Since the fall of 2021, when the number of Russian troops near the borders of Ukraine began to grow again, the United States has not weakened the flow of alarming messages about the severity of the Russian threat . The White House is extremely active in publishing intelligence, sharing it with allies, naming the timing of a possible Moscow operation, and exposing Russia’s alleged scenarios of falsifying a pretext for an invasion.

On February 10, Joe Biden even called on Americans to leave Ukraine . However, the intensity of the White House’s information efforts around the threat of a Russian invasion is not only a sign of concern about the situation, but also part of targeted measures to prevent such an attack. A number of American analysts, who drew attention to this White House campaign, are inclined to this version.

Moreover, on February 11, CNN reported that the Biden administration did seek to draw maximum attention to the scenarios and threats of an invasion of Ukraine , including through the media, in order to ultimately contain the Russian Federation.

HB explains what the goal of such a US strategy might be, paraphrasing the arguments of Washington Post columnist Anthony Faiola and analysts at the US Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR), the largest non-governmental organization in the US that helps the authorities shape foreign policy.

“A New Era of Information Operations”: Analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations ( USA)

Council expert Max Boot notes that the information campaign of the US authorities in the confrontation with Russia ” opened a new front for competition between the two powers.”

According to him, US officials have lamented for years that when it comes to information wars and battles ” for hearts and minds”, the US has to ” fight with its hands tied behind its back.”

“ [US] adversaries, including the Kremlin and the self-proclaimed Islamic State, are free to spread lies and conspiracy theories, while the US government usually feels obligated to uphold the truth in its public statements ( even though authorities often try to cover up scandalous violations) Booth writes. “U.S. adversaries easily spread propaganda within the United States—often under false pretenses through social media—however, it is more difficult for independent information to infiltrate the more tightly controlled media spaces of countries such as China, North Korea, and Russia.”

Now, against the background of the aggravation of the global crisis around Ukraine, the Joe Biden administration “seems to have developed an effective information warfare technique.” “Instead of allowing the government of President Vladimir Putin to freely spread absurd conspiracy theories about anti-Russian conspiracies involving the West and Ukraine, the White House decided to fight back by publishing intelligence reports about Russian attempts to create a pretext for invading Ukraine,” the Council on Foreign Relations expert notes.

He recalls how the British authorities reported about the plans of the Russian Federation to install a puppet government in Ukraine , and then the US intelligence said that the Kremlin intends to fabricate an attack on Ukraine and use a naturalistic propaganda video about it, then to use it as a pretext for a military operation . In addition, the US has released many details in recent weeks about Russian troop movements near the borders with Ukraine and its assessment of the likelihood of a Russian invasion. “The [Biden] administration even shared information about alleged divisions within the Russian military over a possible attack on Ukraine,” notes Max Bout.

He acknowledges the skepticism of American journalists in relation to such claims of the intelligence community – especially given the lack of evidence for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. However, in the past, Moscow has indeed repeatedly used “ false flag operations” to justify aggression, counterargued by the analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“ In 1939, the Soviet Union fired on its own troops near the Finnish border to justify an invasion of that country. In 1968, KGB agents in what was then Czechoslovakia fabricated threats against the USSR and even claimed to have found a cache of weapons marked Made in USA to justify the Red Army’s violent suppression of the Prague Spring reform movement. It is believed that in 1999 Russian intelligence agents blew up apartment buildings in Russia to justify the invasion of Chechnya,” Bout lists such examples. He also recalls that the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 was accompanied by waves of disinformation, including the use of ” little green men” to mask the true role of the Russian armed forces. Moreover, the Kremlin even held the CIA responsible for the downing of a Malaysian airliner in 2014 by militants.

Therefore, if in the past the United States was repeatedly “ caught off guard” by Russian information attacks, now a “ new era of information operations” is coming, Booth writes.

“ Exposing Russian plots in real time seems to be an effective response  , even though it raises concerns about exposing the ‘sources and methods’ of the US intelligence community, and journalists are wondering whether the statements of the American authorities can be trusted,” states the expert of the American Council on international relations.

In his opinion, the usefulness of the US information campaign lies at least in the fact that Washington manages to ” throw sand into the gears of the Russian military machine and make the Russian authorities wonder where Western intelligence agencies are getting information from – which could lead [Russia] to look for traitors in its own ranks.” “. Preventive messages also neutralize Russian propaganda and allow the US to “ try to control the narrative rather than succumb to Putin and his propagandists . “

“ Given the growing importance of information operations in modern warfare, this is no small achievement,” concludes Booth. “  It has already paid off with serious Western unity in the face of Russian threats to Ukraine . However, whether US actions will deter a Russian invasion of Ukraine remains unclear.”

