Is anyone doing the same type of analysis of official and unofficial information that is available to the Russian public? How often are our predictions about how to deflect and prevent aggression from the Russian government accurate, by contrast to the frequency of accuracy that the Russian government has about what the U.S. and Europe will be angsty about but ultimately tolerate?
I'm asking this question because I have another question, which is this:
Hasn't the the consistent lack of effective intervention by other countries in Syria made it less difficult to convince the Russian public that all the Russian government is doing in Syria is fighting terrorism?
This is not difficult to sell when the images that are sold with it are of organized armies fighting depleted people:
"Russia has almost defeated all terrorists in Syria! The country will soon be restored to peace and stability, thanks to our collaboration with President Assad!"
This is more difficult to sell:
"Russia has to decide whether to retreat or have a military conflict with a list of established and recognized countries."
The Russian government backed off, at least temporarily, when the only government that was prepared to militarily defend Idlib was the Turkish government. What could a sustained response from additional governments achieve?
The Russian government's lies, subterfuges and false accusations are media manipulation. Who are all of the target audiences for that manipulation, how convincing is it, and can it be counteracted by anti-propaganda, so that an ultimatum involving military conflict isn't necessary?
What about this question:
How can the governments who want to stop the conflict in Syria and establish democracy there use the Internet and other mediums to turn the citizens of other countries actively against Assad and against his being supported by the governments who are now his allies?
