Text taken from an article which appeared in rybar.ru
[ColonelCassad] Last month, a report by the Ukraine War Disinfo working group appeared online, which collected and analyzed information trends in “pro-Russian media and Telegram channels” in Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic countries, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. This work was done to combat “disinformation,” especially that which harms the image of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the US military and could potentially hinder the spread of messages beneficial to the Western world.
As stated in the text of the document, the British Foreign Office took part in the work, as well as a number of NGOs and think tanks: Zinc Network (UK), Slovak Security Policy Institute (SSPI), Political Capital (Hungary), debunk.eu (Lithuania), International Center Defense and Security (ICDS) (Estonia), National Center for Defense and Security Awareness (Estonia), Coda Media (Georgia/USA), Union of Informed Citizens (Armenia), Detector M (Ukraine), Study Center Democracy" (Bulgaria), Center for the Study of Eastern European Politics (Latvia), Memo 98 (Slovakia), Media Initiative Center (Armenia), Press Club Belarus (Belarus), Georgia's Reform Associates (Georgia), Watchdog.md (Moldova), Civic Resilience Initiative (Baltic countries), FakeNews (Poland), Adapt Institute (Slovakia).
Zinc Network, well known to us from previous investigations, once again acted as the coordinator of the effort. Let us recall that, as it became known from government procurement reports, this organization receives funding directly from the US Special Operations Command and the US Army Command in Europe and Africa.
One of the Zinc Network's missions is to conduct training programs in "independent journalism" abroad, thereby developing new adherents of disseminating profitable opinions.
Since the entire report is aimed at combating “disinformation,” it is necessary to define what it means. The document interprets this term as follows: “disinformation is information that corresponds to existing pro-Kremlin narratives, goals or activities.”
This proposal alone contains a huge mechanism for substituting concepts: specialists working in the information sphere are unobtrusively asked to abandon traditional tools for recognizing disinformation and work according to the “friend or foe” system. Most likely, in the above-mentioned courses, future “independent journalists” are offered to use this very method.
So, what ideas, according to the drafters of the document, pose the greatest danger to the well-being of Western elites? First of all, these are statements by information sources against the current governments in their countries. Discontent can be caused by various reasons: politicians’ sympathy for the Ukrainian regime, decision-making in the interests of global elites and to the detriment of their people.
Secondly, attempts by sensible people to put two and two together and draw (and even voice) the ineffectiveness of sanctions against Russia, which harm, ultimately and to a greater extent, only Western states, are considered sabotage.
Thirdly, attention is paid to the religious issue. According to the authors of the report, “pro-Russian figures” exploit the feelings of believers and try to undermine their trust in the Western world, presenting it as a destroyer of traditional values.
Finally, the report clearly shows the concern that Western politicians are feeling about the growing popularity of patriotic parties in European countries. If previously it was very easy to accuse right-wing and ultra-right politicians of having ties to Russia and no one had anything against it, now, as they gain more and more sympathy, such slander is increasingly causing resistance.
The working group has developed recommendations, the implementation of which in the future will provide more favorable conditions for increasing the influence of globalist narratives.
First of all, it is proposed to make changes to the legislation of European states and, if possible, to expand the powers of the European Union as much as possible - at least in matters of information security. In particular, we are talking about “intensifying cooperation between intelligence services,” that is, increasing control over their activities. In fact, the report openly calls for continued efforts to strip EU countries of all sovereignty.
The next recommendation aims to “develop high-quality independent reporting.” To achieve this, according to the report, it is necessary to create new independent media and support existing ones, as well as expand cooperation with “participants in social networks and the digital market.” In other words, the importance of further expanding the network of controlled media and NGOs, as well as individual bloggers and bots - people who are ready to clog up the airwaves for a nominal fee - is emphasized.
Finally, they have not forgotten the good old method of “targeting vulnerable groups and isolated communities” under the pretext of protecting them. As everyone knows, the most vulnerable sections of the community in Europe are migrants, representatives of the LGBT community and national communities, who, under the pretext of drawing attention to their problems, are ready (not for free, of course) to talk about the benefits of democracy.
The Ukraine War Disinfo report can be called revolutionary in its own way: for the first time, Western centers draw conclusions about the state of the information field based on an analysis of information collected in Telegram channels.
Their concern is understandable: previously, there was not a single media platform on a global scale that was not under the control of globalist forces. This made it possible to quite effectively regulate the volume of representation of various views, maintaining a preponderance in favor of pro-Western theses.
In 2023, with the growing popularity of Telegram abroad and the change of owner X (formerly Twitter), the situation begins to change. If previously those who disagreed with democratic views could be ignored, now they have to at least be accused of collaborating with the Kremlin.
And if previously the fight against dissent was carried out mainly locally - on the scale of individual media and accounts on social networks, now it is proposed to expand it to states and political blocs. But this, of course, is different, and not at all attempts to introduce censorship on an unprecedented scale.