Disproving ‘No Russian Ties’

Russia is a “mafia state” where the government’s infrastructure has power over organized crime enterprises and uses them as a resource.
Have You Heard Of Felix Sater? Bayrock bank? You will once the Grand Jury is done.

Trump was already caught once with Bayrock and Russian Underworld monies to build Trump SOHO.

https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/816132961896497152 Continue reading “Disproving ‘No Russian Ties’”


How Putin Rebuilt Trump

Finanical Times Expose Mafia Ties

(Behind a Paywall https://www.ft.com/content/ea52a678-9cfb-11e6-8324-be63473ce146

Suffice to say Russian money was used to make Trump appear wealthy, as well as laundered for Russian Government controlled Mafia:

Mark Burnett is a co-conspirator, part of the grand plot to groom him for president & ally of Putin.  Why?  He is afraid of “Christian Genocide” and sees Putin as an ally in this.

Burnett was working with Putin in 2001 for ‘Destination Mir.” See this Times Article

In 2004 Burnett then starts Celebrity Apprentice:

Without “Apprentice”–no fame for Trump, no licensing deals, no presidency.

This was image rehab, propaganda.  Voters under thirty didn’t see the Lifestyles of Rich and Famous Trump that was on before many bankruptcies and mafia ties tarnished his name.

This could be why Braun, editor for The Apprentice said they were told to, “‘Make Trump..look wealthy, legitimate.’

They set out to control an $18,000,000,000,000 economy of course it was well-planned and executed.

How dirty overseas money flowed into Trump and eventually into his presidential campaign:

If anyone wants to make a movie about how the Russians groomed Trump into becoming their puppet, here’s a storyboard

Felix Sater

Trump & Russian spies – biggest link, IMO, is Felix Sater.  Here’s what you need to know, from three articles.

From Washington Monthly

Donald Trump keeps saying that he has nothing to do with the Russians. Most recently, he made this claim in his White House press conference last week: “I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia.” He said it at a press conference in early January, too.

Whether Trump is being too clever by half or simply lying is something that reporters, the Intelligence Community, Congress, and maybe the Treasury Department need to figure out. What’s clear for now, though, is that Trump has plenty of connections to Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Hopefully, you’ve already seen the New York Times piece from this weekend detailing how Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen took a dossier to Michael Flynn that had been provided to him by a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician named Andrii V. Artemenko and a Russian mob-connected former employee of the Trump Organization named Felix Sater.


The dossier reportedly contained damaging information about the anti-Russian Ukrainian president, Petro O. Poroshenko, that the Trump administration could conceivably use to oust him. It also contained some kind of Russian-Ukrainian “peace plan” that would facilitate the lifting of sanctions on Russia.

What people are focusing on, quite justifiably, is the involvement of this Felix Sater character. I could write a whole, very long piece dedicated to nothing more than how obviously crazy it is for a personal lawyer to Donald Trump to meet with Sater, let alone carry his information personally to Trump’s national security adviser. Hopefully, however, you can find that argument made elsewhere.

From Stern Facts

A Russian mobster named Felix Sater told the Moscow media that he met with Trump’s campaign before the election, and revealed intimate details about his relationship with the man who Donald Trump swears he doesn’t know.

The newly unearthed Russian language interview with Felix Sater was published on November 15th, 2016 and was discovered by Democratic Coalition senior advisor Scott Dworkin’s #TrumpLeaks research operations.

This entire story is about a man — Felix Sater — whom Donald Trump claimed literally not to know during the Republican primary campaign

Felix Sater’s admitted contact with the Trump campaign during the election culminated in an incident where he carried an abortive secret “peace plan” between Russia and the United States over Ukraine that dovetailed with Donald Trump Jr.’s paid trip to speak a Putin-supported, Paris “peace conference” with a Syrian group.

After a lengthy IRS investigation beginning just after Sater meet Trump, the casino formerly named Trump’s Taj Mahal got slapped with a massive fine from the US Treasury’s criminal investigative division FinCEN.

The Senate wants to know about it, now.

New details from the Senate’s Trump Russia investigation in the last 48 hours since FBI Director James Comey was fired, confirm the importance of the time period when secretly convicted felon Felix Sater worked for Donald J. Trump, and the new Russian interview reveals that he openly moonlighted in the Trump Organization as US secret agent for the FBI and CIA, after he was convicted racketeering with the New York mafia in 1998 — which took a Supreme Court ruling to reveal.

