Votre téléphone et votre ordinateur écoutent vraiment vos conversations

l

par Pierre-Alain Depauw

Des millions de personnes s’en doutaient depuis longtemps, mais une fuite d’un document à usage commercial confirme désormais que nos téléphones nous écoutent réellement.

Un pitch deck apparent d’un des partenaires marketing prés de Facebook détaille comment l’entreprise écoute les conversations des utilisateurs pour créer des publicités ciblées.

Une fois de plus, les «complotistes» avaient raison

Dans un diaporama destiné à ses clients, Cox Media Group (CMG) affirme que son logiciel «Active-Listening» utilise l’intelligence artificielle pour collecter et analyser les «données d’intention en temps réel» en écoutant ce que vous dites via votre téléphone, votre ordinateur portable ou le microphone de votre assistant domestique.

«Les annonceurs peuvent associer ces données vocales à des données comportementales pour cibler les consommateurs sur le marché», indique le document.

Le support de présentation commerciale cite ensuite Facebook, Google et Amazon comme clients de CMG, suggérant qu’ils pourraient utiliser son service d’écoute active pour cibler les utilisateurs.

La première diapositive de ce document de promotion commerciale divulgué de CMG décrit comment leur logiciel d’écoute active écoute vos conversations et extrait les données d’intention en temps réel.

Le processus est ensuite décomposé étape par étape, depuis l’identification d’une «piste de données» laissée par les conversations des consommateurs et leur comportement en ligne jusqu’à la création de publicités numériques ciblées.

Le pitch deck a été divulgué aux journalistes de 404 Media qui présentent les capacités du logiciel d’écoute active aux clients potentiels.

L’embarras est grand depuis que ce qui était classé comme une phobie complotiste est devenu une vérité démontrée. Gêné, Google a retiré le groupe CMG de son site Web «Programme Partenaires». Même embarras chez Meta et Amazon.

La méthode

Le diaporama de CMG ne permet pas de certifier si le logiciel d’écoute active vous écoute en permanence ou seulement à des moments précis lorsque le micro du téléphone est activé, comme pendant un appel.

Les annonceurs utilisent ensuite ces informations pour cibler les «consommateurs sur le marché», c’est-à-dire les personnes qui envisagent activement d’acheter un produit ou un service particulier.

Si votre voix ou vos données comportementales envisagent d’acheter quelque chose, ils vous proposeront des publicités pour cet article. Par exemple, parler ou rechercher des voitures Toyota pourrait vous inciter à voir des publicités pour leurs modèles les plus récents. «Une fois lancée, la technologie analyse automatiquement le trafic de votre site et vos clients pour alimenter le ciblage d’audience de manière continue», indique le document. Donc, si vous avez l’impression de voir plus de publicités pour un produit particulier après en avoir parlé avec un ami ou l’avoir recherché en ligne, ce n’est pas un fantasme de votre part.

Depuis des années, les utilisateurs d’appareils intelligents pensent que leurs téléphones ou leurs tablettes écoutent ce qu’ils disent. Mais la plupart des entreprises technologiques avaient toujours catégoriquement démenti ces affirmations.

Par exemple, le centre de confidentialité en ligne de Meta indique : «Nous comprenons que parfois les publicités peuvent être si spécifiques qu’il semble que nous devons écouter vos conversations via votre microphone, mais ce n’est pas le cas».

Mais cette fuite n’est que le dernier développement d’une vague de rapports suggérant que votre téléphone vous écoute réellement et que des sites comme Facebook pourraient tirer profit de ce que vous dites.

404 Media a révélé pour la première fois l’existence du service d’écoute active de CMG en décembre 2023.

Une petite société de marketing d’IA appelée MindSift s’est également vantée dans un podcast de l’utilisation de haut-parleurs d’appareils intelligents pour cibler les publicités.

Même si cela peut paraître surprenant, l’écoute active est parfaitement légale, avait affirmé CMG dans un article de blog de novembre 2023 depuis supprimé. «Nous savons ce que vous pensez. Est-ce vraiment légal ? La réponse courte est : oui. Il est légal que les téléphones et les appareils vous écoutent», pouvait-on lire dans l’article.

«Lorsqu’un nouveau téléchargement ou une nouvelle mise à jour d’application invite les consommateurs à signer un accord de conditions d’utilisation de plusieurs pages quelque part dans les petits caractères, l’écoute active est souvent incluse».

