About that New York Times story concerning the "online leak" of U.S. Ukraine and geopolitical plans
By newseditors // 2023-04-11
Copy
 
By now people are familiar with a New York Times (original source) story of a leak of sensitive classified information regarding U.S. operations in Ukraine and other geopolitical efforts.  The New York Times was the first with the story, as shared with them by “senior Biden administration officials.” (Article by Sundance republished from TheConservativeTreehouse.com)
WASHINGTON — Classified war documents detailing secret American and NATO plans for building up the Ukrainian military ahead of a planned offensive against Russian troops were posted this week on social media channels, senior Biden administration officials said. (more)
Now, let’s use this opportunity to expand our knowledge base, overlay the known frameworks that operate within our government, and simultaneously give a perspective that will not surface anywhere else. First, the story surfaces from the New York Times.  What does that tell us?  It tells us the stakeholders in a background narrative surrounding the issue as constructed are domestic intelligence interests.  If there was a State Dept stakeholder interest, the story would have been presented by CNN.  If there was a U.S. foreign intelligence operation stakeholder interest, the story would have surfaced in the Washington Post. The story surfaces in the New York Times, indicating a U.S. domestic intelligence interest; and the story is sourced directly to the White House via “senior Biden administration officials.”  What does that mean?  It means the narrative that flows from the story has a direction to shape opinion from the perspective of U.S. government domestic public relations.  It means the narrative is intended to sway a domestic audience with a motive toward something else. Secondly, and in full alignment with the first point, the centerpiece of the story is focused on a leak that surfaces in “social media.”  This fits perfectly with the domestic intelligence stakeholders (DHS, National Security Council, etc).   We know domestic intelligence operates in the backbone of social media platforms.  An example is DHS and domestic Intelligence Community (IC) work as outlined in the Twitter files. Put them together, a domestic IC product surfaced (being called leaked) into social media platforms containing portals controlled by domestic IC. The domestic IC then report on the leaks to the outlet used by the domestic IC.   See how these fit? If you follow the bouncing ball, what you immediately suspect is the domestic IC planted the ‘classified information’ in the platforms they can access, then turn around and report on the leak of the classified information to media they use for domestic narrative engineering. ♦ Motive – But why would the IC plant classified information, then turn around and report on the classified information they planted?  This is where you need to learn how the motives work, against a bigger picture. The leak (planted information) and then the telling of the leak (NYT story) creates an opportunity for the domestic IC to frame a Russian dis/mis/mal-information narrative. But why would the IC want to immediately stir up a misinformation or disinformation narrative against Russia? ♦ Answer: 18 hours before the leak/story construct.  Two Russian gremlins, perhaps state sponsored, or perhaps just state aligned, tricked former French President Francois Hollande into admitting the U.S. government and western alliance were behind all of the events in Ukraine after 2014, with the expressed intention to construct a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine. Russian Pranksters Vovan and Lexus, posing as former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, got French ex-President Francois Hollande to admit the Minsk Accords were a NATO ruse to militarize Ukraine, and Western nations overthrew Ukraine’s democratically-elected government in 2014. As noted by Gonzalo Lira, “François Hollande, former president of France, confirms that the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine was part of a long-term plan to have Ukraine fight a proxy war against Russia. The Americans have been preparing this war since the Obama administration—it is now confirmed beyond doubt.” The admission by Hollande aligns with every element of the U.S. effort to use Russia as a bad guy, including the use of Russia against Donald J Trump.  A proxy war against Russia was in the works going all the way back to the Euromaidan efforts, the color revolution in Ukraine, as constructed by the U.S. State Department, and facilitated by U.S. allies in Europe. This is the most explosive dose of geopolitical sunlight in years, and obviously these statements by Hollande were a serious issue for the White House and U.S. Intelligence Community.   Hollande was tricked by two Russian pranksters into spilling the real story about Ukraine and U.S. involvement therein. Now do you see the need?  The Hollande admission is an urgent problem. Less than one news cycle later, the IC has dropped the Ukraine counteroffensive strategy in the platforms the IC has access to (a purposeful leak).  Then the IC tells the story of the classified strategy leak to the New York Times and begins framing a Russian mis/disinformation campaign.   The intent is to mitigate any issues with the Hollande story, fall under the same claims of Russian mis/disinformation. The leak of classified intelligence, and the attribution to Russian misinformation, is like a brushback pitch toward the heads of the media on the explosive Francois Hollande story.  It worked.  Have you seen the admissions by Francois Hollande in any MSM?   Unified UniParty interests at play. That’s how the control agents operate.  Deflection and adverse information removal is what IC narrative engineering is intended to control.  This was a successful IC operation. Once you see the strings on the DC marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them. Read more at: TheConservativeTreehouse.com
Copy