how America intends to aid Asian countries economically. Many of America’s allies in the region do the bulk of their trade with China. South Korea is a case in point: it does almost as much trade with China as it does with its two next biggest commercial partners, America and Japan, combined. Given China’s enormous economic heft, many governments in the region were unimpressed by an American offer to invest $150m in South-East Asia at a summit with regional leaders this month.
The IPEF, which is not envisioned as a trade deal, is intended to help wean Asian countries off trade with China by setting common standards and trying to make supply chains more resilient, among other things. In South Korea, Mr Biden visited a semiconductor factory owned by Samsung and waxed lyrical about more integrated supply chains. But the IPEF has already been criticised for not widening access to the American market. He must also convince Asian countries that they can join up without suffering retaliation from China. When Mr Yoon hinted that South Korea might join the IPEF—a prospect he has now committed to—China swiftly warned against “decoupling”.
The politics of the region complicate Mr Biden’s mission. India is essential to counterbalance China. Yet it has declined to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, largely because the Indian armed forces remain dependent on Russian weaponry. The Philippines, one of America’s oldest allies in Asia, just elected a new president who is thought to be close to China. And South Korea and Japan have long been divided by squabbles about how Japan should atone for its colonial rule.
America’s own politics are a potential source of instability, too. The prospect of a more isolationist president entering the White House in 2024 is omnipresent in the minds of Asian policy makers. For Mr Biden that means assuaging concerns not only that he will lose focus, as his predecessors have, but also that his successors might go even further astray. Asian countries do not need reminding of the importance of countering China—but they do need convincing that America can stay on course.■
For exclusive insight and reading recommendations from our correspondents in America, sign up to Checks and Balance, our weekly newsletter.


18. Electric Motorcycles and NLAW Missiles: How Ukraine Kills Russian Tanks

"I'm a cowboy, on a steel horse I ride
And I'm wanted dead or alive"
Written by: Jon Bon Jovi, Richard S. Sambora

Can electric motorcycles be steel horses?  
Electric Motorcycles and NLAW Missiles: How Ukraine Kills Russian Tanks
19fortyfive.com · by ByPeter Suciu · May 20, 2022
Some ingenious – and exceptionally brave – Ukrainians have taken the concept of “crotch rocket” to a new extreme by employing British-built Next-Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW) anti-tank launchers from their Delfast electric motorcycles. Known for being among the first successful mass-produced electric motorbikes, the Ukrainian-based Delfast successfully set a Guinness world record, breaking a 228 mile (367km) distance on a single charge.
Now its bikes are being used as a way to deploy soldiers close to enemy vehicles and defensive positions.
Meet the Delfast
The electric bike manufacturer had first gotten its start via a crowd-funding campaign on Kickstarter in 2017 when it successfully raised the initial funding in a single day for the production of the first run of e-bikes. The company has since introduced two models, the Prime and Top – the former is the longer-range model that is able to hit speeds of 34 mph (55km/h), while the Top has a pedal assist and tops out at around 15 mph (25km/h).
Neither would actually fall into the category of street-legal crotch rockets such as the Japanese Kawasaki Ninja or Italian Ducati 1199 Panigale, but the Delfast e-bikes were designed to go off-road and thus are well-suited to hit-and-run strikes against Russian military columns. The electric bike’s long-travel suspension and ability to carry heavy loads has made it particularly useful for navigating forested trails or “overlanding” where trails are nonexistent.
Because these are electric-powered, the bikes are also far quieter than similarly sized two-stroke gasoline-powered dirt bikes. That can allow a team of two to get close to an enemy unit, use the man-portable rocket launcher and dash away quickly.
“Delfast, an #Ukrainian company making electric bikes, gave a batch of electric bikes to the Ukrainian forces which are able to carry NLAW anti tank launchers,” Heuvelrug Intelligence (@HillridgeOSINT), an open-source military analyst group, tweeted earlier this week while sharing images of the Delfast bikes.
Another local Ukrainian company, ELEEK, has also reportedly been supplying its country’s armed forces with silent, powerful electric motorbikes for use on the battlefield. Those electric bikes were requested for use by sniper teams and subsequently employed in a similar fashion. The ELEEK can allow the teams to get into position, take the kill shot, and then get out far faster than would be possible on foot.
Militaries Going Green
According to a report from Electrek, which covers all things in the world of electric vehicles (EVs), e-bikes are already being embraced by militaries around the world. In 2018, the Norwegian military tested a fat tire electric bicycle with its border guard units. Named for their oversized tires, the fat tire bicycles can more easily traverse snow and sand than most typical mountain bikes – while a motorized one can ensure a trooper isn’t fatigued from the journey to the front.
NLAW missile firing. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Ukrainian marine with NLAW ATGM. Photo: Marine Command.
New Zealand and Australia have also employed electric bikes in military trials, while multiple Special Forces units in Europe and the Middle have tested high-power electric mounts for use in the field. The use of bicycles in warfare dates back to the earliest days of the two-wheeled pedal-powered vehicles, but electric bikes are proving to be a major game-changer for quick-strike teams and snipers.
Now a Senior Editor for 1945, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes.
19fortyfive.com · by ByPeter Suciu · May 20, 2022