Donald Trump hired the convicted felon, Russian emigre as his Senior Advisor during the decade-long period of time from 1998–2008 which saw him transform from bankrupt developer, to reality TV star with the aid of Producer Mark Burnett, who also did business with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The New York Times profiled Felix Sater in-depth 10-years ago solely because of his special relationship to the man who played a real estate developer on reality TV, who now resides in the White House.

A massive body of evidence points to a special relationship between Felix Sater, Donald Trump — and the federal government, who could have apparently allowed the pair to use Trump casinos to turn over “bad guys” to law enforcement, and which implies that he had the ability to shelter his associates from criminal charges for criminal acts; specifically for money laundering at the Trump casino empire.

It was a casino empire in New Jersey without any form of anti-money laundering controls, for two decades.

Not only does Sater tell the story of meeting Donald Trump in that interview on snob.ru, and talk about his ten years of regular contact with him — sometimes as much as twice a day — but he confirms two very important details about his relationship with our Russophile President.

First, Felix Sater claims that Trump knew about his “secret agent” activities with the FBI and CIA.

While there’s no direct way of proving the President’s knowledge of Felix Sater’s covert activities, the Trump Organization was a sponsor of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers in both 2002 and in 2003, which lends some credence to the idea that Donald Trump knew what was going on.

Former Trump campaign advisor James Woolsey is on the board of AFIO, which is a mainstream organization for America’s former intelligence officers.

Former President George Bush is also a member.

Secondly, Sater claimed to have regular contact with the Trump campaign last year.

We now know that Sater and Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen were caught by the New York Times with Sater, who was attempting to run a private diplomatic mission in Ukraine — an action discussed in the Christopher Steele intelligence dossier .

Via New York Times story “A Back-Channel Plan for Ukraine and Russia, Courtesy of Trump Associates”

The apparent plan to drop sanctions against Russia failed.

Shortly thereafter, Cohen’s Ukrainian relative was found dead under mysterious circumstances.

Trump’s connections to gangsters from Russian and former Soviet states mafiosos and oligarchs alike, all multiplied during Sater’s tenure.

To be clear, there is no question about Felix Sater’s service to the US government either.

It happened.

After Trump was sued for Sater scamming his Florida condominium buyers in the Trump Fort Lauderdale tower, his Senior Advisor fought all the way to the Supreme Court seeking to keep his 1998 felony conviction for racketeering sealed by a then-little known federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York.

The federal government lost in the Supreme Court, leading to what the Miami Herald’s Michael Sallah called dozens of explosive documents.

The court revealed that Felix Sater was nabbed by the feds for his involvement in a New York Cosa Nostra stock scheme in 1998 and had his arm twisted to begin working for both the FBI and CIA.

One person who certainly knew about these activities was former Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who described (p. 142) the convicted felon Sater’s government activities thusly in sworn testimony to the US Senate at the request of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, over his concerns about sealed convictions that allowed criminals to roam the streets, without informing Americans that they might be dealing with a confidential informant that could rob them with immunity from criminal prosecution:

The defendant in question, Felix Sater, provided valuable and sensitive information to the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra.

For that reason, his case was initially sealed.

Forbes Media recently filed an action in federal court seeking to unseal the remaining records from Felix Sater’s secret criminal conviction, which contains a treasure trove of compiled research on Trump’s former advisor, and included a report by freelance investigative journalist Bill Conroy about the implications of cooperation with the FBI and intelligence agencies. (This paragraph was added the day after publication of this report.)

If his spectacular claims are to be believed, Continue reading “Felix Sater”

Russia’s Media Messengers

Russia uses a ratio of 4:1 in “soft power”, which involves paying articulate opportunists to speak secretly on Russia’s behalf, to sway people against things such as the essential tenants of democracy and/or against restrictions on Russia such as NATO.

Various speakers on RT are chosen because they often have these viewpoints.  Where they are actually paid by Russia, or were just influenced by thinkers or propaganda that originated in Russia is difficult to prove.  What you can easily tell though, is why they were chosen.

