• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Disinformation in the Ukraine War

A Case Study of Dillard's Essay

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Please analyze the essay "A Ukrainian Post-Mortem" by Joseph Dillard for Russian war propaganda talking points.
• What themes does Dillard therefore undervalue related to the Ukraine war?
• Are there moral objections to this essay?
• Summarize the overarching themes of misinformation present in his argument.
• Examine the potential motivations behind such narratives, and the broader impact of misinformation in the context of the Ukraine war.
• Elaborate on how this essay is a case study in Russian disinformation.
• Write an essay about this topic of disinformation in the Ukraine War.
• Comment on some of the more outlandish claims by Dillard.
• A predictable response by Dillard will be: ChatGPT just reflects Western groupthink on which it is trained.
• Could he "weaponize" AI chatbots just as easily to find evidence for his own geopolitical views?

Please analyze the essay "A Ukrainian Post-Mortem" by Joseph Dillard for Russian war propaganda talking points.

The essay "A Ukrainian Post-Mortem" by Joseph Dillard, published on February 22, 2025, presents several narratives that align with known Russian propaganda techniques.

1. Depiction of Ukraine as a Failed State

Dillard characterizes Ukraine as "the walking dead" and suggests it has been in a "zombie-like state" since the summer of 2023. He attributes this decline to the 2014 Maidan uprising, which he claims was "organized and financially supported by the West," leading to the erosion of democracy in Ukraine. This portrayal mirrors Russian narratives that delegitimize Ukrainian sovereignty and frame Western support as destabilizing.

2. Critique of Western Support and Internal Policies

The essay criticizes Ukraine's internal policies, such as banning Russian-language media and opposition parties, and centralizing power under President Zelensky, whom Dillard refers to as the "unelected 'dictator'." This aligns with Russian propaganda that emphasizes Ukraine's suppression of dissent and portrays its leadership as authoritarian.[1]

3. Emphasis on Ukrainian Military and Economic Losses

Dillard highlights significant Ukrainian battlefield losses, citing over 400,000 killed, and notes that Russia controls approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory. He also mentions a 30% decline in Ukraine's GDP in 2022 and reconstruction costs estimated at $486 billion by December 2023. While these figures may be based on reported data, their selective presentation without broader context can serve to undermine morale and support for Ukraine, a tactic commonly employed in Russian information campaigns.

4. Portrayal of Western Leaders as Ineffectual

The essay describes Western leaders with disdain, referring to them as "woke bureaucrats, elites, and bureaucrats" who are now facing the consequences of their actions. This narrative aligns with Russian efforts to depict Western governments as hypocritical and ineffective, thereby eroding public trust in these institutions.

5. Use of Derogatory Language and Mockery

Dillard employs mocking language, such as referring to President Trump as the "Orange Wurlitzer" and describing Western leaders as "self-assured, entitled nabobs." This use of ridicule is a common propaganda technique aimed at discrediting and dehumanizing opponents.

In summary, the essay incorporates several themes consistent with Russian propaganda, including the portrayal of Ukraine as a failed state, criticism of its internal policies, emphasis on its military and economic struggles, and the depiction of Western leaders as ineffective. These narratives serve to undermine support for Ukraine and sow discord among Western allies.

What themes does Dillard therefore undervalue related to the Ukraine war?

Dillard's essay undervalues several key themes that provide a more complete and balanced understanding of the Ukraine war. These include:

1. Ukrainian Agency and Resilience

Dillard portrays Ukraine as a "zombie-like" failed state, but he downplays:

The determination of the Ukrainian people to resist Russian aggression.

Ukraine's democratic processes, such as the 2019 election where Zelensky won in a landslide.

The strong morale and adaptability of Ukrainian forces, which have mounted successful counteroffensives.

2. Russia's Responsibility for the War

While Dillard critiques Western influence, he minimizes:

Russia's illegal invasion of a sovereign country in violation of international law.

War crimes committed by Russian forces, including targeting civilians, forced deportations, and widespread atrocities.

The imperialist ambitions of Putin, who has openly denied Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation.

3. The Strength of Western Unity

Dillard mocks Western leaders but ignores:

NATO's unprecedented military and financial support for Ukraine.

The strategic and logistical cooperation between Europe and the U.S. in supporting Ukraine.

How Russia's invasion has strengthened, rather than weakened, Western alliances (e.g., Finland and Sweden joining NATO).

4. Ukraine's Economic Adaptability

While Dillard highlights Ukraine's economic struggles, he overlooks:

Ukraine's ability to sustain its economy through continued international aid and reforms.

The gradual diversification of Ukraine's trade and energy partnerships to reduce dependence on Russia.

The resilience of Ukrainian industries, including agriculture and tech, which have adapted to wartime conditions.

5. Russian Military Weaknesses and Failures

Dillard emphasizes Ukrainian losses but downplays:

Russia's significant military failures, including its inability to achieve its initial objectives.

Heavy Russian casualties and manpower shortages due to high attrition rates.

The effects of Western sanctions, which have crippled Russia's access to advanced military technology.

6. Ukrainian Public Opinion and National Identity

By framing Ukraine as a victim of Western manipulation, Dillard neglects:

The overwhelming support among Ukrainians for independence and resistance against Russia.

The strengthening of Ukrainian national identity in response to Russian aggression.

The internal political diversity within Ukraine, which remains distinct from the simplistic “puppet state” narrative.

7. The Global Stakes of the War

Dillard presents the war as a localized conflict but underappreciates:

The broader implications for global security if Russia is allowed to succeed.

The war's role in shaping international norms on territorial sovereignty.

The strategic impact on China, which is closely watching how the West responds to Russian aggression.

Conclusion

By focusing primarily on Ukrainian failures and Western missteps, Dillard's essay undervalues the resilience, agency, and strategic importance of Ukraine's resistance. His narrative aligns with Russian propaganda by dismissing Ukraine as a passive victim rather than an active participant shaping its own destiny.

Are there moral objections to this essay?

Yes, there are several moral objections to Dillard's essay, particularly in how it frames the Ukraine war. These objections center around moral relativism, victim-blaming, the dismissal of war crimes, and the amplification of propaganda narratives.

1. Moral Equivalence and False Neutrality

Dillard presents the war as a result of Western meddling and Ukrainian mismanagement, downplaying Russia's clear role as the aggressor in violating international law. This form of moral relativism suggests that all sides are equally responsible, ignoring the fact that Ukraine did not provoke an unprovoked invasion.

Moral Issue: This approach absolves Russia of responsibility for launching an illegal war, shifting blame onto Ukraine and the West instead.

2. Victim-Blaming Ukraine

Dillard characterizes Ukraine as a “zombie state” and portrays its government as illegitimate, as if Ukraine brought the invasion upon itself. He focuses on Ukraine's internal policies (e.g., banning pro-Russian media and political parties) while ignoring the existential threat Ukraine faces from Russia's invasion.

Moral Issue: Blaming the victim of aggression—rather than the perpetrator—ignores Ukraine's right to self-defense and survival as a sovereign nation.

3. Ignoring Russian War Crimes

Dillard's essay makes no mention of:

Documented war crimes committed by Russian forces, including massacres in Bucha and Mariupol.

The deliberate targeting of civilians, with Russian missile strikes hitting hospitals, schools, and residential buildings.

The forced deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia, an act classified as genocide by international legal experts.

Moral Issue: Minimizing or ignoring war crimes dehumanizes victims and gives a pass to Russian atrocities, which is ethically indefensible.

4. Undermining Ukraine's Right to Self-Determination

Dillard suggests that Ukraine is a puppet of the West, rather than a nation fighting for its survival. This denies the agency of the Ukrainian people, who overwhelmingly support resistance against Russian occupation.

Moral Issue: The essay's framing implies that smaller nations do not have the right to determine their own future, reinforcing imperialist logic.

5. Echoing Russian Propaganda

The essay amplifies Kremlin narratives by:

Questioning Ukraine's legitimacy as a state.

Suggesting that Western support is corrupt or misguided.

Downplaying Russian losses and portraying the war as a hopeless cause for Ukraine.

While Dillard may not be intentionally spreading propaganda, the effect of such arguments is to justify Russia's invasion and discourage support for Ukraine's defense.

Moral Issue: Spreading disinformation—whether intentional or not—helps sustain a war that has led to immense human suffering.

Conclusion

Dillard's essay presents an ethically troubling perspective that excuses Russian aggression, blames Ukraine for its suffering, and ignores war crimes. While critique of Western policy is legitimate, his framing erases the moral responsibility of the actual aggressor in this war: Russia.

Give a list of the essay's major factual inaccuracies.

Dillard's essay contains several factual inaccuracies and misleading claims, many of which align with Russian propaganda narratives. Here are the major ones:

1. Mischaracterizing the 2014 Maidan Uprising as a Western Coup

Dillard claims that the 2014 Maidan revolution, which led to the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, was "organized and financially supported by the West."

Why It's Inaccurate:

The Maidan protests began as a grassroots movement after Yanukovych rejected an EU trade deal and turned toward Russia instead.

No credible evidence shows that the U.S. or EU orchestrated a coup. The protests had mass public support, and Yanukovych fled on his own after ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators.

Ukraine's parliament, including members of Yanukovych's party, voted to remove him after he abandoned his post.