19. Putin's Worst Nightmare: Is Ukraine Preparing to Retake Crimea


Putin's Worst Nightmare: Is Ukraine Preparing to Retake Crimea
19fortyfive.com · by ByJack Buckby · May 20, 2022
Could Ukraine actually retake Crimea? – The prospect of Ukraine not only winning the war against Russia, but going on an offensive against the invading country may sound far-fetched. But with the Russians still unable to achieve their original goals, and amid a faltering military campaign in the east, Ukrainian troops are very much on the verge of victory.
And invading Russian territory could be on the cards.
Comments from Ukraine’s president indicate that it could happen, and he can thank Western military assistance for a chance to reclaim territory lost over the last decade.
Russia Invasion Is Flagging
The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence said on Sunday that the Russian offensive in Donbas has “lost momentum and fallen significantly behind schedule.” In an intelligence briefing shared online, British defense officials said that despite small-scale advances in some parts of eastern Ukraine, Russia has “failed to achieve substantial territorial gains over the past month” while sustaining “consistently high levels of attrition.”
According to the same intelligence update, Russia has likely lost around one-third of its ground combat force that was committed to Ukraine back in February.
Also over the weekend, reports revealed how Russian troops were withdrawing from Ukraine’s second-biggest city. According to the Associated Press, Russian troops who were previously focused on bombarding the city of Kharkiv are now on the defensive and focusing on protecting supply lines.
The flagging Russian invasion not only means that Ukraine is on the verge of pushing Russian forces back across the border but could also pave the way for a Ukrainian “invasion” of what Russia considered its territory – namely, the retaking of Crimea.
Zelenskyy’s Own Words Indicate Coming Crimea Battle
Speaking at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO council summit earlier this month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated that his military’s aim is not just to stop Russia’s advances but to reclaim territory, too.
Zelenskyy said that Ukrainian forces would “not retreat” and that he expects to win the war. He explained that his three ambitions in the war are to stop Russian troops from advancing, to reclaim territory, and then to restore Ukraine’s territory through diplomacy.
It’s not the first time he’s promised to retake Crimea, either.
In August last year during a speech at the Crimean Platform summit in Kyiv, President Zelenskyy pledged to retake the Crimean peninsula from Russia after it was annexed in 2014.
“I will personally do everything possible to return Crimea so that it becomes part of Europe together with Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said at the time, adding that Kyiv required “effective support at the international level.”
At the time, Zelenskyy didn’t have that support. Beyond limited sanctions, NATO had largely accepted that the Crimean peninsula was now controlled by Russia.
With a struggling Russian invasion and billions of dollars invested in Ukraine this year alone, however, Zelenskyy now has the support he needs to take steps to reclaim Crimea.
But will he do it? Could Ukriane really try to take back Crimea? Stay tuned.
Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society.
19fortyfive.com · by ByJack Buckby · May 20, 2022


20. Reducing or Exploiting Risk? Varieties of US Nuclear Thought and Their Implications for Northeast Asia


Van Jackson provides a tutorial on nuclear theorists. Here are the types.