Why “ megaphone diplomacy” is needed: opinion of The Washington Post columnist

“The Biden administration’s warnings about a Russian invasion of Ukraine make it feel like the Weather Channel is tracking a hurricane,” WP journalist Anthony Faiola cites the analogy. He recalls the growing uneasiness of the reports: including recent estimates that Russian combat power has reached 70% readiness for a full-scale invasion, Kiev could allegedly be taken in three days, as well as references to tens of thousands of potential victims and wounded.

“ In geopolitical crises, few things are more sensitive than intelligence data,” Faiola recalls. And yet, he notes, since the beginning of the Russia-instigated crisis, the Biden administration has taken a position of unprecedented publicity about US knowledge of Russian troop movements, tactics, and plans. One of the American analysts has already called it ” Biden’s megaphone strategy,” the WP journalist notes. Others emphasize that the White House resorts to such tactics extremely rarely – if we talk about the volume and specificity of the information being announced.

“ This is unprecedented, even before my professional career,” Fiola is quoted as saying by John Herbst, the US ambassador to Ukraine from 2003-2006. “Perhaps it can be compared to the [1962] Cuban Missile Crisis or the preparations for the war in Iraq.”

The vociferousness of the White House’s statements does not mean that the American assessments are incorrect or that “the Russian bear will not stick its claws into Ukraine,” the WP journalist notes. “In fact, so far, Herbst and others [analysts] believe that the US administration is assessing the situation correctly,” he writes.

Washington’s statements do not mean that they are taken at face value, Faiola notes, recalling Biden’s controversial caveat that a ” minor” Russian invasion might not entail serious sanctions. “The [US] administration is in a difficult position because of the credibility of US intelligence data and the reliability of its revelations,” the journalist writes, recalling US State Department Speaker Ned Price’s recent skirmish with reporters who demanded from him evidence of intelligence data about the likely fabrication of the pretext by Russia for an invasion.

“ However, many observers say that the administration is being tactically cunning, acting in this way to deal with any Russian operation,” Faiola states.

He writes that the staggering amount of information released allowed Washington to publicly present the world with “ a real and immediate danger”, narrowing the gap between the positions of the United States and Europe in developing the most severe sanctions against Vladimir Putin, “which could ultimately serve as a successful means of deterring the invasion.” . “Differences between the allies on a coordinated response undoubtedly still exist – but even the statements of the resisting Germans are starting to sound tougher,” Faiola explains.

“ And if Putin was hoping for a clever sneak attack, now the whole world is watching him,” the journalist states, noting that “radical openness” may be the best way to deal with Putin’s dark tactics.

“ Russian hybrid warfare is based on sowing confusion and disinformation,” Richard Gowan, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, told the Spanish newspaper El Pais. By adopting a strategy of radical openness, the US is making it harder for Russia to spread misinformation about its activities. The Russians try to ignore or deny the allegations, but they have also had to publicly defend themselves. And this extreme publicity also makes it easier for Washington to more or less keep its NATO allies together.”

However, the White House’s commitment to such a game is fraught with risks, Faiola acknowledges. First, if this is a bluff on the part of the United States, there is a danger of provoking Putin into actions that he did not plan. “Such megaphone diplomacy could make inaction more problematic for Putin,” Gowen added. “Now it will be harder for him to back off without a certain sense of humiliation.”

Another risk is if the Russian troop pull-up was just a ruse designed to attract Western attention, undermine Ukraine’s hopes of ever joining NATO, test the will of the US and Europe, and force dialogue on its stated security concerns.

“ What if this diplomatic show was exactly what Putin was striving for? wrote international columnist Caroline de Gruyter. What if the West is playing into his hands by trying to contain him? What if the West really fell into his carefully laid trap?

Even if there is no invasion, the US and Europe would still find themselves embroiled in a long-term ” diplomatic swamp” over the question of Ukraine’s future. But it’s still better than war, the WP journalist admits.

” The downsides of the [U.S. megaphone strategy] are not that serious. If this [war] doesn’t happen, everyone will be saying, ‘Thank God it didn’t happen,'” says Herbst. operation, and I think the probability of a smaller one is below 50%. But I am convinced of this precisely because the Biden administration has taken such a strong position on this issue.”

https://nv.ua/world/geopolitics/pochemu-ssha-nastaivayut-na-opasnosti-vtorzheniya-rossii-v-ukrainu-analitika-50215921.html