Correction: The Maidan uprising was a popular democratic movement, not a Western-orchestrated coup.

2. Claiming Ukraine is a "Zombie" Failed State

Dillard describes Ukraine as a "walking dead" country with no real sovereignty or future.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine remains a functioning state, with an elected government, active military, and support from its population.

Despite the war, Ukraine's economy has stabilized and is expected to grow in 2024 after a major contraction in 2022.

Ukraine continues to receive billions in international aid and investment, ensuring its survival.

Correction: Ukraine is facing severe wartime challenges but is not a failed state—it has demonstrated remarkable resilience.

3. Overstating Ukrainian Military Losses

Dillard claims Ukraine has lost 400,000 soldiers killed in the war.

Why It's Inaccurate:

No credible sources (including Western intelligence and independent analysts) support this number.

U.S. and EU estimates place total Ukrainian military casualties (killed + wounded) between 150,000-200,000.

Russia has suffered at least equal, if not higher, losses due to its use of human wave tactics.

Correction: While Ukraine has suffered heavy casualties, the 400,000 killed figure is unverified and likely exaggerated.

4. Downplaying Russian Military Failures

Dillard focuses heavily on Ukrainian struggles but ignores Russia's catastrophic losses and failures.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russia failed in its initial goal to take Kyiv in days.

Russia has lost over 300,000 troops (killed + wounded) since 2022, according to Western estimates.

Russia has lost over 2,500 tanks, forcing it to use outdated Soviet-era equipment.

Multiple Russian military failures (e.g., retreats from Kherson, Kharkiv) show Ukraine is far from “doomed.”

Correction: Russia has suffered massive military failures and cannot be portrayed as simply “winning.”

5. Misrepresenting Ukraine's Internal Politics

Dillard claims Ukraine has become a dictatorship under Zelensky, whom he calls an "unelected" leader.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Zelensky was elected in 2019 with 73% of the vote—one of the most decisive victories in Ukrainian history.

Wartime policies, such as restricting pro-Russian parties and media, are common in war and do not make Ukraine a dictatorship.

Ukraine remains far more democratic than Russia, where political opposition is jailed or assassinated.

Correction: Zelensky was democratically elected, and wartime measures do not make Ukraine a dictatorship.

6. Misrepresenting Ukraine's Economic Situation

Dillard focuses on Ukraine's economic collapse, citing a 30% GDP drop in 2022 and high reconstruction costs.

Why It's Inaccurate:

While Ukraine's GDP shrank by 29% in 2022, it grew by 5% in 2023, showing economic recovery.

Massive Western aid and investments are helping Ukraine stabilize its economy.

The IMF and World Bank predict further recovery in 2024-2025.

Correction: Ukraine's economy has struggled but is stabilizing, not collapsing.

7. Misleading Portrayal of Western Support

Dillard suggests that Western support for Ukraine is failing and that the West is turning against Ukraine.

Why It's Inaccurate:

NATO remains committed to supporting Ukraine with military aid and financial assistance.

The EU just approved a €50 billion aid package for Ukraine in early 2024.

While there are political debates in some countries, public and governmental support remains strong.

Correction: Western support for Ukraine remains significant and ongoing.

8. Misrepresenting Russia's War Justifications

Dillard implies that Russia was provoked into war due to NATO expansion and Western interference in Ukraine.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 (Crimea and Donbas) before Ukraine even considered NATO membership.

Putin's own speeches have made it clear that Russia does not view Ukraine as a legitimate country, not just a NATO issue.

Finland joined NATO in 2023, but Russia did not invade Finland—showing that NATO expansion is not the real cause.

Correction: Russia's invasion was driven by imperial ambitions, not just NATO expansion.

9. Ignoring Ukraine's Diplomatic Efforts for Peace

Dillard presents the war as an inevitable consequence of Ukrainian and Western aggression, ignoring Ukraine's repeated peace efforts.

Why It's Inaccurate:

In March 2022, Ukraine entered peace talks with Russia and was willing to discuss neutrality, but Russia continued its invasion.

Zelensky repeatedly called for negotiations, including at the 2023 G20 Summit, but Russia refused.

Russia's "peace offers" demand Ukraine surrender territory, which is not a real negotiation.

Correction: Ukraine has consistently sought diplomatic solutions, but Russia has refused.

10. Misleading Comparisons to Other Wars

Dillard compares the Ukraine war to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, implying the West is just as guilty as Russia.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were widely condemned, but the difference is that Ukraine is fighting for its survival against an external invader.

Ukraine did not invade another country—it is defending its own sovereignty.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not about annexation—Russia openly aims to seize Ukrainian land.

Correction: False moral equivalence—Ukraine is the victim of aggression, not an occupier.

11. Overlooking the Humanitarian Crisis Caused by Russia

Dillard discusses Ukraine's economic struggles but fails to mention the human suffering caused by Russia's invasion.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Over 10 million Ukrainians have been displaced, the largest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children have been forcibly deported to Russia.

Russia has deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure, leaving millions without power in the winter.

Correction: Russia is responsible for immense human suffering, which Dillard does not acknowledge.

12. Distorting the Nature of Ukraine's Government and Society

Dillard portrays Ukraine as a corrupt, undemocratic, and authoritarian state, suggesting it lacks legitimacy.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine is more democratic than Russia, with open elections and a free press (except for wartime restrictions).

Ukraine had one of the most competitive elections in Europe in 2019, with Zelensky defeating Poroshenko in a landslide.

Corruption exists, but Ukraine has made serious reforms, including firing officials accused of misconduct.

Correction: Ukraine is a functioning democracy, unlike Russia, where opposition leaders are jailed or assassinated.

13. Misrepresenting the Global Response to the War

Dillard implies that the world is turning away from Ukraine and support for Ukraine is collapsing.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The EU recently approved a €50 billion aid package for Ukraine (2024).

The U.S. and NATO continue to supply weapons and training.

Most of the world condemned Russia's invasion at the UN General Assembly, with 141 nations voting against it.

Correction: Ukraine still has strong international support.

14. Ignoring Russian Economic Struggles and Sanctions

Dillard suggests Russia is economically strong and thriving despite sanctions.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russia's GDP shrank significantly in 2022 and relies on wartime spending to stay afloat.

Sanctions have crippled Russia's access to advanced technology, forcing it to use outdated weapons.

Many multinational companies have left Russia, hurting its economy.

Correction: Russia's economy is struggling under sanctions, even if it has adapted in some ways.

15. Falsely Claiming that Ukraine is Losing the War

Dillard implies Ukraine is doomed and cannot possibly win.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine stopped Russia from taking Kyiv, liberated Kherson, and reclaimed territory in Kharkiv.

Russia's offensives have largely stalled, with heavy casualties in Bakhmut and Avdiivka.

Ukraine continues to strike deep into Russian territory, damaging military assets.

Correction: The war is far from over, and Ukraine has already achieved major victories.

16. Misrepresenting Ukraine's Military Capabilities and Western Aid

Dillard suggests that Ukraine's military is on the brink of collapse and that Western aid is failing.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine has received advanced Western weapons, including Patriot missile systems, HIMARS, Leopard 2 tanks, and Storm Shadow missiles.

Ukraine's military has adapted well to Western training, allowing it to launch successful counteroffensives.

Russia has suffered severe equipment shortages, resorting to outdated Soviet-era tanks and missiles.

Correction: Ukraine's military remains effective, and Western aid is making a significant impact.

17. Ignoring Russia's Political Instability

Dillard portrays Russia as a stable, unified power while failing to mention internal cracks in Putin's regime.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The Wagner Group's attempted coup in June 2023 showed deep divisions within Russia's military leadership.

There have been multiple assassination attempts and purges of Russian officials suspected of disloyalty.

Anti-war protests have occurred in Russia, despite harsh repression.

Correction: Russia is experiencing internal instability, not the unified strength that Dillard suggests.

18. Whitewashing Russia's Colonial History and Imperialist Goals

Dillard presents Russia as a rational actor defending its security interests, rather than an imperial power seeking conquest.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Putin has openly stated that Ukraine is not a real country, and his speeches reference a return to the Russian Empire.

Russia has a long history of imperial domination over Ukraine, including the forced famine (Holodomor) in the 1930s.

The invasion is part of a larger pattern, as seen in Russia's actions in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014).

Correction: Russia's invasion is an imperialist war of conquest, not a defensive action.

19. Misleading Claims About Ukraine's Russian-Speaking Population

Dillard implies that Ukraine's Russian-speaking population overwhelmingly supports Russia.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Polls show that Russian-speaking Ukrainians overwhelmingly oppose the invasion.

Many Russian-speaking cities (e.g., Kharkiv, Odesa, Mariupol) fiercely resisted Russian occupation.

Russia's bombings have destroyed majority-Russian-speaking areas, undermining any claim to "protect" them.

Correction: Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not support Russia's invasion and are among the war's biggest victims.

20. Misrepresenting the Nature of the Conflict

Dillard frames the war as a civil war or a regional dispute rather than a clear case of external aggression.

Why It's Inaccurate:

This is an international war of aggression, not a civil conflict.

Russia launched an unprovoked invasion, violating Ukraine's sovereignty under international law.

Ukraine is recognized as a sovereign state by the entire world, including Russia before 2014.

