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: |

In 2018, Russia banned Telegram although it reversed the prohibition two years later. Pavel Durov, a billionaire who embraces an all-black wardrobe and is often compared to the character Neo from "the Matrix," funds Telegram through his personal wealth and debt financing. And despite being one of the world's most popular tech companies, Telegram reportedly has only about 30 employees who defer to Durov for most major decisions about the platform. "We as Ukrainians believe that the truth is on our side, whether it's truth that you're proclaiming about the war and everything else, why would you want to hide it?," he said. Under the Sebi Act, the regulator has the power to carry out search and seizure of books, registers, documents including electronics and digital devices from any person associated with the securities market. At the start of 2018, the company attempted to launch an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) which would enable it to enable payments (and earn the cash that comes from doing so). The initial signals were promising, especially given Telegram’s user base is already fairly crypto-savvy. It raised an initial tranche of cash – worth more than a billion dollars – to help develop the coin before opening sales to the public. Unfortunately, third-party sales of coins bought in those initial fundraising rounds raised the ire of the SEC, which brought the hammer down on the whole operation. In 2020, officials ordered Telegram to pay a fine of $18.5 million and hand back much of the cash that it had raised.
from ye


Telegram Фашик Донецький
FROM American