Thread: I am aware that the Institute of Modern Russia has published a report on 'Hybrid Analytica', involving charges that Kremlin-linked interests are using Western universities and think tanks as cover to provide credibility for influence campaigns in the the US, UK and EU. /1
My institution, King's College London, is on their list. To be clear, the report does not name the department I run, the King's Russia Institute, nor does it accuse me or any of my colleagues of doing anything wrong. And I do not believe that the authors meant to do so. /2
The accusations regarding King's are, in fact, serious. They involve Friedbert Pfluger, a former German public official and consultant, who has an affiliation with another part of King's, a small energy center called EUCERS. He has no relationship with the KRI. /3
This summer, we learned from a German investigation that he had received commercial contracts from interests linked to Nord Stream 2 at the same time that EUCERS and the KRI were publishing a report on Nord Stream 2. The report was funded by members of the NS2 consortium. /4
We do not believe that there was any conflict of interest involving the report itself. The report's sponsors were noted in the preface, and neither they nor Pfluger had any involvement in the research or editorial work. /5
Nonetheless, we had been assured by Pfluger that he had no commercial relationship with NS2 or Gazprom. The German investigation, for which we are grateful, revealed a breach of trust between EUCERS and the KRI, which led us to sever all ties with that center. /6
Academia operates on trust. We cannot and should not police everything that all of our colleagues do and say. There can be no institutional limits on freedom of speech and research. Otherwise, the value of what we do dies. /7
As such, Pfluger (and anyone else) is entitled to receive funding from NS2. They are also entitled to support the project. But no one is entitled to misrepresent their interests and affiliations. Trust must be accompanied by transparency, and that was breached. That pains me. /8
But I also have an appeal to the authors of the report: clarify your intentions and the limits of your accusations. /9
Those who read the fine print will see the details I have outlined above. They will not find the steps that the Russia Institute has taken since, although these were known to the authors and they are relevant if the reader is to reach a conclusion about institutional guilt. /10
Most readers, however, will only see the headlines: the maps and lists of institutions, including King's, alongside many others of equal or greater stature. That tars us with a very broad brush. /11
On a back-of-the-envelope count, there are 30+ members of academic staff at King's who work on Russia. Not one of them works for EUCERS. Not one of them is implicated by the report's accusations. But all of us (plus our students) are tainted by the report's broad brush. /12
I'll survive, and so will the Russia Institute. I have grown a thick skin. But for my colleagues and students who are at the beginnings of their careers, the cloud of suspicion created by un-careful allegations can be immensely damaging. /13
To be clear, I'm not here to pick a fight. I do not want to impugn the motives of the report's authors or their sincerity. Instead, I'm trying to clarify to the public what they did not. If they choose to issue their own clarifications, that would, of course, be welcome. /END