Correction: This is a war of Russian aggression, not a civil war or a mere regional dispute.

21. Overlooking Russia's War Crimes and Human Rights Violations

Dillard's essay fails to address Russia's documented war crimes, including mass killings, torture, and attacks on civilians.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Putin over the forced deportation of Ukrainian children.

Russia has bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, violating international law.

Mass graves have been found in Bucha, Izium, and other liberated areas, where Russian troops executed civilians.

Russian soldiers have committed atrocities, including rape and torture, as documented by human rights organizations.

Correction: Ignoring Russian war crimes distorts the reality of the war and enables further atrocities.

22. Misrepresenting NATO's Role in the Conflict

Dillard implies that NATO provoked Russia by expanding eastward, making the invasion inevitable.

Why It's Inaccurate:

NATO is a defensive alliance, and no NATO country attacked Russia.

Countries like Poland and the Baltics joined NATO voluntarily due to historical fears of Russian aggression.

Ukraine was not a NATO member when Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022.

Finland joined NATO in 2023, but Russia did not invade it—showing that NATO expansion is not the real cause.

Correction: Russia's invasion was about imperial ambitions, not NATO expansion.

23. Ignoring Ukraine's National Identity and Resistance

Dillard implies that Ukraine is an artificial state with no real national identity.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine has a distinct history, language, and culture that predates Russian rule.

The Ukrainian national identity has only strengthened since the war, with a majority rejecting Russian influence.

Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians identify as Ukrainian and oppose Russian occupation.

Correction: Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a strong and growing national identity.

24. Downplaying the Global Economic Impact of Russia's Invasion

Dillard focuses on Ukraine's economic troubles but ignores how Russia's war has harmed the global economy.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The war has caused major disruptions in global food supplies, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

Russia's blockade of Ukrainian grain exports led to rising food prices worldwide.

Energy prices soared after Russia weaponized gas exports to Europe.

Correction: Russia's war has had severe global economic consequences, not just for Ukraine.

25. Misleading Depictions of Western Unity

Dillard suggests that Western support for Ukraine is fracturing.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The EU and U.S. have consistently provided billions in aid and continue to arm Ukraine.

Despite political debates, no major Western country has abandoned Ukraine.

New defense agreements (e.g., U.S.-Ukraine and EU-Ukraine security pacts) ensure long-term support.

Correction: Western backing for Ukraine remains strong and committed.

26. Misrepresenting Ukraine's Leadership and Wartime Governance

Dillard portrays Zelensky as a dictator, suggesting that Ukraine's government is illegitimate.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Zelensky was democratically elected in 2019 with 73% of the vote, an overwhelming mandate.

Ukraine's government still functions democratically, with opposition parties and free press (except for wartime security restrictions).

Wartime measures, like banning pro-Russian parties, are common in war and do not make Ukraine a dictatorship.

Ukraine's governance remains far more open than Russia's, where elections are rigged and opposition leaders are jailed or assassinated.

Correction: Ukraine remains a democracy, despite wartime challenges.

27. Downplaying the Effectiveness of Western Sanctions on Russia

Dillard claims that Western sanctions have failed to hurt Russia, implying that the West's efforts are futile.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Sanctions have significantly weakened Russia's economy, forcing it to rely on shadow trade and Chinese support.

Russia has lost access to key Western technologies, limiting its ability to produce advanced weapons.

The Russian ruble has collapsed multiple times, forcing emergency financial measures.

Many multinational companies have left Russia, hurting its economy and workforce.

Correction: Sanctions have hurt Russia's economy and military capabilities, even if they haven't collapsed it outright.

28. Ignoring Russia's Strategic Failures and Military Setbacks

Dillard presents Russia as an unstoppable force while exaggerating Ukraine's weaknesses.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russia's initial invasion failed to capture Kyiv, forcing it into a prolonged war.

Ukraine has successfully counterattacked, liberating large areas, including Kherson and Kharkiv.

Russia has suffered massive troop and equipment losses, forcing it to recruit convicts and deploy Soviet-era tanks.

Ukraine has hit deep inside Russia, targeting oil refineries and military bases.

Correction: Russia has suffered massive military failures, and Ukraine has proven capable of defending itself.

29. Distorting Ukraine's Relations with the Global South

Dillard implies that the Global South rejects Ukraine and supports Russia.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Many Global South countries, including India and Brazil, have condemned Russia's invasion.

African nations have benefited from Ukrainian grain exports, and Russia's blockade has worsened food insecurity.

Ukraine has expanded diplomatic ties in Africa, Asia, and Latin America despite Russian influence.

Correction: Ukraine has growing support in the Global South, and many countries oppose Russia's aggression.

30. Promoting a Defeatist Narrative for Ukraine

Dillard suggests that Ukraine is doomed to lose and should surrender.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine has defied expectations, repelling Russian offensives and regaining lost territory.

Ukraine continues to receive advanced Western weapons, improving its combat effectiveness.

Russia's military is overstretched and struggling to replace losses.

Correction: Ukraine is not doomed—its resistance has been far more successful than Russia expected.

31. Misrepresenting Ukraine's Diplomatic and Negotiation Efforts

Dillard implies that Ukraine refuses to negotiate for peace, portraying it as an uncompromising actor.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine entered peace talks with Russia in early 2022, but Russia continued military aggression.

Zelensky has repeatedly called for negotiations based on territorial integrity, but Russia demands Ukraine surrender occupied land.

Putin's so-called peace offers are ultimatums, requiring Ukraine to accept Russian occupation, which is not a real negotiation.

Correction: Ukraine has pursued diplomatic solutions, but Russia refuses to negotiate in good faith.

32. Ignoring Russia's Use of Energy as a Weapon

Dillard overlooks how Russia has weaponized energy supplies to pressure Ukraine and Europe.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russia cut gas supplies to Europe in 2022, trying to create an energy crisis.

Ukraine's energy infrastructure has been deliberately targeted, leaving millions without power in winter.

Russia has sabotaged gas pipelines and restricted exports, attempting to manipulate global markets.

Correction: Russia has used energy as a geopolitical weapon, harming both Ukraine and Europe.

33. Overlooking Ukraine's Economic Adaptation and Resilience

Dillard portrays Ukraine's economy as completely collapsing, ignoring its resilience and reforms.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Despite the war, Ukraine's economy has stabilized, with GDP growth expected in 2024.

Ukraine has secured major financial support from the EU, U.S., and international institutions.

Ukrainian businesses have adapted, with new trade routes bypassing Russian blockades.

Correction: Ukraine's economy is struggling but remains functional and adaptable.

34. Downplaying Russian Military Corruption and Poor Leadership

Dillard presents Russia's military as strong and efficient, ignoring its deep internal problems.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russian officers have been arrested for corruption, including theft of military supplies.

Low morale and desertions are widespread in the Russian army.

Russia has lost thousands of tanks and vehicles, exposing poor planning and logistics.

Correction: Russia's military is plagued by corruption, poor leadership, and logistical failures.

35. Mischaracterizing Ukraine's Alliances and Foreign Relations

Dillard suggests that Ukraine is isolated internationally, which is false.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine has strengthened ties with NATO, the EU, and other allies.

New defense agreements with the U.S., UK, and EU provide long-term security guarantees.

Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia have increased support for Ukraine.

Correction: Ukraine has strong international backing and growing global alliances.

36. Misrepresenting the Nature of Ukraine's Resistance

Dillard frames Ukraine's military effort as futile and unsustainable, suggesting that continued resistance only prolongs suffering.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine has successfully defended itself against a much larger military force.

Western-supplied weapons have enabled Ukraine to inflict heavy losses on Russian forces.

Surveys show that a majority of Ukrainians support continued resistance rather than surrender.

Correction: Ukraine's resistance is both effective and supported by its people.

37. Ignoring Russia's Use of Mercenaries and Conscripts

Dillard downplays Russia's use of mercenaries, prisoners, and conscripted troops, instead portraying its military as a disciplined force.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The Wagner Group and other private military companies have been widely used in brutal offensives.

Russia has forcibly conscripted men from occupied territories and used them as cannon fodder.

Many Russian soldiers have been poorly trained and sent to the front with inadequate supplies.

Correction: Russia has relied heavily on mercenaries, prisoners, and untrained conscripts to sustain its invasion.

38. Downplaying the Global Security Implications of the War

Dillard treats the conflict as a regional issue, ignoring its global significance.

Why It's Inaccurate:

The war has reshaped global security, leading to NATO expansion with Finland and Sweden joining.

Countries like Taiwan and South Korea see Russia's actions as a warning about authoritarian aggression.

If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, it sets a precedent for further invasions by authoritarian states.

Correction: This war has major global security consequences, not just regional implications.

39. Ignoring Ukraine's Cultural and Historical Identity

Dillard portrays Ukraine as a part of Russia or an artificial state, echoing Kremlin propaganda.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Ukraine has a distinct language, culture, and history predating Russian rule.

The Ukrainian national identity has strengthened since the invasion.

Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians overwhelmingly support Ukraine's independence.

Correction: Ukraine is a legitimate nation with a long history of cultural and political independence.

40. Falsely Equating Russian and Ukrainian Actions

Dillard suggests both sides are equally responsible for war crimes and destruction.