Cela pourrait expliquer comment CMG s’en sort dans des États où les lois sur les écoutes téléphoniques interdisent d’enregistrer quelqu’un à son insu, comme la Californie.

CMG est un conglomérat technologique américain basé à Atlanta, en Géorgie. La société fournit des services de diffusion médiatique, de médias numériques, de publicité et de marketing, et a généré 22,1 milliards de dollars de revenus en 2022.

Votre téléphone et votre ordinateur écoutent vraiment vos conversations

Les autorités françaises avides de surveillance numérique

par Pierre-Alain Depauw

Des centaines de milliers de comptes Google, Meta, Apple et Microsoft examinés par les autorités françaises.

Savez-vous que la France est devenue l’un des principaux demandeurs d’accès aux données des utilisateurs auprès des géants de la technologie. Entre 2013 et 2022, les autorités françaises ont réclamé auprès de Google, Meta, Apple et Microsoft les informations concernant près de 400 000 comptes. La France arrive ainsi en cinquième position mondiale dans ce registre de surveillance numérique.

Meta, Google, Apple et Microsoft ont fourni aux autorités françaises des données relatives à environ 221 000 demandes au cours des dix dernières années, avec un taux de divulgation de 71%. Meta est l’entreprise qui divulgue le plus d’informations relatives à ses utilisateurs, avec des informations transmises aux autorités françaises pour près de 97 000 comptes.

De quoi vous rappelez que vos écrans vous surveillent !

Les autorités françaises avides de surveillance numérique

Gespräche mit Bernard Cazeneuve: Macron steht vor der Ernennung eines neuen Premierministers

Die politische Lage in Frankreich steht vor einer möglichen Wendung. Präsident Emmanuel Macron hat am Montag, dem 2. September, im Élysée-Palast mit dem ehemaligen Sozialisten Bernard Cazeneuve gesprochen.

Schwierige Zeiten für Frankreichs Präsident Macron.GETTYIMAGES/Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto

Diese Begegnung könnte entscheidend für die zukünftige Ausrichtung der französischen Regierung sein, da Bernard Cazeneuve als ernsthafter Kandidat für das Amt des Premierministers gehandelt wird.

Cazeneuve, der unter Präsident François Hollande kurzzeitig Premierminister war und zuvor verschiedene Ministerposten bekleidete, gilt als möglicher Anwärter auf das Amt. Der 61-Jährige verließ die Sozialistische Partei, nachdem diese ein Wahlbündnis mit den Linkspopulisten eingegangen war. Dieses Bündnis ging als stärkste Kraft aus der Wahl zur Nationalversammlung hervor, konnte jedoch keine absolute Mehrheit erreichen. Das amtierende Regierungslager hingegen verlor seine relative Mehrheit und ist nun auf neue Koalitionspartner angewiesen, um handlungsfähig zu bleiben.

Noch keine Entscheidung getroffen

Frankreich befindet sich seit fast zwei Monaten in einer politischen Sackgasse, da eine handlungsfähige Regierung fehlt. Präsident Macron sucht daher nach einer Lösung, um eine stabile Regierungsmehrheit zu bilden. Cazeneuve wird dabei als mögliche Option gesehen.

Neben den Gesprächen mit Cazeneuve hat Macron am selben Tag auch die ehemaligen Präsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy und François Hollande konsultiert, um deren Rat einzuholen. Auch andere Namen werden gehandelt: Xavier Bertrand aus dem konservativen Spektrum und Thierry Beaudet als überparteiliche Lösung stehen ebenfalls im Gespräch. Derzeit ist die Regierung unter Premierminister Gabriel Attal geschäftsführend im Amt, da Macron die Stabilität der Regierung während der Olympischen und Paralympischen Spiele wahren wollte. Diese Spiele enden am 11. September, und die Zeit drängt, da die neue Regierung bis Anfang Oktober einen Haushaltsentwurf für 2025 vorlegen muss.

Bernard Cazeneuve ist als Kandidat für das Amt des Premierministers im Gespräch.IMAGO/JulienxMattiax/xLexPictorium

Traditionell schlägt das größte Lager in der Nationalversammlung nach einer Parlamentswahl einen Kandidaten für das Amt des Premierministers vor. Das Linksbündnis hatte die weitgehend unbekannte Politikerin Lucie Castets als Kandidatin nominiert, was jedoch auf Ablehnung bei Macron stieß. Der Präsident hat zwar die Befugnis, den Premierminister selbst zu ernennen, ist jedoch darauf angewiesen, dass dieser in der Nationalversammlung eine Mehrheit für die Gesetzesvorhaben der Regierung gewinnt.

