On Dec. 20 last year, the Kremlin requested that Facebook block a page used to rally opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Facebook initially agreed, but allowed a new page to be opened the next day.
By demonstrating that at least some Western companies care about values that cannot be expressed on their bottom line, Facebook undermined a key claim of Russian propaganda — and thereby cast doubt on other false assertions that are helping to prop up Putin’s regime.
This was no easy decision for Facebook.
By refusing to comply with the Kremlin’s request, Facebook openly defied a Russian law allowing Internet censorship. As a result, the government can simply ban Facebook in Russia, where it has a formidable — and now fully loyal — local competitor, Vkontakte.
When VKontakte’s founder Pavel Durov refused to cooperate with the government last year, he was forced to resign from the company, sell his stake and leave the country.
It is not difficult to discern why the Kremlin would take a single Facebook page so seriously.
With Putin’s foreign-policy misadventures wreaking havoc on the Russian economy — on a scale that not even the most pessimistic observers anticipated — any challenge to his leadership is perceived as a serious threat.
Russia’s economic decline is accelerating.
Early last month, Putin signed a federal budget for this year that foresaw 2 percent annual GDP growth and a budget deficit amounting to 0.5 percent of GDP, but collapsing oil prices, together with tough economic sanctions imposed by the US and the EU, meant that by the end of the month the government was predicting a 4 percent decline in GDP and a budget deficit of 3.5 percent of GDP — and that was following budget cuts worth 1 percent of GDP.
Based on these figures, it is estimated that, by the end of this year, Russia will spend 70 percent of the Reserve Fund accrued over the past decade or so, when oil prices were high.
If low oil prices persist, and Western economic sanctions remain in place, Russia will run out of cash by the end of next year.
Nonetheless, Putin’s approval rating remains at about 80 percent. Given his strategy’s evident economic bankruptcy — exemplified by double-digit inflation and the ruble’s unprecedented volatility — his supporters may seem irrational.
In fact, the poll numbers are a testament to the power of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine, which has achieved its goal of convincing Russians that regime change would bring political chaos and further economic turbulence.
Propaganda is so critical to the regime’s survival that spending on government-run media actually rises amid economic strife.
Of course, propaganda would lose its impact if ordinary Russians were exposed to alternate solutions and perspectives. That is why those who defy the regime or offer convincing alternatives to Putin must be repressed and their ideas censored — everywhere, including social media.
The Facebook page was created to mobilize supporters to protest the prosecution of the anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, a leading opposition figure, on trumped-up fraud charges.
A rally was planned and a massive 33,000 people promised on Facebook to participate.
It would not be the first time Russians took to the streets in support of Navalny. In 2013, about 10,000 people protested when Navalny received a five-year prison sentence after being convicted of equally trumped-up charges. Navalny was released the next morning.
A couple of months later, Navalny ran for mayor of Moscow, receiving 27 percent of the vote — almost enough to force the incumbent, who enjoyed support from state-run media and virtually unlimited funds, into a runoff.
That election proved that the opposition could credibly challenge the regime at the polls, strengthening the Kremlin’s belief that people such as Navalny should remain under house arrest — and be denied access to the media and the Internet.
The Russian government blocked Navalny’s blog and launched new investigations of him and his colleagues. It illegally prohibited his Party of Progress from participating in elections and, in an effort to mar his reputation, it accused him of fraud and embezzlement — allegations that failed to stick, owing to the obvious political motivation behind them.
The robust show of support for Navalny on Facebook scared the Kremlin. So it tried to cheat the protesters by deciding on Dec. 29 last year to render the verdict the next day, instead of waiting for Thursday, but within just a few hours, about 15,000 people joined a new protest page for Dec. 30 — despite New Year vacations, the short notice and frigid weather.
The government took fright again, giving Navalny a suspended sentence, rather than a real prison term, in the hope of preventing further unrest. However, it did hand a three-and-a-half-year prison term to Navalny’s brother, Oleg.
The verdict was not particularly successful in assuaging the protesters, several thousand of whom staged an anti-Putin demonstration in Moscow. Navalny himself broke house arrest to join his supporters, but was swiftly detained — along with more than 100 of the protesters.
The impact of the Facebook-assisted mobilization should not be underestimated.
Had the government not feared further popular unrest, Nalvany might be going to prison for the next decade, with his brother spending up to eight years there with him, but it is not just the protesters who made a difference. Facebook’s refusal to comply with the Kremlin’s request exposed the inaccuracy of the Russian government’s claims that, in the West, self-interest always trumps principles and therefore the West has no moral right to criticize Russia for violating international law.
This is also the message of the sanctions regime, which Western governments have pursued, despite its considerable economic cost.
One hopes that, by exposing the flaws in this key message of Russian propaganda, Facebook’s principled decision shows Russians that there is, in fact, a credible alternative to Putin — one that they should pursue.
Sergei Guriev is professor of economics at Sciences Po, Paris. He had to leave Russia in 2013 after speaking out in support of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alexei Navalny.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.