The menace of Russian propaganda

I wanted to write about international law this week. A somewhat “geeky” discussion about whether international law is still valid, given Russia’s relentless violations without real consequences. But, alas, the story of Russia (allegedly) paying American media figures to spread Russian propaganda broke. So, we will look at that and then a much quicker examination of international law.  

Situation in Ukraine and Russia

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice held a press conference and released the indictment outlining charges against two Russian citizens employed at Russia Today; Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva. Russia Today is owned by the Russian government and is pure propaganda. They have a Russian language version but also an English language version. 

The two employees are being charged with violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Allegedly, they were involved in a scheme to influence “Company-1”, which has been identified as Tenet Media. Over the last year, they have paid the company over $10 million to post videos on YouTube, TikTok and other social media sites. The videos highlight divisive issues, such as immigration, Ukraine/Russia, U.S. foreign policy and inflation. The videos have received tens of millions of views and have been posted by far-right influencers, such as Benny Johnson and Tim Pool. They apparently were unaware of the money from Russia. Only the owners of Tenet Media, Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, knowingly accepted money from Russia.  

This comes on the heels of an August raid on the home of Russian-American Dmitry Simes, who has been charged of violating U.S. economic sanctions for his work with sanctioned Russian news outlet Channel One. Reportedly, Simes was receiving $67,000 a month, a car and driver, and an apartment in Moscow to appear on opinion shows on Channel One. His wife, Anastasia Simes, has been charged in a separate case related to money laundering. Dmitry Simes is a well-known foreign policy “expert”, who has worked at outlets like the National Interest, was the President and CEO of the Center for the National Interest and served as an adviser to both Richard Nixon and Donald Trump.  

There is a lot to unpack here without even considering this may only be the tip of the iceberg. Another FBI affidavit suggests that Russia is maintaining a list of 2800 influencers with 600 in the U.S. I would not be surprised to see similar stories in the near future.

But with respect to these recent events, here are a few quick, somewhat underdeveloped thoughts. First, the above figures are all right-wing figures in American politics. The far right in the U.S. clearly has a Russia problem, that filters into more “mainstream” Republican figures such as JD Vance. While the right, inside the U.S. and outside, certainly has a problem it is not restricted to that side of the ideological spectrum. Russia (and China and Iran) are equal opportunity propagandizers. Jill Stein, perennial Green Party presidential candidate, has many ties to Russia, as does former left-winger Tulsi Gabbard and in the UK, former Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. I do not point this out as some kind of “both sidesism” but because I believe it helpfully illuminates what Russia is trying to do. 

The indictment confirms what I learned from years of following English language Russian propaganda sites, like Russia Today and Sputnik News. Russia wants to highlight any story that divides Americans and makes America look bad, whether that is from the right or the left. As the indictment states, the goal is to “amplify domestic division in the United States. Russia Today’s twitter feed is a constant barrage of homelessness, racial injustice, the dangers of wokeness, lack of health care, illegal immigration, the evils of American foreign policy and the crumbling of the U.S. economy. Whatever makes America look bad, Russian propaganda amplifies and exaggerates and blames the other side.  

As someone who reads the originals, it is striking how often I see politicians, mostly Republicans, repeat almost verbatim the narrative of Russia Today. And unfortunately, Donald Trump’s constant talk of the U.S. as a third-world nation, a failing nation being overrun by illegal immigrants and being laughed at by the world is almost straight from the mouth of Russia Today. I am not one that thinks Trump is a secret Russian agent or is in cahoots with Russia because the Russian government has compromising materials on Trump. I do think that Trump is easily manipulated by what he hears, has surrounded himself with people who traffic in online circles that are open to Russian propaganda and, apparently, some of whom are being paid by Russia to spread that propaganda. 

Tucker Carlson is another example of someone who I don’t think is working with Russia but has been shaped by this Russian disinformation environment. His trip to Russia and his interview of Putin are examples of this. He did not really push back against Putin’s obviously false statements about Ukraine and Ukrainian history. His videos of how awesome the Moscow subway stations are (which to be fair, they are) and how affordable Russian groceries are while they are so high in the U.S. (ignoring how much more wealth Americans have than Russians) are good examples of the type of propaganda outlets like Russia Today would like to spread. In fact, one of the fun revelations from the indictment is that the Russian agents apparently thought Carlson’s grocery store video was too over the top even for their operation.  

This is a complicated, complex issue where I admittedly find it difficult to express my concerns and thoughts clearly. For folks like Trump, Carlson, RFK Jr, Stein and others, people can make up their own minds about whether they are actually connected to the Russian government, simply “useful idiots” or they come by their convictions genuinely and Russia just amplifies them. But there is no doubt in my mind that people who partake of this Russian disinformation environment do not emerge unaffected. Simes, who was once a respected scholar, is a good example. Similarly, economist Jeffrey Sachs had a long and accomplished career before he has recently become a Russian apologist. Political scientist Richard Sakwa is another example. Someone whose work I have learned a great deal from but who has become a Russian apologist and a conspiracy theorist. I reviewed one of his most recent books and was startled to see just how far down that trail he has gone.  

One last thing to note about all of this is that there is almost surely going to be reprisals inside of Russia. Russia has already been arresting American journalists and citizens and charging them with “espionage”. But these recent events mean they will almost certainly do more soon. 

Last week I mentioned Putin was planning to visit Mongolia and that Mongolia was obligated under international law to arrest Putin because of his ICC indictment. Well, Putin did visit Mongolia and he was not arrested. In fact, he was welcomed like a conquering hero. The other international law things that bothered me this week were the IMF announcing they would begin operations inside of Russia again, the IAEA head visiting the Russian-occupied Zaporizhya nuclear power plant and greeting the Russians warmly and enthusiastically and the consistent Russian targeting of clearly non-military sites, such as an orphanage earlier this week. The question of whether international law is worth anything is certainly raised by all these events. 

The short version of the long answer I wanted to write about is, yes, it is still worth it. Perhaps I will write about it in the future, as there are sure to be many more unpunished violations of international law. 

Elections

We haven’t discussed elections for a while, but I wanted to highlight the interesting regional elections in Germany that happened this week. The big headline is that the far-right AfD party won elections in the eastern German state of Thuringia. Of course, the phrase “a German far-right party won elections” is a phrase that carries with it some historical baggage.  

The smaller headline is that the far-left populist party, BSW came in third in Thuringia and in Saxony, where AfD came in second. The BSW is somewhat indistinguishable from the AfD on its immigration policies and its Russian policies. Both parties think Germany should stop funding Ukraine and pressure Ukraine to sign a cease-fire. Both parties also favor severe restrictions on immigration. 

This gets to why I think it is dangerous to consider Russian influence only a problem on the right or the left. The extremes of each side, not only in Germany and the U.S., but also in places like France, Italy, the UK, Mexico, Brazil and so on, tend to be sympathetic to Russia. Increasingly right and left are less descriptive, especially in international affairs. It is better to consider where individuals and parties stand on populism and if they consider themselves “insiders” or “outsiders”. If they are anti-establishment and populist there seems to be something about that combination, whether on the right or left, that makes individuals in that orbit vulnerable to Russian propaganda.