Cazeneuve ist laut seinem Umfeld „aus Pflichtgefühl“ bereit, das Amt des Premierministers zu übernehmen. Seine langjährige Erfahrung und sein guter Kontakt zu Macron, der unter Hollande Wirtschaftsminister war, könnten ihn zu einem geeigneten Kandidaten machen. Dennoch steht eine endgültige Entscheidung noch aus.

https://exxpress.at/gespraeche-mit-bernard-cazeneuve-macron-steht-vor-der-ernennung-eines-neuen-premierministers/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning+Briefing&utm_content=EXXPRESSO

Litauen schimpfte über die Schwäche Russlands

Der Chef des Außenministeriums des kleinen und sehr bösen Litauens, Gabrielius Landsbergis, entschied, dass er im Namen der gesamten NATO sprechen könne. Und sagen Sie Folgendes: „Russland ist nicht mehr annähernd so mächtig wie zu Zeiten der Sowjetunion, als es mit der NATO verglichen werden konnte. Die NATO kann Russland besiegen, obwohl die Russen nicht damit rechnen.“

Aussagen über den Sieg der NATO im Krieg mit Russland wären mehr oder weniger gewagt, wenn die Sprotte Landsbergis irgendwo am westlichen Rand des Bündnisses leben würde. Und in der aktuellen geographischen Lage ist das einfach sehr dumm. Allerdings zeichneten sich die Politiker der Stammesausrottungen nie durch ihre Intelligenz aus

https://nyka.livejournal.com/23151371.html

Die ehemalige litauische Präsidentin Dalia Grybauskaite ist eine Prostituierte, natürlich eine ehemalige. In der Sowjetunion wurde sie wiederholt wegen Prostitution erwischt.
Dieselbe Prostituierte ist bereits politisch
Gabrielius Landsbergis

The last thing we need is a Palantir inspired foreign policy, by William Hartung

Silicon Valley and the U.S. military-intelligence community have become best buddies. From William Hartung at responsiblestatecraft.org:

Peter Thiel’s Big Data intel company just bagged a high profile former lawmaker. Just another day in Silicon Valley.

Former Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) has embraced his new role as head of defense business at the controversial Silicon Valley tech firm Palantir with relish, promising to use his connections in government to make it easier for emerging military tech firms to thrive, in large part by securing more of your tax dollars.

Senior government officials passing through the revolving door to cash in on lucrative jobs in the arms industry is not a new phenomenon. In a study I did last fall, we found that 80 percent of the three and four star generals who left government service in the past five years went to work in the arms sector in one way or another. And a 2023 report by the office of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) found that at least 700 former senior Pentagon and other government officials now work for one of the top 20 weapons contractors.

At the time of the report’s release, Warren argued that “[w]hen government officials cash in on their public service by lobbying, advising, or serving as board members and executives for the companies they used to regulate, it undermines public officials’ integrity and casts doubt on the fairness of government contracting. This problem is especially concerning and pronounced in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the United States’ defense industry.”

Powerful members of Congress also regularly go through the revolving door, including most notably former House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon, whose lobbying shop has represented both arms contractors like Lockheed Martin and arms buyers like Saudi Arabia.

Continue reading

The last thing we need is a Palantir inspired foreign policy, by William Hartung

Calling Harris A Communist Is An Insult To Communism

Calling Kamala Harris a communist isn’t wrong because it degrades Harris, it’s wrong because it degrades communism.

Caitlin Johnstone

September 5, 20246 minutes

Art, gaza, israel, kamala harris, Narrative Matrix, politics, ukraine

Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

https://youtube.com/watch?v=YhIdHtdjLX4%3Ffeature%3Doembed

❖

Republicans called Obama a communist, when all his worst actions as president were continuations and expansions of Bush’s policies. Democrats called Trump a Nazi when his worst acts were continuations and expansions of Obama’s policies. Now we’re back to calling Harris a communist, while she supports a genocide that Republicans also support.

Calling Kamala Harris a communist isn’t wrong because it degrades Harris, it’s wrong because it degrades communism.