David Icke has essential summed up his message once by saying that the Mainstream Media is a false, scripted, show designed to distract us from what is really happening in government.  This is an extreme version of the belief that Russia would prefer its targeted viewers believe because it discredits the press.  The press is essential to a healthy democracy and preventing abuse of power from authoritarian figures such as Putin.

Conspiracy thinking is preferred because it ultimately gets the people to live in a mindset along the lines of ‘you can’t really know what’s going on,’ and susceptible to online propaganda.  They become conditioned to gauge news not by the credibility of the source, but of the level of exposing an interesting conspiracy that the news source is presenting to them.   These national enquirer type of headlines are employing are often persuasive clickbait and allow exploit partisan bias.  They demonize political ‘enemies’ and even seek to hard intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA.

A Must Read from Molly McKew

This is a Must Read from Molly McKew


Key Points:

“The starkest aspect of Comey’s prepared statement was the president’s lack of curiosity about the long-running, deep-reaching, well-executed and terrifyingly effective Russian attack on American democracy. This was raised more than once in the hearing — that after Trump was briefed in January on the intelligence community’s report, which emphasized ongoing activity directed by the Kremlin against the United States, he has not subsequently evinced any interest in what can be done to protect us from another Russian assault. The president is interested in his own innocence, or the potential guilt of others around him — but not at all in the culpability of a foreign adversary, or what it meant. This is utterly astonishing.

Since the January intelligence report, the public’s understanding of the threat has not expanded. OK, Russia meddled in the election — but so what? Increasingly, responsibility for this is borne by the White House, which in seeking to minimize the political damage of “Trump/Russia” is failing to craft a response to the greatest threat the United States and its allies have ever faced.

Even if the president and his team were correct, and the Comey testimony definitively cleared the president of potential obstruction of justice or collusion charges — even if that were true, that does not also exonerate Russia. Nonetheless, this is a line the president seems to want drawn.

So here are the real issues — about Russia; about the brutal facts we have yet to face; and about some hard questions we need to ask ourselves, and our political leaders, and our president.

No matter what is true or not, we have moved toward the fractured, inward-looking, weakened America that President Putin wants to see.

An honest assessment of where we are reads like the setting of a dystopian spy novel. Paid advertising is defaming private American citizens viewed as opponents of the president, while political ads praise our glorious leader. The policy process is paralyzed while both party caucuses, once well-oiled legislative and messaging machines, have factionalized into guerrilla-like cells. The same can be said of many government agencies, whose halls remain quiet, awaiting political appointees who may never arrive. Policies are floated and tweeted and drafted and retracted. There are uneasy relationships between the White House and the intelligence community, and between the White House and Congress, and between the White House and other parts of the White House — which is bleeding over into how the intelligence community interacts with the Congress, as well.

This factionalization mirrors a deep and deepening public divide, which has been greatly accelerated by a war on truth. The Russian narrative is increasingly being echoed by far right media, and finding its way into mainstream conservative media. Episodes of violent unrest, and the potential for wider chaos, don’t seem far off.

Meanwhile, no one seems to be watching what Russia is still doing to us. No one is systematically speaking about the tactics of Russian hybrid warfare, and that these go beyond “fake news” and “hacking” into far-reaching intelligence operations and initiatives to destabilize Western countries, economies and societies.


Our relationships with our truest allies are frayed and fraying — and not just in headlines, but in trust and intelligence sharing and functionality, even as critical ambassadorships and administration jobs gape open. Those who remain, especially from the Pentagon and military commands — Defense Secretary James Mattis and the EUCOM and SOCOM commanders, notably — have been patrolling Europe with trips and reassurances, good work that was undone when the president removed mention of Article 5 from his speech at NATO headquarters. Though he committed to the principle of collective defense on Friday during a news conference with the president of Romania, that one act of petulance is devastating to years of NATO’s strategic planning.

Even behind closed doors, Trump reportedly did not once mention Russia to the NATO heads of state — not to discuss Russian attacks against our allies, and not to discuss Russia’s menacing of NATO skies, seas and borders. Instead, he browbeat our allies. Maybe it’s news to the White House — but it was Russia’s aggression, not Trump’s hectoring, that inspired the alliance to boost national military spending. Days later, the sting still on the slap, Trump lashed out at the mayor of London following a terror attack. These words and images, next to those of the president yukking it up in the Oval Office with the Russian foreign minister, add a dangerous element of fragility to the greatest military alliance in history.

