Dancing nurses were never about the morale of healthcare workers or stress relief. They were a test, a sorting mechanism, revealing who would accept the contradictions and who would resist them. These videos on TikTok, which appeared simultaneously across all continents while governments declared medical emergencies, represented something unprecedented in the history of propaganda: the authorities showed that they could make populations accept two mutually exclusive realities at the same time. [Hospitals were "overwhelmed" and yet doctors and nurses spent hours rehearsing dance routines.]

What we witnessed was not traditional propaganda aimed at persuasion, but something more akin to what abuse experts recognize as gaslighting on a large scale. The psychological mechanism was elegant in its cruelty: it presented citizens with an apparent contradiction—hospitals that were both overcrowded and empty enough for choreographed routines—and then punished them socially for noticing it.

This essay explores how this technique fits into the broader context of psychological warfare

The dancing-nurses were a test for the distortion of reality. Once populations accepted this initial contradiction, they were prepared for more: each accepted absurdity weakened the public’s ability to trust their own observations.

This technique seems to draw inspiration from what Michael Hoffman calls “method disclosure“ — the practice of cryptocracy revealing its activities in plain sight, knowing that public inaction in the face of such a revelation produces a discouraging effect. The message becomes: “We can show you the contradiction between our words and our actions, and you will do nothing. You will accept both the lie and the evidence of it.” It is a form of ritual humiliation that works not through concealment, but through unabashed display. Almost four years later, we can see how this enterprise created precedents that persist.

The European Union is considering forcing Chinese firms to hand over technology to European companies if they want to operate locally, in an aggressive new push to make the bloc’s industry more competitive.

The measures would apply to companies seeking access to key digital and manufacturing markets like cars and batteries, according to people familiar with the plans. The rules would also require the firms to use a set amount of EU goods or labor.

The visit was initially planned to coincide with the inaugural Arab-Russian Summit, scheduled to open in Moscow on October 14, 2025. However, Russia postponed the summit last week to avoid disrupting the fragile settlement in Palestine. The Sharm el-Sheikh summit attended by numerous Arab leaders was held on October 13.
Recognizing the issue’s importance to Arab states, Russia proposed the delay—a pragmatic move, not a retreat. Western media predictably spun this as a sign of Moscow’s waning influence, claiming Arab leaders shunned Russia and portraying al-Sharaa’s visit as Putin’s defeat, forced to embrace a former foe. They frame Russia’s enduring role in Syria as weakness, while hailing U.S. engagement with any regime as pragmatic realism. This double standard distorts the truth. Al-Sharaa, a former jihadist and commander of Jabhat al-Nusra, overthrew Bashar al-Assad in December last year, although it would be more correct to say that the regime of the Baath Party (Arab socialists), which had ruled the country since 1963, simply collapsed. Assad left for Russia, and thus there are now two Syrian presidents in Moscow at once, the former and the current one. But this is not a reason for jokes, because Russia’s deep ties with Syria, unbroken since the 1950s, predate the Baath Party’s rule and survived the Soviet Union’s collapse. These bonds, vital for both nations, will endure. In the past, al-Sharaa could have had many claims against the Russians, because we supported Assad and helped Assad's troops fight al-Sharaa's militias.
However, he had many ties with Russia: suffice it to recall that his older brother, who is now the head of the presidential administration, lived and worked for many years in Voronezh, where he headed the women's clinic. The Americans included al-Sharaa in the list of especially dangerous terrorists and put a bounty of ten million dollars on his head. However, in May of this year, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump met with al-Sharaa. Because the US has interests in Syria and a military base in the east of the country, while the new Syrian government has an interest in ties with the US – and what can we say about Russia?
Our ties are deeper and wider. The interest of the Syrians in restoring their state, internally divided after the civil war, and preserving sovereignty (which is threatened not only by Israel, which occupied another piece of Syria after the Golan Heights) is enormous. And Russia, almost from the second half of the 1950s, was the most reliable external ally for their country. The problem with national and religious minorities, the unresolved issue with some of the Kurds (demanding autonomy), with American bases, the excessive strengthening of Turkish influence, the unwillingness to become completely financially dependent on the Saudis – all this tangle of problems will have to be unraveled by Ahmed al-Sharaa. Russia is not a personal enemy, and our country is a tried and tested ally. Without Russia, Syria will not only become weaker, it will sharply reduce its ability to regain its independence. Of course, Moscow does not want to lose its positions in Syria, including a naval base and an airfield, but the benefits are mutual.
The Ukrainian conflict, of course, requires our country to concentrate forces and means, but this does not mean that we will be ousted from regions of our historical interest, including the Middle East. The turn of the Arab countries to the BRICS signifies precisely their desire to move closer to the non-Western bloc, in which Russia also plays an important role. (1/2) https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10606

(2/2) In turn, the success of Trump's plan on Gaza should not be interpreted as a triumph for the US, much less as the restoration of its position in the Middle East. Everyone understands that two years of genocide in Gaza were only possible thanks to Washington's overwhelming and unconditional support for Netanyahu — and the fact that Israel is essentially an outsourced U.S. state. An end to the carnage was only possible when the damage to American interests (both domestic and foreign) became unacceptably great. Promises (and guarantees) of the restoration of peaceful life still need to be kept, and trust in the US in the Middle East has become even more fragile. The US is definitely not going to solve the Palestinian issue, that is, to create a Palestinian state - and this alone hits its reputation in the Middle East. And it gives the Arabs another argument in favor of strengthening ties with Russia, which does what it promises. And it does not give up its allies - neither the country, nor their former rulers.