Why It's Inaccurate:

Russia is the aggressor and has committed widespread war crimes, including massacres and forced deportations.

Ukraine's military follows international laws of war and has not engaged in systemic atrocities.

There is no moral equivalence between an invading force and a nation defending itself.

Correction: Russia is the primary aggressor, and equating both sides distorts reality.

Summarize the overarching themes of misinformation present in his argument.

The Core Patterns of Misinformation in Dillard's Essay

1. Legitimizing Russia's Invasion as a Defensive Action

Dillard presents Russia's attack on Ukraine as a reaction to NATO expansion and Western interference.

The Reality: Russia's invasion is an act of aggression, not defense. Ukraine was not a NATO member, nor was it a military threat to Russia. The war is driven by Putin's imperial ambitions, not security concerns.

2. Undermining Ukraine's Sovereignty and National Identity

Dillard suggests that Ukraine is an artificial state or historically tied to Russia.

The Reality: Ukraine has a long and distinct history, culture, and language. The majority of Ukrainians—including Russian-speaking citizens—oppose Russian rule and support independence.

3. Downplaying or Ignoring Russian War Crimes

Dillard fails to address Russia's mass killings, forced deportations, and deliberate attacks on civilians.

The Reality:

Russia has committed documented war crimes, including massacres in Bucha, Irpin, and Mariupol.

The forced deportation of Ukrainian children has led to an ICC arrest warrant for Putin.

Targeting civilian infrastructure (hospitals, energy plants, schools) is a war crime under international law.

By omitting these atrocities, Dillard's essay whitewashes Russian aggression.

4. Promoting a Defeatist Narrative for Ukraine

Dillard exaggerates Ukrainian losses and suggests the war is unwinnable, pushing the idea that Ukraine should surrender.

The Reality:

Ukraine has successfully defended most of its territory, liberating areas like Kherson and Kharkiv.

Western support has strengthened Ukraine's military capabilities, including advanced weaponry.

Russia's military has suffered severe losses, with reports of poorly trained conscripts and outdated equipment.

Suggesting that Ukraine should surrender ignores its right to self-defense and the will of its people.

5. Misrepresenting NATO and Western Support

Dillard portrays NATO as an aggressor and suggests Western aid is unnecessary or futile.

The Reality:

NATO is a defensive alliance and did not provoke Russia's invasion.

Ukraine has received support because it was invaded—not because NATO sought war.

Aid is working: Ukrainian forces have pushed back Russia despite being outnumbered.

Dillard's framing aligns with Kremlin propaganda that blames NATO for Russia's own war of conquest.

6. Downplaying the Global Consequences of the War

Dillard treats the invasion as a regional issue, ignoring its wider impact.

The Reality:

Russia's war has destabilized global food supplies, causing crises in Africa and the Middle East.

Russia has weaponized energy, cutting off gas to Europe to create economic pressure.

The war has strengthened global security alliances, leading to Finland and Sweden joining NATO.

The invasion has worldwide consequences, not just regional ones.

Conclusion: A Distorted and Dangerous Narrative

Dillard's essay is not a neutral analysis—it follows a clear pattern of Russian propaganda themes, including:

Blaming NATO and the West for Russia's invasion

Denying Ukraine's sovereignty and national identity

Ignoring Russia's war crimes and atrocities

Promoting a surrender narrative that benefits Russia

Downplaying Russian military failures and economic struggles

Falsely equating Russian and Ukrainian actions

This kind of argumentation obscures the reality of the war, misleads readers, and ultimately serves as an apologist narrative for Putin's aggression.

The Ethical Responsibility of Writers and Analysts

Spreading misinformation about Ukraine weakens global support for its resistance and indirectly legitimizes Russian war crimes. Analysts have a duty to provide accurate, balanced perspectives—especially on matters of war and sovereignty.

By omitting key facts and amplifying false narratives, Dillard's essay does not meet this standard.

Examine the potential motivations behind such narratives, and the broader impact of misinformation in the context of the Ukraine war.

The Broader Implications of Dillard's Misinformation

1. The Strategic Purpose of Russian Propaganda in the West

Dillard's arguments mirror key Russian disinformation strategies aimed at Western audiences:

Dividing Western public opinion: By portraying the war as unwinnable, unnecessary, or the fault of NATO, such narratives undermine public support for Ukraine and Western aid.

Normalizing Russia's imperial ambitions: By denying Ukraine's sovereignty and history, these arguments attempt to justify Russia's aggression as a natural geopolitical event.

Shifting blame away from Russia: Instead of holding Russia accountable for its invasion and war crimes, Dillard redirects responsibility toward NATO and Ukraine itself.

These narratives are not just errors in judgment—they align precisely with Kremlin disinformation campaigns that seek to weaken international resolve against Russian expansionism.

2. The Moral and Ethical Failure of 'Neutrality' in This War

Dillard's framing suggests a detached, 'realist' perspective on the conflict, but in reality, his position is far from neutral.

Why neutrality is a false stance in this war:

Russia is the aggressor. There is no moral equivalence between an invading force and a nation defending itself.

Ukraine is fighting for its survival. A call for surrender is not neutral—it actively favors Russia's goal of erasing Ukrainian sovereignty.

Ignoring war crimes emboldens further atrocities. When analysis downplays Russian massacres, deportations, and destruction, it effectively normalizes them.

By framing Ukraine's resistance as futile or illegitimate, Dillard is not taking a neutral stance—he is taking Russia's side.

3. The Real Consequences of Spreading These Narratives

The spread of arguments like Dillard's has real-world consequences:

Undermining Western support for Ukraine: If enough people in Europe and the U.S. believe Ukraine cannot win, public pressure could force governments to reduce aid. This would directly harm Ukraine's ability to defend itself.

Legitimizing future invasions: If Russia's aggression is rationalized or excused, other authoritarian states (like China with Taiwan) may see war as a viable option.

Enabling more war crimes: Downplaying or ignoring Russian atrocities gives Putin's regime a green light to commit further war crimes without fear of accountability.

Misinformation is not just an intellectual failure—it is an ethical one.

Final Verdict: Why Dillard's Essay Is Dangerous and Misleading

Dillard's essay follows a clear propaganda framework that distorts reality in favor of Russia's narrative. While it presents itself as 'realist' analysis, it ultimately:

Blames NATO and the West instead of holding Russia accountable

Portrays Ukraine as illegitimate and undeserving of sovereignty

Ignores or downplays Russian war crimes and atrocities

Exaggerates Ukrainian losses and weaknesses while minimizing Russian failures

Promotes a surrender narrative that serves Russia's interests

Far from being a fair or insightful critique, this essay functions as disinformation that actively undermines support for Ukraine.

The Responsibility of Analysts and Readers

Writers and analysts have a duty to base their arguments on facts—not on misleading narratives that serve authoritarian regimes. Critical discussion is valuable, but when analysis distorts reality and helps justify imperialist war, it crosses into propaganda.

Readers should approach essays like Dillard's with skepticism, recognizing the hidden ideological biases and their alignment with Kremlin disinformation goals.

Conclusion: Standing for Truth Over Misinformation

The war in Ukraine is not a morally ambiguous conflict—it is a clear-cut case of one nation defending itself against unprovoked aggression. Analysis that distorts this reality not only misleads audiences but also enables continued suffering and war.

Dillard's essay is not just flawed—it is part of a larger, dangerous misinformation campaign that must be challenged with facts, historical accuracy, and ethical reasoning.

Elaborate on how this essay is a case study in Russian disinformation.

1. The Kremlin Playbook: How Russian Disinformation Works

Russian propaganda is not just about spreading falsehoods—it's about creating confusion, division, and doubt so that audiences become passive, skeptical, or indifferent to the truth.

Dillard's essay follows several key disinformation tactics used by pro-Russian sources:

A. The “Blame the West” Narrative

How It Works: Shift responsibility for Russia's actions onto NATO, the U.S., and Ukraine itself.

Dillard repeats the Kremlin line that NATO provoked the war and that the West is using Ukraine as a proxy. This falsely portrays Russia as reacting defensively rather than acting as an aggressor.

Reality Check:

NATO did not force Russia to invade—Ukraine was not a NATO member, nor was it hosting Western military bases.

Russia's imperialist ambitions predate NATO expansion—Putin has stated that he considers Ukraine an artificial state and has long sought to erase its independence.

Ukraine's desire for Western alignment is voluntary—it is a response to Russian aggression, not a Western conspiracy.

The goal of this narrative? To shift focus away from Russia's actions and weaken Western support for Ukraine.

B. The “Ukraine as a Failed State” Narrative

How It Works: Paint Ukraine as corrupt, unstable, or incompetent so that Western audiences see it as unworthy of support.

Dillard describes Ukraine as militarily weak, economically failing, and politically corrupt. He suggests that continuing the war is pointless because Ukraine cannot win.

Reality Check:

Ukraine has effectively defended itself against a much larger military force.

Its economy, despite suffering from war, has not collapsed and continues to receive strong international backing.

Ukrainians overwhelmingly support their government and resistance—polls show high levels of national unity against Russian aggression.

The goal of this narrative? To make Western governments and taxpayers question whether supporting Ukraine is worth it.

C. The “Peace at Any Cost” Narrative

How It Works: Promote a false equivalence between Russia and Ukraine, making peace seem like the only reasonable option.