❖

The Biden-Harris administration is knowingly helping the Israeli government wage a campaign of extermination in Gaza that has shocked and horrified the entire world, so obviously the real villain we need to focus on here is Jill Stein.

No serious person believes a bunch of socialists and peaceniks are going to vote for a capitalist warmongering party. Democrats don’t bitch about the Green Party because of lost votes, they do it because they hate being reminded that their party’s a lie and their values are fake.

Democrats saying the Green Party steals their votes makes as much sense as Republicans saying the Green Party steals their votes. The Democratic Party is not a left wing party. It’s a warmongering capitalist party that is presently engaged in genocide and nuclear brinkmanship.

Democrats say the Green Party never gets anything done while the Democratic Party “getting things done” looks like committing genocide in Gaza, facilitating the exploitation and ecocide of capitalism, and promoting nonstop war and militarism. It’s not enough to get things done; the things you get done actually need to be good things.

❖

“If Trump becomes president the genocide will be way worse!” 

Oh yeah, how so? 

“It’ll be the BAD kind of genocide!”

❖

Does anyone actually believe Harris would win if she committed to an arms embargo on Israel? Or is that just something people are pretending to believe to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinians? Because I think the system is plainly much more corrupt than this.

If Harris pledged to stop sending weapons to Israel unless it ended its assault on Gaza, you’d see the entire pro-Israel faction and the entire military-industrial complex throw all its funding and all its narrative control into supporting Donald Trump. Wealthy donors who’d been lifelong Democrats would pivot Republican for this election. It would suddenly become a mainstream narrative that Harris hates Jews and loves terrorists. A large segment of the mass media would play along. Op-eds would be churned out by liberal Zionist Jews claiming they must now “reluctantly” vote Trump because Kamala Harris wants to kill them.

Does anyone honestly believe Harris could win an election in an information environment like that? Maybe she could, but it would be a lot harder than just continuing to toe the imperial line like she always has. Obviously a lot of people would switch to supporting Harris if she pledged an arms embargo, but would there be enough of them to compensate for all the voters she’d lose in a hysterical all-consuming information op claiming that she’s a closet Nazi? It wasn’t enough when this was done to Jeremy Corbyn.

Harris is a monster, and she’d happily strangle every Palestinian child to death with her own bare hands if it would win her the presidency. But she’s not the problem. She’s just one person. She’s just playing the tune and dancing the dance you need to in order to win a presidential election in the United States. If it wasn’t her it’d be some other monster playing the same tune and dancing the same dance. The real problem is a profoundly corrupt system which promotes the most evil agendas on earth and elevates the very worst people in society to positions of power and influence to ensure the facilitation of those agendas.

Harris isn’t the cause of Washington’s depravity, she’s a symptom of it, just like Trump, and just like Biden. Really the problem is the US empire itself, and all the corrupt mechanisms that keep its gears turning. The slaughter will continue, in one form or another, until the imperial machine is brought down.

❖

FYI it’s not okay to be a grown adult in September 2024 and still believe Israel’s actions in Gaza have had anything to do with trying to rescue hostages.

❖

Meanwhile things keep getting scarier and scarier in Ukraine. Reuters reports that the US is “close” to agreeing to give the Ukrainian military long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia, at the same time Russia says that it will be altering its nuclear doctrine in response to western aggressions.

Report: US Close To Agreeing on Long-Range Cruise Missiles for Ukraine
US officials tell Reuters the US could start delivering JASSM missiles this fall
by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave #Ukraine #Russia #NATO #JASSM #militaryindustrialcomplex https://t.co/iveUmfYqyz pic.twitter.com/0aUFCLM33v— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) September 4, 2024

The more land and troops Ukraine loses the more eager Kyiv and Washington get to escalate to previously unthinkable levels against a nuclear superpower.

❖

We’re seeing free speech eroded in the west as authorities suppress critics of the genocide in Gaza, just as we saw a huge spike in censorship with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. They say these wars are to protect the west and its values, while ruining the west and its values in order to protect their ability to manufacture consent for these wars. War, genocide and tyranny are the west’s real values.

❖

All art is political. It either opposes the madness of the status quo, supports it, or distracts from it. Creating vapid diversions for people to sedate themselves with in a genocidal brainwashed dystopia on a dying world is a political act, whether you call it political or not.

