The Vineyard of the Saker Website

[Slumba]

An aside:  I am 99% sure that the Saker is a disinfo site.  That is why some of what is written is true - 40% truth and 60% conjecture/unverifiable plus lies,  lets you take in lots more people than 99% lies.

[andrewfi]

What can you point at as being 'untrue'? I think that in your world anything you don't agree with becomes conjecture and an analyst is engaged in objective conjecture so lets look at the stuff you think is counterfactual.

Give us some clear, specific, items that were posted as fact but were knowingly untrue and thus what you refer to as disinformation.

Bear in mind as you get to work that the guy is everything he says he is, has a history of publications from previous employers, and that his professional work is as a military analyst. Analysis, by its nature, works from incomplete and sometimes inaccurate data in order to create a model of the world upon which objective plans can be based.

This means, of course, that some of the premises and intelligence upon which analysis is based will be flawed and also that some of the analysis will prove to be inaccurate - an analyst is not a fortune teller or seer of the future.

As it happens the bloke actually has a pretty firm record going back over years of getting this stuff right. You can download some of his work from when he was working for UN organisations to give yourself some context.

[Slumba]

What can you point at as being 'untrue'? I think that in your world anything you don't agree with becomes conjecture and an analyst is engaged in objective conjecture so lets look at the stuff you think is counterfactual.

Give us some clear, specific, items that were posted as fact but were knowingly untrue and thus what you refer to as disinformation.

Disinfo is not limited to "knowingly untrue".  But let's see if I can find a few examples.

Here are two examples:

1. Writing about Borodai, and never mentioning that a) he is a Russian citizen whose residence is in Moscow b) he has known Igor Girkin since the early 1990s . 

All the while presenting DNR as an organization run by locals. 

If DNR is run by a guy with deep links to Moscow and who has never been a Ukrainian citizen and never lived there prior... what conclusion would any reasonable person come to?

This is not hidden, esoteric information... it is reasonable that Saker would have known this contemporaneous to his writing.

2. This is hagiography, not journalism or analysis:  http://thesaker.is/happy-birthday-donbass/

"the people of the DNR understand what is happening and an overwhelming majority supports it." 

a) how does he know this? 

b) not mentioning that those who didn't support, have left the area of the DNR.  And I don't mean a few malcontents, but literally a million people.

"under these absolutely horrific conditions, the people of the DNR made absolutely amazing achievements; not only did they transform a volunteer militia into a real military force"

As any real analyst well knows by now, it was the Russian regular military... not "the people of the DNR".

" Speaking at an annual televised press conference, Mr Putin denied that “regular forces” were involved in the conflict, but conceded that “people dealing with tasks…in the military sphere,” had been involved in the conflict.

“We never said that there weren’t people there dealing with certain tasks, including in the military sphere,” he said, when challenged by a Ukrainian journalist about two captured Russian officers currently held in Ukraine.

“But that doesn’t mean there are regular Russian forces there. Feel the difference,” he added. "

If you don't like the telegraph, you can no doubt find many other sources... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html

Just as the trickle truth of Russian military in Crimea has been trickled out...