WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

557

It seems like a low risk, low cost, easy method of leveraging a competing country's legal commitment to free expression and weaponising it. It also has built in deniability. Disinformation is far easier to manufacture than it is to debunk. It would be foolish to not take advantage of this.

Why is this far-fetched to many people, when there are accounts of ex KGB personnel who describe in detail the process of their disinformation campaigns dating back to the 1970s?

It seems like a **low risk**, **low cost**, easy method of leveraging a competing country's legal commitment to free expression and weaponising it. It also has built in deniability. Disinformation is far easier to manufacture than it is to debunk. It would be foolish to *not* take advantage of this. Why is this far-fetched to many people, when there are accounts of ex KGB personnel who describe in detail the process of their disinformation campaigns dating back to the 1970s?

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

If the fighting of poxy wars in the middle-east and eastern-Ukraine are anything to go by, the cold war is very much alive and kicking.

The Middle Eastern proxy wars have more to do with having Israel and Saudi Arabia as allies.

Presumably in the long term, Putin will still be in power having extended the presidential term to infinity plus one years.

Perhaps he will. What's going on with the Russian government is still less clear than Xi unambiguously becoming president for life.

I imagine China's rampant authoritarianism and complete ownership of press is more than slightly preferable to a poorly veiled dictator like Putin.

Yes, because Russia is a weaker nation that poses less of a direct threat to China. China has more expansive plans, is more authoritarian, and is much stronger economically. Russia isn't the big bear it used to be.