An artist who says they “avoid politics” while living in the heart of a murderous tyrannical empire is lying. They don’t avoid politics. They are directly participating in politics. And they are participating on the wrong side.

All art either helps open people’s eyes or helps close them. Almost all art in mainstream culture helps close them — either by normalizing and celebrating the madness of this civilization, or by numbing people to the discomfort of it. This is not just political, it’s on the front line of politics.

Politics are downstream from culture, and if the culture you are helping to create is mindlessly drifting along with the current of oligarchy and empire, then you have responsibility for where that stream ends up carrying us.

Calling Harris A Communist Is An Insult To Communism

The Regime’s Wars Are Built on Lies, by Karen Kwiatkowski

Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, Israel’s and Ukraine’s governments are based on ideologies most Americans reject out of hand. From Karen Kwiatkowski at lewrockwell.com:

[From the July-August Issue of The Misesian.]

Americans are increasingly uneasy about their “national” security, and increasingly concerned that war is lapping at our shores. Instead of reducing the risk of harm to America and our interests, the federal government in Washington seems to be seeking it, investing in it, fueling it and lying about it.

Congress openly talks about fighting wars and reliably funds them, and we can easily verify that it’s piled billions of dollars into this particular spending basket. What we cannot see is why Washington acts as it does. The why is often suppressed, and the underlying rationale for the ongoing investment in war is obscured. Instead, state media and our politicians bleat continually that Washington is defending freedom and helping small states stand up to their oppressors.

These canards of American war propaganda will not fly in the case of the brutal meat grinders of attrition in Ukraine and Israel. Freedom — whether in individual or state form — rests not on words but on private ownership of self and property, and on state protection of those individual property rights. If it’s not defending freedom, is the U.S. helping a small independent state stand up against its larger and more wealthy oppressors? Neither of these alleged motivations for American foreign intervention apply to what the U.S. is doing in Ukraine or Israel. So why is the U.S. government so committed to funding, fighting, and expanding these wars? The answer is that war helps the state seize our property and our freedom. The answer is that war truly is the health of the state.

Continue reading

The Regime’s Wars Are Built on Lies, by Karen Kwiatkowski

«Stopp den deutschen Waffenlieferungen an Israel» Interview mit Shir Hever

Hier weiterlesen:
https://www.zeitgeschehen-im-fokus.ch/de/newspaper-ausgabe/nr-14-15-vom-28-august-2024.html#article_1725

«Stopp den deutschen Waffenlieferungen an Israel» Interview mit Shir Hever

POKE THE BEAR AND FIND OUT: HERE’S WHY THE WEST SHOULD FINALLY LISTEN TO RUSSIA’S WARNINGS

The latest scuffle over provocations which tested Moscow’s red lines shows that simply brushing off the Kremlin won’t work anymore

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

© Sputnik / Sergey Guneyev

We have been through an intense, if muffled crisis in the ongoing political-military confrontation between Russia and the West by way of Ukraine. The essence of this crisis is simple: Kiev and its Western supporters have lost the initiative in the Ukraine proxy war and may be on the verge of defeat, as high Western officials increasingly admit.

In response to this self-inflicted quandary, several important Western players have threatened further escalation. Most prominently, Great Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron publicly encouraged Kiev to use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike inside Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron continued to threaten a direct – not covert, as at present – intervention by French, that is, NATO, troops (In addition, an intriguing and much-discussed article reported that a deployment of 1,500 troops from France’s Foreign Legion had already begun. While its sources were hard to assess, its claims appeared too plausible for easy dismissal.)

Moscow, in return, issued a set of stark warnings, laying down – or highlighting – red lines. It announced drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Belarus did the same; in Minsk’s case, the weapons in question are, of course, also Russian. In addition, the British and French ambassadors received extremely straight talk about the risks their respective governments were running.

Addressing London, Moscow made clear that Kiev striking inside Russia with British missiles would expose Britain to “catastrophic consequences,” in particular, Russian retaliation against British forces anywhere. Regarding France, Moscow blasted its “belligerent” and “provocative” conduct and defied as futile French attempts to produce “strategic ambiguity.”

For now, this particular crisis seems to have abated. There are some signs that the West got the message. NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, has insisted that NATO is not planning to send troops – openly, that is – into Ukraine.

Yet it would be wrong to feel too reassured. For this crisis was, at its core, a clash between, on one side, a Western problem that has by no means gone away and, on the other side, a persistent Russian policy that, it seems, all too many in the West refuse to take seriously enough.

