When it comes to disinformation warfare, Russian President Vladimir Putin is, of course, a pro. As a career KGB agent, it is what he knows and what he does. That point was again underscored by a recent US Department of Justice (DOJ) case alleging a systematic Russian effort to interfere in November’s presidential election.
That did happen in 2016, but it is 2024. By now you have to ask why Putin bothers — given the industrial quantities of homegrown disinformation we are producing ourselves — and just how much attention we should be paying to his so-called active measures.
The DOJ’s 277-page affidavit alleges that Russia has been running a broad, covert election interference project called Doppelganger, and as a result has shut down dozens of Web sites traced back to the country. All of this was being organized in meetings at the presidential administration in Moscow, better known as the Kremlin. According to notes taken during these meetings, at least some were presided over by Putin’s first deputy chief of staff, Sergey Kiriyenko.
It is hard to overstate Kiriyenko’s centrality to the Kremlin. A one-time liberal, he is now the point man for Putin’s domestic political strategy, including the recent presidential elections, as well as for digital media and for administration of the four Ukrainian regions that Putin unilaterally annexed to Russia on Sept. 30, 2022. He is deeply loyal, runs the Russian association for Putin’s beloved martial arts and is a close ally of Yury Kovalchuk, the billionaire often described as “Putin’s banker.”
And just for the avoidance of doubt, the meeting notes that the US somehow got hold of — and which I assume to be genuine — confirm that a report on Doppleganger’s progress was sent to Putin himself. The Kremlin denies the existence of Doppleganger.
According to the DOJ’s case, Doppelganger directed troll farms to write comments on posts, as well as to produce fake articles under fake or forged bylines, often on fake Web sites made to mimic those of US and European flagship media outlets.
The goals laid out include not just influencing the next US election, but also undermining public support for the defense of Ukraine and discrediting the US, the UK and NATO in general. A project called “International Conflict Incitement” aimed to stir up existing domestic conflicts within US allies or to “artificially create” new ones. One enthusiastic suggestion recorded by the Kremlin meeting’s notetaker was to: “make a fake on an American soldier that raped a German woman. That would be great!”
There is detailed written guidance for the troll farms on what messages to push, as well as quotas for them to meet — 60,000 comments per month for Germany and France combined. There is also astute advice for those less steeped in the ways of disinformation “to use a minimum of fake news and a maximum of realistic information.”
However, Putin’s obsession with disinformation displays a weakness. It reflects his deeply held belief that voters and populations as a whole have no thoughts or agency of their own; that their attitudes are instead the products of manipulation, either by his own special services and other branches of the state — especially within Russia, where the Kremlin exercises tight control over traditional and social media — or by foreign agencies, such as the CIA.
So, when more than 1 million Ukrainians took to the streets in 2013-2014, spending months outdoors in subzero temperatures and often under brutal police attack to protest, this was not — in Putin’s view — an expression of popular will, but a coup d’etat orchestrated by the CIA. That same misconception led him to believe the local population would not fight back when he launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine eight years later. It was a catastrophic error.
The sad truth is that by now Putin can probably save himself some money. When you have the likes of former US president Donald Trump, Elon Musk or the UK’s Nigel Farage to stir up social conflict and amplify disinformation in the name of free speech, who needs operation Doppelganger? Twitter alone publishes about 6 billion posts a month, one-third of them political, dwarfing the quotas set for Russia’s troll factories. And while it is hard to quantify how many of those posts consist of deliberate falsehoods, several studies have found that fake news gets shared more on social media — 70 percent more, according to one by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers.
Russian interference operations are real, but these are our own problems. Our homegrown Web sites, talk show hosts and bloggers are now churning out more fake news, conspiracy theories and incitement to violence than Russia could ever hope to invent.
This kind of disinformation is so filled with malice that it is comforting to think of it as a foreign plot. When riots erupted in the English town of Southport in July, over the stabbing of six-year-old girls at a Taylor Swift-themed yoga and dance class, a fabricated story gave the attacker an Arabic sounding name and said he had come to Britain by boat, as an illegal immigrant the previous year. The story spread like wildfire. It was passed on by far-right UK sites, political parties and influencers — as well as by a Web site called Channel3Now that appeared to have Pakistani and Russian connections and has since been shut down. Violent anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim protests continued for days after the court gave the perpetrator’s true identity, as a 17-year-old, UK-born Christian.
There is no hard evidence Russia set that fire, though no doubt the officials heading Doppleganger would be celebrating if so. What is certain is that Putin believes himself to be in a zero-sum conflict with the West, and sees both free-speech protections and the democratic process of choosing leaders as vulnerabilities he can exploit. However, let us not make the same mistake as an aging Cold War spy, believing our chaos and dysfunction are in any significant respect the work of the Kremlin. He is just egging us on and enjoying the show.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS