NATO may combat Kremlin "weaponisation of information" used to support action such as the 2014 seizure of Crimea by creating a new more powerful communications section and declassifying more sensitive material, according to draft plans.
Both NATO and the European Union are concerned by Russia's ability to use television and the Internet to project what they say is deliberate disinformation. The EU set up a special unit last year to counter what it considers overt propaganda.
Draft proposals by NATO's military committee seen by Reuters set out how military tactics - to understand adversaries and then influence foreign audiences - could become part of a more integrated communications strategy.
The 23-page document, part of a long-running debate at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is sensitive.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: They just cannot say the word propaganda .... which is what NATO is really proposing.
The US government has depended upon propaganda for years in order to promote its instability operations in the world. This includes getting the "mainstream media" onto the desired message by communicating talking points to the six major corporations which control ninety percent of the "news" in the U.S. Actually the "news" is promotional information to accompany a commercial message, which is what produces the profits. The results are effective, as most Americans have exactly the same views of "enemy" countries, Iran, Russia etc.
ReplyDeleteWithin the US government, the State Department practices "public diplomacy" and the Pentagon "strategic communications," which are their forms of propaganda. I believe that they learned much of this from the Germans.
The Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) technique, also known as "argumentum ad nauseam", is the name given to a policy of repeating a lie until it is taken to be the truth. For example, when Goebbels took ownership of the Der Angriff (The Assault) newspaper, he attacked Berlin Police President Bernhard Weiss, calling him "Isidor" Weiss. To German ears, Isidor at the time was a name with strong Jewish connotations.
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course the people don't want war . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.."
WNU Editor,
ReplyDeleteNATO's basic problem is their propaganda doesn't even come close to reflecting reality any more.
They can't say a lot of words. Usually that isn't that big a problem, but in propaganda it is something of a handicap.
ReplyDeleteThe US/NATO does indeed face a big handicap in tis area. Russia is the best in world a formulating a message, getting it out to its vast network of media and internet supporters, and has had a major head start in this area. Being America or associated with America means having to work under a very large and often hostile media microscope. Russia does not face such constraints. Furthermore NATO members cannot even seem to agree on just what message they wish to convey.
ReplyDeleteSince the US/NATO lacks the dedicated media personnel that Russia has, this means even if they had a message they could agree on, it's going to be very difficult to get this message out. Furthermore the huge head start Russia has had makes things even more problematic. Essentially America is the world's worst at such "messaging" while Russia is the best. As such, a "messaging" or "propaganda" campaign doe not seem to hold much promise.
There is, however, limited cause for optimism. During Cold War I Russia's advantage in this area, while likely not as significant as their advantage today, was still there nonetheless. Yet the Soviet Union is no more. Also, while there is certainly much to legitimately criticize about America and it's foreign policy, Russia's message of criticism is often based upon such over the top ridiculousness that hopefully enough would begin to see through to make a difference.
An information campaign against Russia is a bit like a patron in a comedy club trying to trade barbs with the stand up comic. The stand up comic has many years experience at this sort of thing while the patron is just now starting to do this. Another equally valid analogy would be that of a 300 pound man trying to run a 100 meter race against a world class sprinter while the 300 pound man is wearing ankle weights, carrying bricks in each hand, and the world class sprinter has 50 meter head start. As such, it seems like a bad idea.
I would suggest a different strategy. The chief issues facing Russia right now of sanctions and low oil prices are only temporary. In contrast, the issues facing America are structural and far more severe. Russia is on the cusp of becoming the most powerful nation the world has ever known in both relative and absolute terms. A better approach might be to support Russia's position on Ukraine and oppose sanctions against them with every thing we can. this probably would not make much difference in the short term as EU policies will likely be unchanged by America's actions here but it might work to improve our relations with them and help to ensure that America does not bear the brunt of a Russian military reprisal. Also, we might even be able to secure despirately needed assistance from them in dealing with Iran.