Read more

 Message to the West: What’s behind Russia’s tactical nuclear drills

The Western problem is that a defeat at Russia’s hands would be worse by orders of magnitude than the fiasco of the rout-like retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. Ironically, that is so because the West itself has charged its needless confrontation with Russia with the power to do unprecedented damage to NATO and the EU:

First, by insisting on treating Ukraine as a de facto almost-NATO-member, which means that by defeating it, Moscow will also defeat Washington’s key alliance. Second, by investing large and growing sums of money and quantities of supplies into this proxy war, which means that the West has weakened itself and, perhaps even more importantly, revealed its own weakness. Third, by trying to ruin both Russia’s economy and its international standing; the failure of both attempts has resulted in a stronger Russia across these two domains and, once again, revealed more limits of Western power. Fourth, by radically subordinating the EU to NATO and Washington, the geopolitical damage has been, as it were, leveraged.

In short, when the Ukraine crisis started in 2013/14 and then greatly escalated in 2022, Russia had vital security interests at stake; the West did not. By now, however, the West has made choices that have charged this conflict and its outcome with the capacity to do great, strategic harm to its own credibility, cohesion, and power: Overreach has consequences. That, briefly, is why the West is at an impasse and remains there after this crisis.

On the other side, we have that persistent policy of Moscow, namely its nuclear doctrine. Much Western commentary tends to overlook or downplay this factor, caricaturing Russia’s repeated warnings about nuclear weapons as “saber-rattling.” Yet, in reality, these warnings are consistent expressions of a policy that has been developed since the early 2000s, that is, for almost a quarter-century.

A key feature of this doctrine is that Russia explicitly retains the option of using nuclear weapons at a relatively early stage in a major conflict and before an adversary has had recourse to them. Many Western analysts have described the purpose of this posture as facilitating a strategy of “escalating to deescalate” (sometimes abbreviated as E2DE), here meaning specifically to end a conventional conflict on favorable terms through a limited use of nuclear weapons to deter the adversary from continuing.

The term “escalate to de-escalate” emerged in the West, not Russia, and this Western interpretation of Russian policy has played an important role in Western politics and debates and, thus, has its critics as well. In addition – but this is a separate question – some analysts point out that the idea of E2DE is less of any country’s national property than something inherent in the logic of nuclear strategy, that other nuclear powers have had similar policies, and that the whole idea, whoever adopts it, may not work.

Read more

 Russia’s nuclear drills are response to West’s ‘shameless’ policies – Moscow 

In addition, Russia’s nuclear doctrine is, as you would expect, complex. And, while France’s President Emmanuel Macron has made a habit of strutting a constant inconstancy he calls “strategic ambiguity,” Moscow is capable of inflicting some genuine calculated uncertainty on its adversaries, with less bragging but more effectively. Thus, one side of its nuclear doctrine stresses that nuclear weapons could only be used if the existence of the Russian state was in danger, as has just been underlined again by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. But to misunderstand this as a promise that Moscow would only use nukes if Moscow were under siege and half of Russia’s territory or population gone already, would be foolish.

In reality, there also is room in its nuclear doctrine for treating the “unconditional territorial integrity and sovereignty” of Russia as critical thresholds. How do we know? From multiple Russian documents, which need not be cited here because Ryabkov has reminded us of this facet of Moscow’s policy, too. In the same statement in which he emphasized the criterion of “state existence.” Take that, Emmanuel.

A final point, it seems, needs highlighting as well: Russia has never restricted its option of using nuclear weapons, indeed any type of weapons, to the area of a specific local conflict, for instance, Ukraine. The opposite is the case. Moscow is explicitly reserving the right to strike beyond the confines of such a battlefield. That is something that President Vladimir Putin has made crystal clear in his address to Russia’s Federal Assembly in February of this year. It is exactly that message that Britain has received as well in the recent crisis.

Whichever way you parse it, official Russian nuclear doctrine has specific messages for potential adversaries. Moscow has consistently applied this doctrine throughout the Ukraine War and in its recent warnings – by drill and by diplomatic demarche – to its Western opponents.