It leaves us to wonder — who does President Trump imagine will come to our aid after the next attack on our soil? Who does he imagine will stand next to our troops and ease the burden at the front lines in the many wars he is fighting?

An isolationist America that is softer on Russia and more in favor of authoritarian traits in leaders fits right into the narratives that the Kremlin nurtures and spends billions to promote. And if views changed so dramatically on these aspects of Russian narratives — why is it we believe their efforts didn’t change any votes?

In many ways, the trust-based, state-based U.S. voting system is surprisingly resilient to basic hacking or meddling. Every state, sometimes every county, runs its own elections with its own rules with its own machines (or not) serviced by their own vendors. Certainly, there are easy ways to hack this infrastructure — technicians servicing software, unsecured machines, etc. — but the decentralized system makes it a complicated affair. It’s uncertain and it’s messy and it would leave a trail of money and evidence that can be found and exposed.

Far simpler, it turns out, is just hacking people — getting them to change their views over time without realizing that they are doing so on the basis of deliberately coercive and false information that is targeted at them because they exhibit certain traits and habits that “data scientists” have profiled. And no one can prove anyone did anything.

And yes, this is indeed terrifying. So yes, it would be great if everyone would move on from denying the existence of the “hacked votes” no one is looking for to looking instead at the far more important issue: that Russian information warfare has come of age thanks to social media. Perhaps then, the tens of thousands of “programmers” working for Russia’s three largest data companies will make a lot more sense.

3. It will happen again; it is still happening now.

One final point, on the tactical weaponization of discrete pieces of information. Ours was not the only case where hacking introduced info or disinfo that came to dominate specific parts of the information space (particularly when massively amplified by botnets that know how to game the algorithms).

So this is where we are, six months after first taking stock of what Russia did to America. We are paralyzed and divided, watching a salacious sideshow of an investigation while Russian initiatives are underway in countless places, completely unchecked. The American president, eager to be rid of this “cloud,” has equated dismissing Russia’s global imperialist insurgency with loyalty to him.

As I wrote for Politico in January, Russia is clear about what its objectives are. When I said then that Russia was at war with the United States, this was an edgy, controversial view. Now, it is regularly repeated by senators and TV commentators. But our societal understanding of the war we face has not expanded fast enough.


Even looking only at the advance of Russian military assets — men, materiel, supporting infrastructure — the picture is grim. And yet the most concise encapsulation of the Russian concept of hybrid warfare — the above chart depicting the “Gerasimov doctrine,” developed by the Russian chief of the general staff — shows that information warfare is the constant through all phases, and that the ideal ratio of nonmilitary to military activities is 4:1. The more important war is, by far, the shadow war. And yet we still refuse to accept what’s happening.

I don’t know why we just choose not to believe what Russia says, when they have repeatedly outlined what their strategic goals are and then moved to achieve them by force and guile. But it’s a bridge of disbelief we need to be willing to cross.

The war is in the shadows. And, right now, Russia is winning. There is only one question that we should be asking: What are we going to do to protect the American people from Russian acts of war — and why doesn’t the president want to talk about it?

Russia Targeted the GOP

From SternFacts:

“In retrospect, it seems plain that Dr. Lozansky targeted the conservative movement and Republican party with his Russian propaganda efforts.”


“Republican ideology and the party’s gradual Russification culminated in their turn towards Putin this year.

The roots of the GOP sea change didn’t happen overnight, and weren’t solely a product of Trump’s political machinations.

It was the product of GOP leadership changing direction after decades of radical ideology, and fueled by Russian state-connected oil money ever since super lobbyist Jack Abramoff began doing business with NaftaSib in the 1990s until his prosecution in the mid-2000s whereupon ex-Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort clearly took over the reigns of his Russian oil driven, dark money empire.

Even the NRA suddenly changed into a pro-Putin group after some targeted courting with love from Russia’s fake NRA.

Gallup reported a seismic shift in Republican opinion towards Vladimir Putin in February 2017. They wrote:

A major reason for the overall rise in Putin’s favorable rating this year is Republicans’ more positive views of the Russian leader, from 12% in 2015 to 32% today. This comes at a time when President Donald Trump wants to improve relations with Russia, after somewhat frosty relations between the two countries during Barack Obama’s presidency. Independents’ opinions of Putin also have grown more positive in the last two years, but to a lesser extent than Republicans’. Democrats’ views have become slightly less positive, with just 10% viewing Putin favorably today.