Arms Controllers
Nuclear Traditionalists
Future-of War (Fow) Strategists
Nuclear Primacists
And here are the future contingencies he discusses:

Atmospheric Nuclear Test
Ally Near-Proliferation
Limited War Gone Wrong



Reducing or Exploiting Risk? Varieties of US Nuclear Thought and Their Implications for Northeast Asia

This article argues that there is no monolithic “United States perspective” when it comes to theories of nuclear stability, either structurally or during a crisis. Instead, the propensity of American policymakers to use or invest in nuclear weapons is heavily conditioned by their political and ideological orientation. There has always been a rough ideological divide between nuclear hawks (those tending to favor military coercion) and doves (those generally opposing signaling threats of force) in the United States, but the past several decades have seen more diversity in the types of views and preferences expressed in policy circles about strategic stability and the (dis)utility of nuclear weapons. This article categorizes the various US perspectives on nuclear weapons as “arms-controllers”, who seek to reduce risks to strategic stability and view advanced conventional weapons as heightening the risks of nuclear use, “nuclear traditionalists”, who accept the logic of mutually assured destruction, “nuclear primacists”, who believe stability derives from nuclear superiority, escalation dominance, and the willingness to launch damage-limiting nuclear first-strikes, and “future-of-war” strategists, who de-center the role of nuclear weapons in US strategy in favor of a focus on precision-guided conventional munitions and delivery systems. These categorical distinctions, and which group holds the attention of policymakers, matters. The scope for US nuclear weapons use – and the propensity to engage in actions that trigger adversary nuclear considerations – narrows and widens depending on whose logic and preferences prevail both over time and in moments of crisis or shock.



21. Watching Ukraine, US special ops realizes it's behind on information war capabilities

Again: authorities and permissions. We do not have the authorities and permission to allow PSYOP professionals to operate at the speed of influence. Having all the advanced tools are great but if you do not have the authorities and permissions (and the trust from the leadership to empower the PSYOP professional), then all is for naught.


Watching Ukraine, US special ops realizes it's behind on information war capabilities - Breaking Defense
SOCOM "working very hard" to use AI and machine learning-driven "sentiment analysis" to better craft messaging, Gen. Richard Clarke, commander of US Special Operations Command, said.
breakingdefense.com · by Andrew Eversden · May 20, 2022
Gen. Richard D. Clarke, commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, speaks during a Memorial Day observation at the Special Operations Memorial on MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., May 27, 2021. (Barry Loo/US Air Force)
SOFIC 2022: As videos of Ukrainian military successes, Russia’s battlefield failures and humanitarian atrocities committed by Russian forces flood out of Ukraine online, US special operations leaders worry that the US military needs to quickly build up its information warfare capabilities.
“I still don’t think that we have all the tools that we need and we need to continue to develop at speed how we push back inside the information space,” Gen. Richard Clarke, commander of US Special Operations Command, said at the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference Tuesday.
For the last three months, Clarke said, Ukrainian leadership has used the information space to boost morale and expose the truth about the Russian military’s actions in Ukraine, effectively swaying the world against Russia. But now, the US needs to start thinking about what authorities, tools and capabilities it will use in the information space against a more difficult adversary, Clarke said.
Follow Breaking Defense’s full SOFIC 2022 coverage HERE.
“Ukraine is relatively easy because everybody can see it,” Clarke said. “How are we going to do this against the near-peer adversary who may not be as open or the whole world may not be pointing [at]?”
Information operations are a powerful tool that can disrupt an enemy’s decision-making process, influence the sentiments of locals, or shape the international narrative. As special forces — and the broader US military — fight terrorists across the globe or operate in countries around China, top SOCOM commanders said they need to better understand the information arena.
One area SOCOM is looking to invest in is “sentiment analysis” tools to better understand if information operations are used effectively. Sentiment analysis tools use artificial intelligence and automation to identify if data is positive, negative or neutral. Clarke said sentiment analysis is something “we’re working on very hard” to give information warfare specialists the ability to “sense that and then we can react to that and send targeted messages.”
“If we can apply big data, artificial intelligence and machine learning, I think it will give our people that are working in this space an advantage,” Clarke said.
That’s a critical piece in understanding the broader information environment and will ultimately guide how the information warfare operations are made, said Rear Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of US Special Operations Command Central at the conference.
“We have to know the environment before we can appreciate where the vulnerabilities and gaps in knowledge base are,” Bradley said. “And then that will help us to better shape our messages to illuminate and highlight the coercive and malign actions of the adversaries.”
However, several commanders also added that it’s critical that the messaging come from the right mouths — meaning not always the US.
In Africa, for example, US partner forces fighting al-Shabab send tweets during firefights to inform area civilians of violent extremist activities. It’s “very, very effective,” said Navy Rear Adm. Milton Sands III, the commander of US Special Operations Command Africa. But the critical lessons there is who the messaging is coming from.
“It carries … really remarkable credibility when it’s coming from them, much more so than if it’s coming from us,” Sands said at the SOFIC conference on Wednesday.
It’s a similar story for messaging in the Southern Command region, an area that both Russia and China consider strategically important.
“What I found in the SOUTHCOM AOR is if it comes from the United States and it looks like it’s a counter-PRC [People’s Republic of China] message, sometimes that falls on deaf ears,” said Rear Adm. Keith Davids, commander of US Special Operations Command South. “So what’s been really effective is working with our foreign partners to give them the intelligence, the information, and then they become the voice.
“One, they have credibility. Two, it’s a local message. And so that’s really been the most, I think, effective approach,” he said.
Davids said speed in information operations is also lacking for the US government as a whole. The two-star called Russia “the mass” in the information space in Latin America, and the command would like to counter with videos of Russian military shortfalls in Ukraine.
“We’re slow to kind of get those messages out there — not as SOF, but as a intergovernmental team,” Davids said.
breakingdefense.com · by Andrew Eversden · May 20, 2022
22. No War for Old Spies: Putin, the Kremlin and Intelligence