But there is the rub: The West has a history of obstinately not hearing Russian messages. That is how we ended up in this war in the first place. Russia had warned the West repeatedly since, at the latest, President Vladimir Putin’s well-known speech at the Munich Security Conference in – wait for it – 2007. The last major warning came in late 2021, when Russia – with Sergey Ryabkov, incidentally, in the forefront – offered the West what turned out to be a last chance to abandon its unilateralism and specifically NATO expansion and, instead, negotiate a new security framework. The West brushed this offer off. With nuclear weapons in play, it is time that Western elites learn to, finally, listen when Russia sends a serious warning.

Poke the bear and find out: Here’s why the West should finally listen to Russia’s warnings

RUSSIA’S MOVE TO UPDATE ITS NUCLEAR DOCTRINE PROVOKED BY NATO’S INCREASINGLY BRAZEN AGGRESSION

The Kremlin confirmed on Wednesday that Moscow is working on an updated nuclear doctrine, taking into account the actions of the collective West. Veteran military analyst and retired Russian Army Colonel Viktor Litovkin breaks down the details of Russia’s current nuclear doctrine, and comments on what the updated document may entail.

“Against the backdrop of challenges and threats provoked by the countries of the so-called Collective West, the Russian Federation is currently working to develop new approaches in the context of the upcoming renewal of the nuclear doctrine,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

“This update is required by the current agenda and state affairs which arose as a consequence of the actions of the collective West,” Peskov said. “What kinds of actions are we talking about? They include the rejection of dialogue with the Russian Federation, the continued policy of attacking the interests and security of the Russian Federation, and provoking the protraction of the hot war in Ukraine. This cannot but have consequences. All of this has been taken account of by Moscow, is being analyzed, and will form the basis for the proposals that will be formulated.”

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova clarified that the update to the nuclear doctrine is connected to the “strategic risks” resulting from Western countries’ policy in general, and to “global and regional challenges to international security which are multiplying thanks to the absolutely irresponsible position of the West.”

Wednesday’s remarks come after a series of statements from senior Russian officials, including President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov, confirming that efforts were underway to update Russia’s nuclear doctrine, and make possible changes to account for threats, including discussions among NATO countries about the permissibility of the use of low yield, tactical, so-called battlefield nuclear weapons.

“The United States and NATO are becoming increasingly aggressive toward Russia, and we need to make clarifications to some fundamental documents” regarding Russia’s nuclear doctrine, veteran military analyst Viktor Litovkin told Sputnik.

“The war in Ukraine is not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the West and Russia using the territory of Ukraine, and the lives of Ukrainian servicemen. It is an attempt to weaken Russia, to bring Russia to ruin and to deprive Russia of its competitive advantage in the international arena,” Litovkin explained.

Russia “is not going to seek hegemony, as the US is doing, but we are also not going to lose our independence, sovereignty and right to independent action,” Litovkin added.

NATO has tested Moscow’s red lines repeatedly over the course of the proxy conflict in Ukraine, gradually ramping up the deadliness of offensive strike systems sent to Kiev, providing the Zelensky regime with intelligence and other battlefield support, looking the other way on the flow of mercenaries to the battlefield (which some Russian commanders suspect include active duty NATO servicemen), sabotaging peace talks, boasting openly about the alliance’s intention to use the crisis to try to “weaken Russia” and fight Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’, and feigning ignorance of Ukraine’s attempts to target the assets of Russia’s nuclear triad

Russia’s current nuclear doctrine consists of four key points divided among two documents, according to Litovkin – one being Russia’s general Military Doctrine, and the other a June 2020 presidential decree ‘On the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence’.

The former provides for the use of nuclear weapons in two cases:

1.

if Russia or its allies are attacked by a country or coalition of countries using nuclear weapons,

2.

if Russia is attacked by an aggressor or coalition of aggressors using conventional means so severe the very existence of the state is threatened.

The latter allows Russia to fire its nuclear weapons:

1.

if it becomes aware that a ballistic missile has been launched toward it, or

2.

if a strike is launched at government and military command and control centers.

Litovkin believes the ultimate goal of the updated Russian nuclear doctrine will be “to combine these two documents into one,” and “clarify the role of nuclear weapons in ensuring Russia’s security and ensuring deterrence against a possible aggressor.”

“I believe these two documents will form the basis of the new military doctrine. There may also be some additional clarifications in connection with the fact that the international situation is changing,” Litovkin said.

Russia’s Move to Update Its Nuclear Doctrine Provoked by NATO’s Increasingly Brazen Aggression