He Formed The First Young Republicans Club In The Soviet Union, But Soured On America After Ukraine’s Orange Revolution

Russian emigrant Edward Lozansky became a Republican shortly after arriving in America with an improbable story that led to Capital Hill and a 40-year career which has evolved into him becoming the dean of the Putin apologist propagandists in Washington, D.C.

Left: Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at a World Russia Forum, with Dr. Edward Lozansky speaking in Washington, D.C.

The anti-communist crusader emigrated from Moscow to the United States via Rome in 1977 and since then quickly managed to ingratiate himself into the highest level of American politics and stay there for four decades.

Today, he’s sharing space in Moscow with Vladimir Putin’s top propagandist in Eastern Ukraine with his fake university.

Within months of arrival, his Soviet-themed Romeo and Juliet story of family separation became the lever through which he made friends in western New York’s Jewish community and how his story was quickly carried to the floor of the United States Congress by his Republican representative in the House.

Just weeks later, even President Jimmy Carter was lobbying for the cause of reuniting Lozansky and his family on the world stage.

Two years later, he joined the Young Republicans, and his wife Tatiana formed the first Young Republicans Chapter behind the Iron Curtain — just after Senators Jack Kemp and Bob Dole enacted a marriage in absentia ceremony for the Lozanskys inside the Capitol.

After Republicans rejected Putin’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, Lozansky’s love story with the GOP took an especially bitter, tragic twist.

Russian propaganda — and very specifically Dr. Lozansky’s opinion — holds the United States responsible for Eastern European “color” revolutions which have overthrown oppressive regimes, oligarchies and kleptocracies like exiled Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych.

It’s a viewpoint which for good reason, has drawn quite vociferous American dissent.

The Republican Party’s thorough indoctrination into the right-wing of Russian politics didn’t happen overnight.

Lozansky’s World Russia Forum invited people to Washington, D.C. for decades, often into the Senate’s inner sanctum.

His issues were on the floor of Congress since the late 1970s.

Through his friendship Paul Weyrich, Lozansky was involved in the conservative movement nearby the one man who created of nearly every significant conservative group — from A.L.E.C. to the Council for National Policy to the Free Congress Foundation, Heritage Foundation and the Krieble Foundation — which started in the 1980s and consumed Republican political thought in the 2000s and to this day.

He was also close with the Cato Institute.

Through the years, his associates from Russia and his associates in the United States government came to a singular conclusion about first Lozansky’s activities, and later with the entire Russia lobby’s attributes.

They both realized that Lozansky leaned unusually heavily towards right-wing or Republican politics, and rarely if ever towards Democrats.

Disingenuously, Lozansky had blamed that bias on lacking access to the elite Clinton administration in 2000 when the Navy’s CNA Corp. sponsored the World Russia forum. His friend Paul Weyrich told C-SPAN during the coup which ended Soviet rule, that he had personally “trained” the Russian official in charge of privatizing — read: making his friends wealthy on sweetheart deals — state-run companies and assets for President Boris Yeltsin all the way through 1996.

In retrospect, it seems plain that Dr. Lozansky targeted the conservative movement and Republican party with his Russian propaganda efforts.

And the professor’s efforts to Russianize the Republican Party succeeded to a terrifying degree. Continue reading “Russia Targeted the GOP”

Unplugging Putin

Putin controls Russia by keeping them “in thrall to a virtual reality—one in which NATO is about to invade their homeland, and Ukraine has been taken over by neo-Nazis.. It isn’t just a question of censorship. Inside Russia, many sources of accurate information survive. True, most of them are now either websites or newspapers—television, the main source of news for most Russians, is controlled by the Kremlin—but the country is significantly more open today than the USSR was 30 years ago. Even so, Putin commands domestic support ratings upward of 80 percent. And even among the 30 million Russians who live abroad and have easier access to television stations not controlled by the Kremlin, many believe in the Kremlin-dictated reality. In Estonia, for example, over half of the Russian population still thinks that the country had volunteered to give up its independence and join the USSR after World War II, according to a 2005 poll.
These kinds of sentiments have fueled a surge of Russian patriotism that has enabled Putin to continue his aggressive geopolitics in the face of Western sanctions—which explains why he takes propaganda very seriously.