Excerpts:
Intelligence openness had been accelerating since the mid-1970s to the point that intelligence agencies and their work had become an openly avowed ‘core function’ of government. For both better (such as in counterterrorism) and worse (over Iraq), the contribution of the intelligence services and especially their assessments to strategy and national security are now an explicit part of policy discussion. In parallel, Western countries had been improving their processes and techniques for intelligence sharing for decades through alliances like NATO and the Five Eyes, and within the EU. After 9/11, progress on ‘need to share’ with allies and partners went into high gear. Military intelligence was likewise being revolutionised by new ISR platforms, sensors and data sharing technologies, especially where they provided intelligence support to targeting. And OSINT was no longer merely social research techniques applied to national security. Instead, it embraced entirely new realms of data mining, crowd-sourced social media ground intelligence, and commercial earth observation systems that offered satellite imagery rivalling the KEYHOLE national reconnaissance capabilities of an earlier generation.
By 2018, US defence thinkers had begun to worry about the implications of the resulting ‘ubiquitous ISR environment’ for US and allied operations. How would one, they asked, achieve OPSEC and undertake operational and tactical deception in a global goldfish bowl of pervasive, increasingly advanced and widely available real-time observation accessible as much to neutrals and adversaries as to oneself and one’s allies?
But the revolutions in intelligence affairs largely passed Putin’s Chekist coterie by. To be sure, Russia’s special services had invested heavily and innovated in covert intelligence collection, disinformation and covert paramilitary action. And throughout the conflict the Russian military have proven reasonably competent at offensive ISR, successfully targeting Ukrainian defence facilities and even foreign volunteers. But with a leadership deeply invested in an outdated special services paradigm, there was little incentive or opportunity for Russian intelligence to keep up with the wider world. Out-‘intelligenced’ and consequently outmanoeuvred from the outset, one can only conclude that the heart of Russia’s intelligence failures has actually been a failure of counterintelligence. Indeed, it is an object lesson for all, and not just Russia, that a 21st-century war fought in that global goldfish bowl of ‘ubiquitous ISR’ is no war for old spies.


No War for Old Spies: Putin, the Kremlin and Intelligence
Russia’s failures are a result of outdated Soviet attitudes and ideas that cannot keep up with the evolving intelligence environment.
The Russian offensive against Ukraine has been dogged by a cascade of intelligence failures at every level of command. This has ranged from completely failing to assess the likelihood and shape of a unified Western response and Ukraine’s determined resistance, to inadequate preparations for Ukraine’s ‘mud season’ and a bewildering lack of any effective operational security (OPSEC) measures. The irony of this, of course, is that Vladimir Putin’s ruling coterie is numerically and functionally dominated by former intelligence officers. Attempts to explain this paradox have tended to rely on conventional wisdoms of why authoritarian regimes are often bad at strategic intelligence. Such governments, the orthodoxy runs, may invest heavily in covert information collection, but they are typically poor at analysis and assessment. In part this is because of an institutional bias towards espionage that neglects analysis, partly because of a pressure to tell autocrats what they want to hear because of the personal and professional risks of doing otherwise, and partly because autocrats tend to act as their own intelligence officers and ignore the truth even when someone dares speak it, acting instead on their own judgement.
While these accounts are entirely plausible as far as they go, none of them has considered specifically whether Russian intelligence has gone wrong precisely because so many of Russia’s leaders are former intelligence officers of a certain type and vintage. This is crucial because, while Putin and his clique have spent the last three decades trying to restore the kind of police state intelligence concept that had once been their professional milieu, intelligence in the democratic West had been undergoing a succession of so-called ‘revolutions’. As a result, Russia’s leadership entered the conflict almost entirely unprepared for the capabilities and uses of the 21st century intelligence that would be deployed against them.
Russia’s Retreat from Reform
Putin, Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, FSB head Alexander Bortnikov and SVR chief Sergei Naryshkin all joined the KGB during the 1970s. Even the Head of the National Guard of Russia (Rosgvardia) started out in the oft-overlooked KGB Border Guards Directorate. Their formative early professional lives were, therefore, shaped by the concepts and practices of a very specific form of police state that John Dziak has called a ‘counterintelligence state’.
Significantly, the common generic term for Russia’s agencies is not ‘intelligence’ or even ‘security’ services but special services. The first function of such special services, as acknowledged by one FSB official, is to act as the clandestine executive arm of the state. Their first task is regime protection through the pursuit of the regime’s perceived enemies at home and abroad in which foreign strategic intelligence is a second order consequence of that pursuit. And as executive organs, executive powers such as enforcement and covert political and paramilitary action are equal with the collection and processing of information in their mission.
Russia’s leadership entered the conflict almost entirely unprepared for the capabilities and uses of the 21st century intelligence that would be deployed against them