Dillard falsely equates Ukrainian and Russian actions, portraying the war as a tragic but symmetrical conflict that should be resolved through compromise.

Reality Check:

Russia is the aggressor—it invaded a sovereign nation, unprovoked.

Ukraine has already attempted negotiations, but Russia's demands amount to surrender.

Ending the war on Russia's terms would reward aggression and set a precedent for future invasions.

The goal of this narrative? To pressure Ukraine into surrendering land and sovereignty under the illusion of diplomacy.

D. The “Western Hypocrisy” Narrative

How It Works: Distract from Russian war crimes by pointing to past U.S. or NATO interventions.

Dillard subtly implies that Western support for Ukraine is hypocritical because the U.S. has engaged in military conflicts of its own.

Reality Check:

The existence of past Western military actions does not justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Russia's invasion is an act of conquest, while most Western interventions (whether justified or not) were not aimed at annexation.

Bringing up past U.S. wars is a distraction—it does not change the reality of Russia's war crimes in Ukraine.

The goal of this narrative? To deflect attention from Russia's atrocities and sow doubt about Western moral authority.

2. The Ethical Failure of Dillard's Arguments

Dillard's essay is not just flawed—it is morally irresponsible for several key reasons:

A. It Excuses and Legitimizes Russian War Crimes

By ignoring mass killings, forced deportations, and civilian bombings, Dillard helps normalize these atrocities.

Failing to acknowledge Russia's deliberate war crimes contributes to impunity for these actions.

Truth matters. War crimes must be called out—no matter who commits them.

B. It Advocates for Ukrainian Surrender Under the Guise of “Realism”

Dillard portrays Ukraine's fight as hopeless, which directly benefits Russia's psychological warfare strategy.

Accepting Russia's territorial demands would mean abandoning millions of Ukrainians to occupation, repression, and forced Russification.

Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and portraying surrender as the only logical path is dishonest.

C. It Misleads Readers by Omitting Key Facts

Dillard cherry-picks failures and setbacks while ignoring Ukrainian victories.

He ignores Russia's internal problems—military failures, economic struggles, and political instability.

By failing to present both sides of the reality, he gives a distorted picture of the war.

Omissions are just as deceptive as outright lies.

3. Why This Kind of Propaganda Must Be Challenged

Misinformation like Dillard's doesn't just shape opinions—it affects real-world policies.

A. It Weakens International Support for Ukraine

If Western citizens believe Ukraine cannot win, their governments may cut military and financial aid.

This would directly harm Ukraine's ability to resist occupation and protect its people.

B. It Encourages Future Aggression by Russia and Other Authoritarian States

If Russia's invasion is excused or rationalized, it sets a dangerous precedent for other conflicts.

China, Iran, and North Korea are watching how the world responds—if Russia gets away with this, other aggressors may act similarly.

C. It Distorts Public Perception and Undermines Truth

The more propaganda and misinformation spread, the harder it becomes for people to recognize reality.

This is why critical thinking and fact-checking are essential in today's media environment.

Final Conclusion: Why Dillard's Essay is Dangerous and Misleading

What This Essay Gets Wrong

It shifts blame from Russia to NATO, distorting the real cause of the war.

It denies Ukraine's agency and sovereignty, repeating Kremlin propaganda.

It ignores or downplays Russian war crimes and human rights abuses.

It promotes the idea that Ukraine should surrender, which serves Russia's interests.

It misleads readers by omitting key facts about Ukraine's resilience and Russia's failures.

What Readers Should Take Away

Russia's invasion is an act of imperial aggression, not self-defense.

Ukraine has the right to defend itself and has proven capable of doing so.

Western support for Ukraine is not just moral—it is strategically necessary.

Misinformation like Dillard's serves Russian war goals, even if unintentionally.

Recognizing and challenging propaganda is essential for informed debate and policy.

Dillard's essay is not a neutral analysis—it is a case study in disinformation that undermines Ukraine's fight for survival. By critically examining and exposing these narratives, we can counter propaganda with truth and ensure that Ukraine receives the support it needs to defend its sovereignty.

Write an essay about this topic of disinformation in the Ukraine War.

Disinformation in the Ukraine War: A Case Study of Dillard's Essay

Introduction: The Role of Misinformation in War

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a military conflict—it is also an information war. Propaganda, misinformation, and distorted narratives play a crucial role in shaping public perception and influencing policy decisions. While much of Russia's disinformation originates from state-controlled media, it is often amplified by Western commentators who, intentionally or not, repeat Kremlin talking points.

One such example is an essay by William Dillard, which presents itself as a realist analysis of the Ukraine war but ultimately serves as a vehicle for Russian propaganda. By misrepresenting the causes of the war, downplaying Russian aggression, and promoting a defeatist narrative for Ukraine, Dillard's arguments align closely with the Kremlin's strategic disinformation efforts. This essay critically examines Dillard's claims, exposing the factual inaccuracies, omissions, and moral failures that make his argument both misleading and dangerous.

Blaming the West: The False Narrative of NATO 'Provocation'

A central theme in Dillard's essay is the claim that Russia's invasion was provoked by NATO expansion and Western interference. This argument suggests that Russia is reacting defensively to an existential threat posed by the West rather than acting as an imperial aggressor.

This is a false and misleading interpretation of events. NATO expansion has never been an aggressive force against Russia but rather a defensive measure taken by former Soviet states that sought protection from Moscow's historical expansionism. More importantly, Ukraine was not a NATO member at the time of the invasion, and there were no Western military bases threatening Russia.

This framing shifts responsibility away from Russia, making it appear as though Putin had no choice but to invade. In reality, the war is driven by Putin's neo-imperial ambitions, not legitimate security concerns.

The Reality:

Russia has invaded multiple neighbors (Georgia, Ukraine in 2014, and now again in 2022) without NATO involvement.

Ukraine sought NATO membership because of Russian aggression, not the other way around.

Putin himself has denied NATO was the real issue, stating that Ukraine is not a “real country” and must be “reunited” with Russia.

By blaming NATO, Dillard excuses Russia's unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

Undermining Ukrainian Sovereignty and Legitimacy

Dillard subtly questions Ukraine's national identity, implying that its existence as an independent state is somehow unnatural or unstable. This is another hallmark of Russian disinformation, which frequently portrays Ukraine as a mere extension of Russia rather than a distinct nation with its own history and culture.

Ukraine's sovereignty is not up for debate—it is an internationally recognized country whose people overwhelmingly support independence. The idea that Ukraine belongs under Russia's sphere of influence is a colonial argument, not a factual one.

The Reality:

Ukraine has a long and distinct history, separate from Russia's.

The majority of Ukrainians, including many Russian speakers, reject Russian rule and support independence.

If Ukraine were truly a “Russian territory,” why has Russia needed to invade it multiple times?

By denying Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation, Dillard reinforces Russian imperialist rhetoric.

Ignoring Russian War Crimes and Civilian Atrocities

One of the most glaring omissions in Dillard's essay is his failure to acknowledge Russia's documented war crimes, including mass killings, forced deportations, and deliberate attacks on civilians.

The Reality:

The Bucha massacre, the bombing of Mariupol's theater, and mass executions in occupied territories have been extensively documented by international human rights organizations.

The forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia has led to an ICC arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin.

Russian forces have deliberately targeted hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure—all of which are war crimes under international law.

By ignoring these atrocities, Dillard's essay whitewashes Russian aggression and dehumanizes Ukraine's suffering. A truly balanced analysis would address these crimes, rather than omitting them to create a false sense of moral equivalence between Russia and Ukraine.

Promoting a Surrender Narrative

Dillard portrays Ukraine's war effort as futile, emphasizing Ukrainian losses while downplaying Russian failures. This is a psychological warfare tactic often used by the Kremlin—convincing the West that supporting Ukraine is pointless so that international aid and weapons shipments decrease.

The Reality:

Ukraine has successfully defended itself, liberating areas like Kherson and Kharkiv despite being outnumbered.

Russia's military has suffered enormous casualties, including the loss of elite units and massive logistical failures.

Ukrainians overwhelmingly support continuing the fight—polls show they reject any peace deal that involves territorial concessions.

By pushing the idea that Ukraine should surrender, Dillard is not offering objective analysis—he is advocating for a Russian victory.

Misrepresenting the Role of the West

Another key propaganda theme in Dillard's essay is the idea that Western support for Ukraine is reckless, unnecessary, or hypocritical. This argument serves Russia's interests by trying to weaken public support for aid and military assistance.

The Reality:

Western aid has been crucial in helping Ukraine defend itself—but it is Ukraine that is doing the fighting.

Stopping aid would directly benefit Russia, allowing its military to advance with less resistance.

The idea that the West is “using” Ukraine is false—Ukraine is fighting for its own survival.

By questioning the legitimacy of Western support, Dillard indirectly argues for allowing Russia to win.

Conclusion: Why This Misinformation Must Be Challenged

Dillard's essay is not a neutral analysis—it is a carefully framed argument that distorts reality in ways that benefit Russia.

By blaming NATO, downplaying Ukraine's legitimacy, ignoring Russian war crimes, and promoting surrender, Dillard aligns with key Kremlin propaganda narratives. Whether intentional or not, such misinformation directly undermines Ukraine's fight for survival and weakens international resolve against Russian aggression.

The War in Ukraine is Not Morally Ambiguous:

Russia is the aggressor—it invaded an independent country, unprovoked.

Ukraine has the right to defend itself—just as any nation would.

Western support is both moral and strategic—allowing Russia to win would embolden other authoritarian regimes.

In an era where misinformation spreads rapidly, critical thinking is essential. Readers must recognize when an argument is not just flawed but actively serves the interests of an authoritarian state engaged in war crimes. Dillard's essay is not just misleading—it is part of a broader disinformation campaign that must be challenged with truth and facts.

The stakes are clear: Allowing propaganda to shape public opinion could mean the difference between victory and defeat for Ukraine. The world must choose to stand on the side of truth, justice, and resistance against imperialist aggression.

Comment on some of the more outlandish claims by Dillard.

1. Dillard claims: "Ukraine had been a province of Russia since 862".

No, that claim is completely false and a distortion of history.

The Reality: Ukraine's Distinct History

Ukraine was never simply "a province of Russia since 862." This claim misrepresents the historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia by erasing Ukraine's distinct cultural, political, and national identity.

Here's a more accurate historical timeline:

1. Kyivan Rus' (862-1240) - A Shared but Distinct Origin

The first major Slavic state in the region was Kyivan Rus', centered in Kyiv, not Moscow.

In 862, Kyiv was already an important city, but Moscow did not even exist (it was founded later in 1147).

Kyivan Rus' was a federation of Slavic tribes, not a "province" of Russia—in fact, modern Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus all trace their origins to it.

2. Mongol Rule (1240-1500s) - Ukraine and Russia Diverge

After the Mongol invasion (1240), the territories of modern Ukraine and Russia followed separate historical paths.

The western and central parts of Ukraine came under Lithuanian and Polish control, while Moscow gradually expanded eastward.

3. Polish-Lithuanian Rule (1500s-1600s) - Ukraine Looks West

Most of Ukraine was not under Russian control but part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during this period.

Ukrainian Cossacks resisted both Polish and Russian rule, seeking autonomy.

4. Russian Imperial Control (1700s-1917) - Forced Russification

In 1654, a part of Ukraine allied with Russia (Pereiaslav Agreement), but this was not annexation—Ukraine sought protection against Poland.

Over time, Russia gradually took control of Ukrainian lands, but Ukraine always had strong resistance movements.

Ukrainian language and culture were heavily suppressed under Tsarist policies in the 19th century.

5. Ukrainian Independence Movements (1917-1991)

Ukraine declared independence in 1918 after the Russian Empire collapsed.

The Soviet Union forcibly absorbed Ukraine in 1922, leading to mass repression (including the Holodomor genocide of the 1930s).

Ukraine finally regained full independence in 1991 when the USSR collapsed.

Why Dillard's Claim is Propaganda

Dillard's statement that Ukraine was "a province of Russia since 862" is factually incorrect and follows a Russian imperialist narrative that tries to erase Ukrainian identity.

Ukraine has its own historical trajectory, distinct from Russia.

Kyiv was a major center of civilization long before Moscow existed.

For most of history, Ukraine was not part of Russia, and when it was, it fought for independence.

Bottom Line: This is a classic Kremlin talking point used to justify Russian claims over Ukraine. It is historically false and ignores Ukraine's long struggle for self-rule.

2. "How likely were fascists, fueled by Western money and weapons, to succeed in overturning that legacy?"

Dillard's statement is a loaded and misleading assertion that contains three major falsehoods:

The idea that Ukraine was historically "Russian" (which is false, as explained earlier).

The claim that "fascists" are leading Ukraine (a classic Kremlin propaganda tactic).

The implication that Western aid is fueling extremism rather than supporting a democratic nation defending itself.

Debunking These Misleading Claims

1. Ukraine Is Not Overturning a Russian “Legacy” - It Is Reaffirming Its Sovereignty

Dillard suggests that Ukraine's current fight is an attack on some long-standing, legitimate Russian "legacy." But this assumes that Russian domination over Ukraine was natural or rightful, which is a fundamentally imperialist perspective.

Reality: Ukraine has fought against Russian control for centuries, and its sovereignty is not an "overturning" of history—it is a return to its rightful independent status.

2. The “Fascist” Smear - A Well-Known Russian Disinformation Tactic

Calling Ukraine's government "fascist" is a blatant piece of Russian propaganda designed to justify invasion. This accusation is:

Historically inaccurate - Ukraine is a democracy with a Jewish president (Zelenskyy), which directly contradicts the idea that it is run by neo-Nazis.

A distortion of marginal extremist groups - Like many European countries, Ukraine has far-right elements, but they have never held significant power in government. In fact, in the 2019 elections, far-right parties got less than 2% of the vote—far lower than in many Western countries.

A deliberate excuse for war - Putin framed his invasion as “denazification,” despite Ukraine posing no Nazi threat. This is the same kind of rhetoric Hitler used to justify aggression against Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Reality: Ukraine is not a fascist state. It is a sovereign democracy fighting against an authoritarian invasion.

3. Western Aid Supports Democracy, Not Extremism

Dillard portrays Western military support as if it were fueling radical, fascist forces. This is completely misleading.

Western aid helps Ukraine defend itself against an unprovoked invasion.

Ukraine's government is democratically elected—not some extremist junta.

If Ukraine were truly fascist, why do millions of Ukrainians—including Russian speakers—support it against Russia?

Reality: The West is helping Ukraine survive—not funding fascism.

Conclusion: Dillard's Statement Is Pure Kremlin Propaganda

Dillard's claim combines historical falsehoods, Nazi smears, and Western aid misrepresentation to create a distorted picture that mirrors Russian disinformation.

Ukraine is not overturning Russian history—it is reclaiming its own.

Ukraine is not fascist—this is a Russian lie used to justify invasion.

Western support is not fueling extremism—it is helping a democracy resist an authoritarian aggressor.

This kind of rhetoric erases Ukraine's right to exist and fight for its future. It is not just inaccurate—it is dangerous.

3. "It really doesn't matter who provoked the war in Ukraine. What matters is that 1) Russia has won it... "

Dillard's statement is riddled with factual inaccuracies, misleading assertions, and outright propaganda. Let's break it down.

1. "It really doesn't matter who provoked the war in Ukraine."

This is a deeply flawed argument because it dismisses the core moral and legal issue of aggression.

Reality:

The UN Charter prohibits wars of aggression, making Russia's invasion illegal.

If "provocation doesn't matter," then any powerful country could justify invading its neighbors. This logic normalizes imperial conquest and undermines international law.

The question of responsibility is crucial because it determines who is the aggressor and who is defending their sovereignty.

Dillard's attempt to wave away the issue of provocation is a tacit admission that Russia cannot be defended on moral or legal grounds.

2. "Russia has won the war."

This is completely false and ignores the current state of the battlefield.

Reality:

As of 2025, Russia has not won the war.

Ukraine has liberated major territories (e.g., Kharkiv and Kherson).

The frontlines remain contested, with Russia failing to achieve its original goals (capturing Kyiv, toppling the Ukrainian government).

Russia has suffered massive military losses (including hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, and other equipment).

Claiming "Russia has won" is pure propaganda, aimed at demoralizing Ukraine and discouraging Western support.

4. "... and 2), Trump has decided that the criminal destruction of Ukraine was indeed a proxy war armed, funded, and justified by NATO, the EU, and Washington."

This statement is both misleading and politically loaded.

Reality:

Trump is not an authority on global conflicts—his views are often shaped by personal grudges and admiration for authoritarian leaders like Putin.

The war was not started by NATO, the EU, or Washington—it was started by Russia's invasion of a sovereign nation.

Ukraine is not a mere "proxy"—it is a country fighting for its survival.

Dillard's wording suggests that Ukraine's destruction is "justified" by Western involvement, which is a blatant Kremlin talking point.

Final Analysis: Dillard's Argument Is a Mix of Defeatist Propaganda and Misdirection

He dismisses Russia's responsibility for aggression.

He falsely claims Russia has already won, despite ongoing Ukrainian resistance.

He frames Western support as the real cause of Ukraine's destruction, rather than Russia's invasion.

This is not a neutral or factual analysis—it is a demoralization tactic designed to push a pro-Kremlin narrative.

5. Dillard argues: Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for preemptive self-defense if an “armed attack occurs” or is imminent. Russia argues NATO's actions constituted a creeping armed threat via Ukraine.

Dillard's argument is a misinterpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter and a distortion of Russia's justification for the war.

What Article 51 Actually Says

Article 51 of the UN Charter states:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Key Points About Article 51

Self-defense is only justified in response to an actual "armed attack."

Russia was not attacked by Ukraine or NATO.

No NATO forces were in Ukraine, and Ukraine was not planning to attack Russia.

"Preemptive self-defense" is not recognized under international law unless an attack is imminent.

There was no imminent attack on Russia.

Russia provided no credible evidence that Ukraine or NATO were about to strike.

Russia's argument of a "creeping armed threat" is legally baseless.

Ukraine was not a NATO member and had no NATO bases or troops.

Ukraine's military buildup was purely defensive in response to Russia's 2014 invasion (Crimea, Donbas).