His first move after coming to power in 2000, before reining in the energy sector and the bureaucracy, was to seize control of television. Since then, he has diligently remade it to suit his purposes. The first thing to note about modern Russian TV is that, unlike the stale Soviet fare, it is highly entertaining. Western consultants have helped Russian producers launch glitzy talent shows, addictive sitcoms, and steamy pop videos—content that draws huge audiences. If in the Cold War part of the West’s appeal was the implicit link between Western entertainment and democracy, Putin’s Russia has undermined this. It’s now possible to love Taylor Swift but hate the United States.

Once the audience’s attention has been grabbed, Russian television sets about reshaping its perception of the world. The process starts with an assault on critical thinking. Russian television is full of conspiracy theories and mysticism, not just about the nefarious CIA agents who stand behind every public protest in Russia or Ukraine but also about countless other threats lurking everywhere. Bizarre pseudoscience programs warn viewers about impending deadly fungi epidemics and introduce them to psychics who can enter their minds. Any sort of rational debate is rendered impossible by a constant stream of false assurances—illogical connections between two associations where two random facts are fused to create a distorted whole.”

“Having drawn in the viewers and disabled their critical defenses, Russian television reaches deep into the nation’s emotional traumas. Politicians and presenters feed the audience nonstop reminders of the difficult 1990s, when, they argue, the West cheered at the sight of a weakened Russia and of the tremendous human toll of the two world wars. Saying that Russia suppresses its past wouldn’t be quite correct; rather, Russia engages with history in a way that inflames traumas instead of healing them. To take just the most obvious example, Kiselev and other commentators have repeatedly described the leaders of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution as followers of Stepan Bandera, the World War II–era Ukrainian nationalist and one-time Nazi collaborator whom most Russians associate with Nazi atrocities.
These kinds of tricks are not aimed at helping viewers achieve closure—in fact, they serve the opposite purpose. Coming to terms with the past requires that people bring their traumatic experiences into the realm of critical thinking in order to grapple with them—an approach used in psychotherapy. Russian television, by contrast, works more like a cult—heightening the vulnerability of its followers by forcing them to relive bad experiences without ever making peace with them.”

“Once viewers have been turned into emotional putty, Russian TV makes its final move: lifting them up with tales of glorious victories achieved by national leaders, from Joseph Stalin to Putin, thereby tying the viewers’ emotional uplift to the Kremlin’s heroics. (“Russia is getting up off its knees” is a favored slogan.) The necessary disinformation is added as the icing on the cake—and by that point in time, the audience is ready to swallow almost anything.
It has taken the Kremlin 15 years to perfect its strategic use of television, but until recently the application of this tactic remained mostly domestic. With the crisis in Ukraine, the strategy has taken on international significance. Policymakers in Brussels and elsewhere are now debating the best ways to counter the Kremlin’s information campaign, including by creating alternative Russian-language content. Such content would, of course, never match domestic Russian television in funding—Channel One, the battering ram of Kremlin propaganda, has a budget of some $850 million—or compete with it in making big talent shows and movies. Still, there are alternative avenues for winning over Russian viewers that are well worth exploring.”

These challenges are not confined to the sphere of Russian-language media; the intensity of information warfare is on the rise across the world. China, for one, has developed the concept of a three-front war against the United States, which uses media and psychological warfare to enhance territorial claims on neighboring states. In the Middle East, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) was able to quickly swell its ranks thanks in large part to its effective propaganda. The stakes in future media campaigns are sure to grow further as undemocratic regimes partner up to create international disinformation networks. Russian TV channels, for example, have already been helping to disseminate story lines favorable to the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. And the entry of China into the game will only strengthen such informational alliances.
To mount a strong counteroffensive, any alternative media supported by Western donors must be broad in its reach and regular in delivery—priorities that require a significant long-term commitment. Today’s public interest television companies, such as Layalina, barely survive on small grants and commissions. It would take a qualitatively different level of funding to bring larger and more effective outlets on air. But good television is no longer merely about humanitarian values; it’s now a matter of global security.”

Quotes from: