The situation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Kurakhove [Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast]is critical, as they face an alarming shortage of soldiers, which complicates their defensive efforts against Russian advances.
Once technological advances can be used for military purposes and have been used for military purposes, they will immediately almost forcefully, and often against the commander’s will, cause changes or even revolutions in warfare.
Who said it? Carl von Clausewitz or Friedrich Engels? I saw it quoted in a paper by the China Aerospace Studies Institute (attributed to Engels). Considering that it’s the “think tank” of the Department of the Air Force, I’m not taking the contents of the paper at face value (same with the papers that I posted below). I’m more interested in who said it, anyway. FYI, I only have Volume 1 of “On War” and apparently it’s the “wrong” translation. I’m too busy reading Mao to read Clausewitz. I find it interesting what I find when researching stuff, though.
Virtually forgotten due to the discourse of Ukrainian unity and the general lack of interest in analyzing the nuances of events, the racial and class question is going virtually unnoticed in this war. If the Donbass conflict had a proletarian aspect that the press mocked in the first weeks of the DPR due to those Soviet-looking press conferences of workers and academics, in the current context, there have not even been any such comments. Presented as a war of national liberation, no aspect other than nationalism has deserved much mention in the Western press or in academia. Volodymyr Ishchenko and Ilya Matveev, who have sought to study the class aspect in the outbreak of the conflict, are the rare exception. To Ischenko’s surprise, RFE/RL published an article last September that dealt, albeit in generalities and without great depth, with the increase in inequality that war implies, an aspect that is, on the other hand, perfectly evident. “As the war drags on, the gaps in Ukrainian society are widening,” the American media headlines.
For the past eight years, the two major political parties have been gripped by a messy and ongoing realignment. It began with the election of Donald Trump in 2016, which was a major repudiation of the neoconservative-establishment coalition that had dominated the Republican Party since the presidency of George W. Bush.
I’ve been meaning to look into these two, but forgot about it. Maine Policy Institute is already on my Atlas Network list, but I just added the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
State Policy Network (SPN), American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Koch network, Franklin News Foundation (Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity), Bradley Foundation, DonorsTrust, Cato Institute, Sam Adams Alliance, Donors Capital Fund, etc.
You might think that a history of cultural Marxism would start with Marx, but the poorly coiffed Prussian has almost nothing to do with this tale of insidious infiltration. Instead, the theory took off in the late 1990s due to speeches, essays, and books by William Lind, then with the Free Congress Foundation, and Patrick Buchanan, the firebrand conservative columnist, TV talking head, and sometime presidential candidate. (The idea, though not the name, was hatched earlier, in a 1992 monograph called “The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness.” It was written by a disciple of the noted conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche.)
Thanks, Ray! Glad you noticed we’re “energetic, patriotic young journalists” — we’ll take that as a compliment! 😜
We’re proud to stand up against disinformation like yours. It’s funny how the facts and perspectives we share about the South China Sea and China make you… https://t.co/VU0pvVLuG1
Recently, Media Unlocked unveiled its latest triumph–an interview with a former U.S. president’s brother, Neil Bush, whose George H.W. Bush Foundation For U.S.-China Relations has allegedly received millions of dollars from a group associated with CCP influence operations. Bush–apparently unconcerned that he was participating in Beijing’s propaganda campaign–helpfully sang the praise of China’s communist system, its electric vehicle industry and, incredibly, even announced that he was observing a “massive freedom movement” in today’s China.
Now, let’s get into who’s funding the George H.W. Bush Foundation For U.S.-China Relations. Powell links to a Fox News article about its funding from the China–United States Exchange Foundation, based in Hong Kong. The Fox News article links to an Axios article (which is behind a paywall). Nowhere does Powell mention that the foundation also gets funding from the U.S. Department of State, The Rockefeller Foundation, etc.
To obtain a competitive edge, information operations and warfare entail obtaining intelligence on opponents and disseminating propaganda.
Definition: Information operations are tactics used to sway people’s opinions and affect how decisions are made.
Propaganda: Messages intended to sway public opinion and affect target audiences’ behavior can be distributed in a variety of ways as propaganda.
Competitive Advantage: The ultimate aim of these activities is to gain a strategic edge over rivals in a variety of settings, including the political, military, and economic spheres.
Tools and Techniques: Information operations can be carried out using a variety of instruments and methods, such as traditional media and social media platforms.
Ethical Considerations: Concerning the effects of such operations on truth and trust in society, the use of disinformation and manipulation presents ethical concerns.
You must be logged in to post a comment.