Telegram Group & Telegram Channel
Russia has no intention of attacking a NATO member state on its own; this is absurd from the point of view of semantic warfare.

An attack under a false flag in this scenario is not a crazy idea, but a completely logical move. The aggressor always "defends" itself; it never goes to occupy foreign territories. In imperial logic, the victim is always to blame for being attacked.

Therefore, Russia will not launch an open attack on Riga. Instead, it may stage a "Ukrainian" or "Baltic" attack on its rear depots in the Pskov region or leak a fake map of a NATO invasion, allegedly found "among Latvian spies". Or simply create a fake recording of a "Baltic" conversation about sabotage on a Belarusian bridge, pre-recorded in front of cameras (technology allows for even more sophisticated methods).

Because only then is the invasion "justified." And this is not done to win on the battlefield, but to score semantic points in the field of memory — Russia did not attack, but defended itself against a treacherous attack, period.

Therefore, the real blow by the Russian Federation is not against Latvia, but against trust in the Latvian media, against the stability of the NATO narrative, against the definition of what aggression is in the 21st century.

And if NATO tries to respond, Russia will say:

"You started it. We were only responding to aggression, we were defending ourselves. Here are the recordings, here are the bodies, here is the map clearly showing where the attack was launched from. Russia did not start the war, we only made a decision to defend our citizens and our territory."

Remember how in 1939 the Germans dressed prisoners in Polish uniforms, staged an attack on their own radio station in Gleiwitz, and on that basis started a "defensive war"? The same thing could happen again. Only now with satellites, deepfake audio and millions of bots that will have videos from the scene, statements and hashtags like #NATOattackedRussia within 10 minutes of the strike.

And when that happens, Russia will play the victim, saying it was "forced to respond" — not because it wants war, but because it "had no choice."

Whoever shapes the narrative first will win the first day of the war. And if the West continues to think that war begins with the movement of tanks, it will have lost the war before the first shell explodes.

Russia is doing everything it can to make Latvia look like a potential aggressor and Russia itself like an aggrieved empire that was "forced to defend its own with unwavering determination."

The moral is simple: hello to the EU and US special services. You are looking in completely the wrong direction.

Thank you for your attention

The end

P.S. Want to help Ukraine's counter-propaganda? - 4441111068433840

PayPal: [email protected]

Patreon

https://www.patreon.com/fashdonetsk

Btc -

bc1qdtrkvnqhur6zvftku73stq88y97ut4rg730kdq

P.S. 2 -Want to destroy collaborators? Write to @gistapapapa_bot. Anonymity guaranteed.



group-telegram.com/gistapapapa/109536
Create:
Last Update:

Russia has no intention of attacking a NATO member state on its own; this is absurd from the point of view of semantic warfare.

An attack under a false flag in this scenario is not a crazy idea, but a completely logical move. The aggressor always "defends" itself; it never goes to occupy foreign territories. In imperial logic, the victim is always to blame for being attacked.

Therefore, Russia will not launch an open attack on Riga. Instead, it may stage a "Ukrainian" or "Baltic" attack on its rear depots in the Pskov region or leak a fake map of a NATO invasion, allegedly found "among Latvian spies". Or simply create a fake recording of a "Baltic" conversation about sabotage on a Belarusian bridge, pre-recorded in front of cameras (technology allows for even more sophisticated methods).

Because only then is the invasion "justified." And this is not done to win on the battlefield, but to score semantic points in the field of memory — Russia did not attack, but defended itself against a treacherous attack, period.

Therefore, the real blow by the Russian Federation is not against Latvia, but against trust in the Latvian media, against the stability of the NATO narrative, against the definition of what aggression is in the 21st century.

And if NATO tries to respond, Russia will say:

"You started it. We were only responding to aggression, we were defending ourselves. Here are the recordings, here are the bodies, here is the map clearly showing where the attack was launched from. Russia did not start the war, we only made a decision to defend our citizens and our territory."

Remember how in 1939 the Germans dressed prisoners in Polish uniforms, staged an attack on their own radio station in Gleiwitz, and on that basis started a "defensive war"? The same thing could happen again. Only now with satellites, deepfake audio and millions of bots that will have videos from the scene, statements and hashtags like #NATOattackedRussia within 10 minutes of the strike.

And when that happens, Russia will play the victim, saying it was "forced to respond" — not because it wants war, but because it "had no choice."

Whoever shapes the narrative first will win the first day of the war. And if the West continues to think that war begins with the movement of tanks, it will have lost the war before the first shell explodes.

Russia is doing everything it can to make Latvia look like a potential aggressor and Russia itself like an aggrieved empire that was "forced to defend its own with unwavering determination."

The moral is simple: hello to the EU and US special services. You are looking in completely the wrong direction.

Thank you for your attention

The end

P.S. Want to help Ukraine's counter-propaganda? - 4441111068433840

PayPal: [email protected]

Patreon

https://www.patreon.com/fashdonetsk

Btc -

bc1qdtrkvnqhur6zvftku73stq88y97ut4rg730kdq

P.S. 2 -Want to destroy collaborators? Write to @gistapapapa_bot. Anonymity guaranteed.

BY Фашик Донецький




Share with your friend now:
group-telegram.com/gistapapapa/109536

View MORE
Open in Telegram


Telegram | DID YOU KNOW?

Date: |

The company maintains that it cannot act against individual or group chats, which are “private amongst their participants,” but it will respond to requests in relation to sticker sets, channels and bots which are publicly available. During the invasion of Ukraine, Pavel Durov has wrestled with this issue a lot more prominently than he has before. Channels like Donbass Insider and Bellum Acta, as reported by Foreign Policy, started pumping out pro-Russian propaganda as the invasion began. So much so that the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council issued a statement labeling which accounts are Russian-backed. Ukrainian officials, in potential violation of the Geneva Convention, have shared imagery of dead and captured Russian soldiers on the platform. These entities are reportedly operating nine Telegram channels with more than five million subscribers to whom they were making recommendations on selected listed scrips. Such recommendations induced the investors to deal in the said scrips, thereby creating artificial volume and price rise. "For Telegram, accountability has always been a problem, which is why it was so popular even before the full-scale war with far-right extremists and terrorists from all over the world," she told AFP from her safe house outside the Ukrainian capital. I want a secure messaging app, should I use Telegram? For example, WhatsApp restricted the number of times a user could forward something, and developed automated systems that detect and flag objectionable content.
from us


Telegram Фашик Донецький
FROM American