Under Boris Yeltsin there was a short-lived effort to recast the old ‘special services’ in the mould of a Western-style ‘intelligence community’. The sprawling KGB was dismantled and its foreign intelligence First Chief Directorate was hived off to become the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). The domestic secret police apparatus that was the Second Chief Directorate was carved out, stripped of many of its wider powers, and designated the Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK). The protective security Ninth Chief Directorate evolved into today’s Federal Protection Service (FSO). The KGB’s two signals intelligence (SIGINT) directorates, the 8th and the 16th, were excised and amalgamated into an entirely new entity, the Federal Agency for Government Communications and Information (FAPSI). FAPSI, it was announced, was to be modelled on Western SIGINT and communications security agencies like NSA and GCHQ.
Only military intelligence, the GRU, escaped untouched and unreformed because it was subordinate to the Ministry of Defence and not the disgraced Communist Party.
Warning signs came early and in close succession. Despite abortive efforts to transfer the KGB’s Third Chief Directorate for military counterintelligence to the General Staff, it was incorporated into the FSK instead. And, against the backdrop of the First Chechen War, the FSK began claw back lost powers and influence. In 1995 – still under Yeltsin – it was awarded a wider mandate for internal security and specifically for counterterrorism, and rebranded the Federal Security Service (FSB).
Vladimir Putin’s KGB career had started in the Second Chief Directorate followed by transfer to the First. He was not really a member of the well-heeled espionage elite of officers pursuing careers beyond the ‘near abroad’ as illegals or under diplomatic cover. Spending the last five years of his KGB service in Dresden, he was one of the many second-class citizens of foreign intelligence working within the Soviet bloc. He was, therefore, in his niche during his year as FSB director overseeing the resurgence of that agency. An especially alarming development during his directorship was the re-incorporation of two former KGB special forces units, Alfa and Vympel, into FSB.
When Putin left to become a First Deputy Prime Minister, his immediate successors Patrushev and then Bortnikov continued to manage the on-going reinforcement and enlargement of the FSB. Meanwhile, as Acting President, in 2000 Putin expanded and intensified the FSB’s military counterintelligence role. In 2003, he abolished FAPSI, initially transferring its functions and capabilities, then later distributed them between both the FSB and FSO. Later that year, the FSB re-acquired the Border Guards, and then in 2004 was tasked by a 2003 statute to set up a new division for foreign intelligence, albeit one theoretically confined to operating within the ‘near abroad’. By the middle of that decade, therefore, the KGB had been largely resurrected in all but name.
Revolutions in Intelligence Affairs
During the same interval, Western intelligence was undergoing the most extensive and fundamental changes since the modern intelligence agencies were first established. There were, arguably, four main facets to this evolution: (1) open government; (2) shifting from ‘need to know’ to ‘need to share’; and dramatic advances in collection and processing capabilities in both (3) intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and (4) in open-source intelligence (OSINT).
With a leadership deeply invested in an outdated special services paradigm, there was little incentive or opportunity for Russian intelligence to keep up with the wider world

Intelligence openness had been accelerating since the mid-1970s to the point that intelligence agencies and their work had become an openly avowed ‘core function’ of government. For both better (such as in counterterrorism) and worse (over Iraq), the contribution of the intelligence services and especially their assessments to strategy and national security are now an explicit part of policy discussion. In parallel, Western countries had been improving their processes and techniques for intelligence sharing for decades through alliances like NATO and the Five Eyes, and within the EU. After 9/11, progress on ‘need to share’ with allies and partners went into high gear. Military intelligence was likewise being revolutionised by new ISR platforms, sensors and data sharing technologies, especially where they provided intelligence support to targeting. And OSINT was no longer merely social research techniques applied to national security. Instead, it embraced entirely new realms of data mining, crowd-sourced social media ground intelligence, and commercial earth observation systems that offered satellite imagery rivalling the KEYHOLE national reconnaissance capabilities of an earlier generation.
By 2018, US defence thinkers had begun to worry about the implications of the resulting ‘ubiquitous ISR environment’ for US and allied operations. How would one, they asked, achieve OPSEC and undertake operational and tactical deception in a global goldfish bowl of pervasive, increasingly advanced and widely available real-time observation accessible as much to neutrals and adversaries as to oneself and one’s allies?
But the revolutions in intelligence affairs largely passed Putin’s Chekist coterie by. To be sure, Russia’s special services had invested heavily and innovated in covert intelligence collection, disinformation and covert paramilitary action. And throughout the conflict the Russian military have proven reasonably competent at offensive ISR, successfully targeting Ukrainian defence facilities and even foreign volunteers. But with a leadership deeply invested in an outdated special services paradigm, there was little incentive or opportunity for Russian intelligence to keep up with the wider world. Out-‘intelligenced’ and consequently outmanoeuvred from the outset, one can only conclude that the heart of Russia’s intelligence failures has actually been a failure of counterintelligence. Indeed, it is an object lesson for all, and not just Russia, that a 21st-century war fought in that global goldfish bowl of ‘ubiquitous ISR’ is no war for old spies.
The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.
Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to [email protected] and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found here.



23.







V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Personal Email: d[email protected]
Web Site: www.fdd.org
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
VIDEO "WHEREBY" Link: https://whereby.com/david-maxwell
Subscribe to FDD’s new podcast, Foreign Podicy
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Personal Email: d[email protected]
Web Site: www.fdd.org
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Subscribe to FDD’s new podcastForeign Podicy
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."
Company Name | Website
basicImage