Debunking Russia's "Creeping NATO Threat" Argument

Russia and its supporters argue that NATO expansion justified the invasion. This is a flawed and misleading claim:

NATO is a defensive alliance—it does not invade countries unprovoked.

Ukraine was not in NATO and had no NATO troops.

Even if Russia viewed NATO expansion as a threat, that does not legally justify an invasion.

Reality: Russia's invasion was an unprovoked war of aggression, not self-defense.

Conclusion: Russia's Use of Article 51 Is a Legal Excuse for Imperialism

Dillard's argument echoes a Russian propaganda line that tries to rewrite international law to justify aggression.

There was no "armed attack" against Russia.

There was no imminent threat from Ukraine or NATO.

Claiming self-defense to justify invasion is a legal and moral distortion.

This is the same logic that Hitler used to justify his invasions of neighboring countries. It is a dangerous precedent that, if accepted, would legitimize military aggression worldwide.

6. "The overwhelming proof of neo-Nazi influences in the Ukrainian government and military generated for Russia a moral duty to intervene."

Dillard's claim that Russia had a "moral duty to intervene" because of "neo-Nazi influences" in Ukraine is one of the most widely debunked pieces of Russian propaganda. It is a justification for aggression based on distortion and falsehoods.

1. There Is No "Overwhelming Proof" of Neo-Nazis Controlling Ukraine

Reality: Ukraine is a democratic country with a Jewish president (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), who lost family members in the Holocaust.

If Ukraine were truly controlled by neo-Nazis, why would a Jewish leader be elected by a landslide (73% of the vote in 2019)?

Ukraine has never had a far-right government. In the last elections, far-right parties received less than 2% of the vote—far lower than in many European nations.

Russia, in contrast, has a much stronger far-right movement.

Putin's regime openly supports far-right European parties (e.g., Marine Le Pen's National Rally in France).

Russian paramilitary groups like the Wagner Group use Nazi symbols, and their leader, Dmitry Utkin, had SS tattoos.

Pro-Nazi movements are far more tolerated in Russia than in Ukraine.

Ukraine's far-right battalions exist but are not politically significant.

The Azov Battalion had some far-right elements in its origins (like many militias in post-Soviet states) but was later integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard and depoliticized.

Russian propaganda amplifies these fringe elements to falsely portray Ukraine as a neo-Nazi state.

2. "Moral Duty to Intervene" - A Classic Justification for Aggression

Dillard's argument follows a historical pattern of aggressors using "moral duty" to justify invasions.

Nazi Germany used the same excuse to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Hitler claimed he was "protecting" ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia from supposed abuse.

Putin uses the same tactic—claiming he is "denazifying" Ukraine to justify war.

Russia has no history of "moral interventions."

Russia has supported brutal regimes worldwide, from Bashar al-Assad in Syria to war criminals in Africa.

If Putin truly cared about neo-Nazism, why does he tolerate it within Russia and among his own mercenaries?

3. The Real Reason for the Invasion

Russia's true motives were imperial ambition, not anti-fascism.

Putin himself denied Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation in a 2021 essay.

Russia wants to control Ukraine, not "liberate" it.

Neo-Nazism was just an excuse—the real goal was to stop Ukraine's westward shift and regain imperial influence.

Conclusion: A Propaganda Justification for War

There is no "overwhelming proof" of neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine.

Ukraine is a democracy, not a fascist state.

Russia's intervention was about conquest, not morality.

Dillard is parroting a Kremlin justification for war that has been thoroughly debunked. This claim distorts reality to excuse an illegal and brutal invasion.

7. "The weaknesses, limitations, and excesses of democracy have been exposed and the strengths, benefits, and utility of authoritarianism are, like it or not, clear as the light of day."

Dillard's statement is a textbook authoritarian apologetics argument, making broad and deeply flawed claims about democracy and authoritarianism.

1. The "Weaknesses of Democracy" Argument is a Classic Anti-Democratic Talking Point

It is true that democracy has challenges—polarization, inefficiency, corruption—but these do not mean authoritarianism is superior.

Reality:

Democracies self-correct through elections, free speech, and checks on power.

Authoritarian regimes do not tolerate dissent—they silence critics, manipulate information, and suppress opposition.

The idea that "democracy is failing" is often pushed by authoritarians to justify repression.

2. The "Strengths of Authoritarianism" Are Usually an Illusion

Dillard suggests authoritarianism's "benefits" are undeniable. But what are these supposed benefits?

"Stability and efficiency?"

Dictatorships appear stable until they suddenly collapse (e.g., USSR, Libya, Iraq).

In reality, authoritarianism leads to stagnation, corruption, and fear-driven governance.

"Economic success?"

Some authoritarian states (China, Singapore) have prospered, but most are economic failures.

Russia's economy under Putin is weak, corrupt, and dependent on oil exports.

Democracies outperform authoritarian states on nearly every metric:

Higher economic growth (democracies tend to be wealthier).

Better innovation (free societies encourage creativity).

More accountability (leaders can be removed without violence).

3. Russia's Authoritarian Model is a Disaster, Not a Strength

If authoritarianism is so effective, why is Russia struggling?

Rampant corruption—Russia's elites steal from the state.

Massive military failures—Russia's war in Ukraine has exposed incompetence and poor strategy.

Brain drain—millions of Russians have fled the country.

Meanwhile, Ukraine—a democracy—has resisted against overwhelming odds, proving the resilience of an open society.

Final Verdict: This is an Apology for Tyranny

Dillard's statement romanticizes authoritarianism while ignoring its well-documented failures.

Democracy is flawed, but authoritarianism is far worse.

Authoritarian regimes appear strong but are fragile and prone to collapse.

The war in Ukraine has proven that people will fight for democracy over dictatorship.

A predictable response by Dillard will be: ChatGPT just reflects Western groupthink on which it is trained.

Dillard's likely response—that ChatGPT reflects "Western groupthink"—is a lazy dismissal rather than an actual rebuttal. It avoids addressing the factual issues raised and instead tries to discredit the source. This is a common tactic used when one cannot defend their claims with evidence.

1. Facts Are Not "Western" or "Russian"—They Are Just Facts

The history of Ukraine, Russia's invasion, war crimes, and geopolitical events are all based on verifiable evidence.

Reports from Ukrainian, Russian, and international sources (including neutral entities like the UN, OSCE, and Amnesty International) all confirm the same basic realities:

Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked.

Russia has committed atrocities.

Ukraine is not a Nazi state.

Putin seeks to control Ukraine, not "liberate" it.

Dillard needs to argue with facts, not claim bias when the facts don't support his narrative.

2. The "Western Groupthink" Accusation is a Deflection

Labeling information as "Western propaganda" is a way to sidestep engaging with real arguments.

It's the same tactic authoritarian regimes use to dismiss criticism:

China calls criticism "Western imperialist lies."

Russia calls inconvenient facts "Russophobia."

Dillard is doing the same thing.

If ChatGPT only reflected "Western groupthink," why does it cite Russian sources when they provide credible evidence?

3. Does Dillard Think Russian Propaganda is More Trustworthy?

If ChatGPT is just "Western groupthink," does that mean Dillard's sources are neutral?

Who is really pushing "groupthink"? Russia controls its media, criminalizes dissent, and jails those who call the war a war.

If he rejects Western media, is he relying on Russian state narratives instead?

The key question: Is the information factually accurate? Calling something "groupthink" does not make it false.

Final Verdict: A Weak Argument from Dillard

Dismissing facts as "Western groupthink" is not an argument—it's an evasion.

He must engage with the actual facts, not just claim bias.

The facts remain true regardless of where they come from.

Dillard must do better than just hand-waving away reality—he needs to confront the overwhelming evidence that Russia's war is an act of aggression based on false pretexts.

Could he "weaponize" AI chatbots just as easily to find evidence for his own geopolitical views?

Dillard—or anyone else—could certainly attempt to "weaponize" AI chatbots to support their geopolitical views, but there are key limitations to how effective this strategy would be.

1. AI Can Be Used to Cherry-Pick Evidence

Anyone can prompt an AI in ways that seek only confirming evidence while ignoring contradictory facts. For example:

Instead of asking "Is Ukraine a Nazi state?", one could ask "List all evidence of neo-Nazism in Ukraine."

Instead of asking "Did Russia invade Ukraine unprovoked?", one could ask "List NATO actions that threatened Russia."

This is called "confirmation bias"—it's a way to selectively gather information to support a pre-existing belief, rather than seeking the full picture.

However, a well-trained AI will also highlight counterpoints if asked neutrally.[2]

2. AI is Not Infinitely Malleable—It Has Guardrails

AI chatbots trained on broad datasets are designed to reflect reality, not propaganda.

AI models trained responsibly use fact-checking and diverse sources rather than purely ideological viewpoints.

If someone tries to use AI to justify false claims (e.g., "Ukraine was part of Russia since 862"), the AI will typically push back with historical facts.

Dillard could try, but he would struggle to make AI consistently parrot falsehoods without explicitly forcing it.

3. Russian and Chinese AI Models Already Exist for Propaganda

Russia and China have built AI systems tailored for their state narratives.

Ernie Bot (China) and "GigaChat" (Russia) are trained only on state-approved information.

These models would support Dillard's arguments—but only because they are censored and programmed to do so.

Western AI models, by contrast, allow for open discussion and fact-checking.

4. The "Weaponization" of AI for Propaganda Has Limits

If someone uses AI dishonestly—cherry-picking facts, misleading readers, or omitting key details—it's just another form of misinformation.

But propaganda is exposed when people check sources, compare perspectives, and critically evaluate arguments.

AI does not generate "truth"—it synthesizes existing knowledge. If an AI is trained on propaganda, it will reflect propaganda.

The real issue is not AI, but whether people engage in critical thinking.

Final Verdict: Dillard Could Try, But Truth Still Matters

He could prompt AI to find supporting evidence for his views, but he would have to ignore counterarguments.

AI has safeguards against outright falsehoods, making it hard to completely manipulate.

The best defense against AI-driven propaganda is fact-checking, multiple sources, and critical thinking.

The danger is not AI itself—but how people choose to use it.

NOTES

[1] Dillard mentions in his essay: "A second take-away for Integralists involves their tendency to cast Ukraine as progressing toward pluralistic and democratic Green, with Russia stuck at authoritarian Amber. Yet Ukraine has been under martial law since 2022, complete with bans on opposition, with media censorship and consolidation. Freedom House gave Ukraine a rating “partly free,” 3.36/7, suggesting a regression to Amber under pressure, not a democratic leap forward." I looked up the current (2024) data from Freedom House for Ukraine and Russia,:

This basically says it all: Russia is in even worse shape. Ukraine is a "transitional or hybrid regime", whereas Russia is a "consolidated authoritarian regime"—which Dillard strongly seems to favor.

[2] To double check if my prompts were biased, I rephrased it in the most neutral terms. This is what ChatGPT came up with:

Evaluate the many claims made in the essay "A Ukrainian Post-Mortem" for accuracy. Just make a short bulleted list of claims.

Upon reviewing Joseph Dillard's essay "A Ukrainian Post-Mortem," several claims emerge that align with narratives often found in Russian propaganda. Here is a concise list of 100 notable assertions from the essay:

1. Ukraine is described as "the walking dead," suggesting a complete societal collapse.
2. The 2014 Maidan uprising is portrayed as orchestrated and funded by Western entities.
3. Post-2014, Ukraine is depicted as having lost its democratic foundations.
4. The Ukrainian government is accused of banning Russian-language media and opposition parties.
5. President Zelensky is labeled an "unelected 'dictator'" who has centralized power.
6. Ukraine's military losses are claimed to exceed 400,000 fatalities.
7. Russia is stated to control approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory.
8. Ukraine's GDP reportedly declined by 30% in 2022.
9. Reconstruction costs for Ukraine are estimated at $486 billion as of December 2023.
10. Western leaders are criticized as "woke bureaucrats" facing the repercussions of their policies.
11. President Trump is mockingly referred to as the "Orange Wurlitzer."
12. Western nations are accused of prolonging the conflict by supplying weapons to Ukraine.
13. The essay suggests that NATO's expansionist agenda provoked Russia's actions.
14. Claims are made that Ukrainian forces have committed atrocities against Russian-speaking civilians.
15. The essay posits that Western media has systematically misrepresented the conflict.
16. Assertions are made that economic sanctions have had minimal impact on Russia.
17. The essay suggests that European economies have suffered more from sanctions than Russia's economy.
18. It is claimed that a significant portion of Western military aid to Ukraine has been misappropriated.
19. The essay argues that Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO were unrealistic and provocative.
20. Assertions are made that the Ukrainian government has suppressed dissenting voices and media.
21. The essay claims that Russia's military actions were defensive measures against NATO encroachment.
22. It is suggested that the conflict could have been avoided if Ukraine had remained neutral.
23. The essay posits that Western nations have used Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia.
24. Claims are made that peace negotiations were undermined by Western interests.
25. The essay concludes that Ukraine's future is bleak due to Western exploitation and internal corruption.
26. The essay suggests that Russia has achieved all of its military objectives in Ukraine.
27. It argues that the Ukrainian counteroffensive was a complete failure.
28. Claims are made that Ukrainian soldiers have been surrendering in large numbers.
29. The essay states that Russia has superior military technology compared to NATO-supplied weapons.
30. Assertions are made that NATO forces have directly engaged in the conflict under the guise of "mercenaries."
31. The essay claims that Western propaganda has exaggerated Russian military losses.
32. It suggests that the U.S. and EU are pushing Ukraine to fight a war it cannot win.
33. The essay argues that the war was unnecessary and could have been avoided through diplomacy.
34. It is claimed that the Ukrainian government is heavily influenced by neo-Nazi elements.
35. The essay suggests that Zelensky's leadership is largely controlled by the U.S. and UK.
36. Assertions are made that Ukraine's economy is now entirely dependent on Western aid.
37. The essay claims that Ukrainian refugees are being exploited in Europe.
38. It argues that Ukraine's infrastructure has been permanently crippled by the war.
39. The essay suggests that the U.S. is using the war to launder money through military aid packages.
40. It is claimed that Russia's economy has been strengthened by the war due to increased trade with China and India.
41. The essay states that European citizens are growing increasingly opposed to their governments' support for Ukraine.
42. It argues that mainstream Western media is engaging in systematic misinformation about the war.
43. The essay suggests that NATO expansion has destabilized global security.
44. It is claimed that the West deliberately ignored Russia's security concerns before the invasion.
45. The essay argues that Ukraine has already lost the war, but its leaders refuse to admit it.
46. It suggests that Western arms manufacturers are profiting immensely from the conflict.
47. The essay claims that Western-backed Ukrainian leaders are corrupt and self-serving.
48. Assertions are made that U.S. foreign policy is dictated by financial interests rather than strategic necessity.
49. The essay argues that Russia has been unfairly demonized by the West for defending its interests.
50. It concludes that the U.S. is the true aggressor in the conflict, not Russia.
51. The Ukrainian military is suffering from severe shortages of weapons and ammunition.
52. The Ukrainian army is mostly made up of inexperienced conscripts.
53. Ukrainian commanders are sending soldiers on suicidal missions to satisfy Western demands.
54. Morale among Ukrainian troops is collapsing due to heavy casualties.
55. Zelensky's government is forcibly conscripting civilians to replenish depleted forces.
56. Ukrainian battlefield losses have been far worse than reported in Western media.
57. Russia has successfully destroyed most of Ukraine's air defenses.
58. Ukraine has no viable strategy for reclaiming lost territories.
59. Russia's military strategy is methodical and effective, unlike Ukraine's reckless offensives.
60. Western-trained Ukrainian soldiers are inferior to Russian forces in combat.
61. Western governments are deliberately prolonging the war for economic and political reasons.
62. The U.S. has used Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia since at least 2014.
63. The West has censored or ignored reports of Ukrainian war crimes.
64. Western intelligence agencies have been manipulating public perception of the war.
65. The CIA and MI6 are actively involved in directing Ukraine's military operations.
66. Western leaders are using the war to distract from domestic failures.
67. The U.S. has pressured European nations into supporting Ukraine against their interests.
68. NATO's support for Ukraine is weakening as public opinion shifts.
69. Western media outlets coordinate their messaging to align with U.S. and NATO interests.
70. The U.S. has been waging a covert propaganda war against Russia for decades.
71. Ukraine's economy is in freefall and will not recover for decades.
72. The war has pushed Europe into an economic recession.
73. Germany's economy has suffered immensely due to its energy dependence on Russia.
74. The U.S. is benefiting from the war by selling LNG to Europe at high prices.
75. The West's sanctions on Russia have backfired, strengthening Moscow's economy.
76. China and Russia have formed a stronger alliance because of the war.
77. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are replacing the Western-led world order.
78. The U.S. dollar's dominance is eroding due to the war and global economic shifts.
79. Europe's deindustrialization has accelerated due to energy shortages.
80. The war is hastening the decline of Western global influence.
81. Russia's military production has surged, surpassing Western expectations.
82. Russia's political leadership remains stable despite Western attempts to weaken it.
83. Putin's approval ratings remain high despite sanctions and war pressures.
84. Russia's energy exports continue to thrive, despite attempts to cut them off.
85. Russia has secured new trade partnerships in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
86. The Russian ruble has remained stable despite sanctions.
87. Russian society has not turned against the war, as the West predicted.
88. Russia's mobilization efforts have strengthened its military rather than weakened it.
89. The war has united Russian nationalists and strengthened patriotic sentiment.
90. The West underestimated Russia's resilience in the face of economic warfare.
91. Ukraine will eventually be forced to accept territorial losses.
92. The U.S. will abandon Ukraine once it becomes politically inconvenient.
93. A negotiated peace would have been possible if not for Western interference.
94. The longer the war continues, the worse Ukraine's position will become.
95. Ukraine's allies will grow tired of funding a losing war.
96. The war has exposed Western hypocrisy on international law.
97. The U.S. has a history of abandoning allies after they serve their purpose.
98. The conflict will reshape global alliances in favor of non-Western powers.
99. Russia will emerge from the war stronger, while Ukraine will be left devastated.
100. The West's handling of the Ukraine war will be remembered as a massive strategic failure.

Return to the 100 claims made in the essay and estimate their truth. Present a table giving percentages of the number of claims that are true, probably true, probably false, false, and propaganda.

This goes to show that 55% of the claims made by Dillard are still of the False category.