Russian state-controlled media's response to the #PandoraPapers attempts to discredit allegations against individuals linked to the Kremlin and suggests Washington had a hand in the leak.
Russian state media have been amplifying some of the project’s most troubling findings — including the US' emergence as a leading destination for sheltering dark money — while simultaneously trafficking in conspiracies about the origin of the leaks.
State-controlled media have repeatedly boosted skepticism over the absence of US officials in the docs, suggesting Western leaders might've been “screened out” from the data and that “recurring peculiarities” point to “Washington’s hand behind” the disclosures.
In some cases, state-controlled media outlets have gone as far as to promote the idea that the #PandoraPapers revelations are a “political ploy” and the work of Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA.
In its efforts to use #PandoraPapers revelations as a means to discredit democratic governments, Moscow has been highlighting details of wrongdoing by Latin American heads of state, including the presidents of Ecuador, Chile, and DR, among others.
The Kremlin's focus on LatAm is in part because >90 of >330 officials in the data are from the region. But it also belies an effort to reach a part of the world it has frequently sought to advance its interests, including via information manipulation campaigns.
The Kremlin has pursued this line of attack despite, or perhaps because #PandoraPapers records expose individuals investigators suggest are linked to Putin.
Russian state media boosted claims of innocence from those implicated, discrediting the report as “Soros-funded.”
This approach isn't unusual for the Kremlin.
Throughout the pandemic, state media have regularly published content critical of public health measures in other countries that Russia has itself adopted.
The investigation, which is the result of a massive collaboration among more than 600 journalists from 150 media outlets in over 115 countries, is emblematic of the role that vibrant civil societies play in speaking truth to power and keeping citizens informed.
To that end, it adds evidence to the argument that geopolitical competition is rooted in a clash of systems between openness and authoritarianism — in part because for autocrats, liberal systems are inherently threatening.
As my @BrookingsFP colleague @thomaswright08 has argued, journalists expose autocrats' wrongdoings, good governance advocates challenge their legitimacy, and a free and open internet loosens their grip over information.
The Kremlin’s response to the #PandoraPapers highlights important facets of its evolving info strategy, which includes using Western alt-media as a vector for peddling conspiracy theories that cast doubt on official versions of political events
That's in part to deflect blame and in part to depress trust in institutions within target societies.
It also demonstrates an emphasis on amplifying factual information to promote narratives that denigrate democratic governments, using a massive online media apparatus.
More on Russia's info strategy, and how it differs from China's, here 👇
All of this has important implications for policymakers looking for avenues to push back on recent autocratic advances. It suggests that a global campaign to root out corruption and kleptocracy should be a pillar of that effort.
I explained why, for @lawfare, earlier this year 👇
The episode also suggests the need for greater policymaker focus on the use of information manipulation by Russia and its proxies — not just in the Kremlin’s backyard, but in ours.
Thrilled that this work is part of @BrookingsInst's Global Forum on Democracy and Technology.
Unclear whether its centrally orchestrated or organic, but there are several examples of Chinese officials retweeting suspicious accounts, as Bret Schafer notes here: foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/09/chi…
.@SecureDemocracy looked at more than 35K vaccine-related messages from Russian, Chinese, and Iranian diplomats, government officials, and state media outlets on Twitter, YouTube, and state-sponsored news websites get a handle on their narratives.
What did we find? THREAD
FIRST: While there were few instances of any studied country promoting verifiably false info about vaccines, reports of safety concerns related to certain Western vaccines were often sensationalized while key contextual info was omitted or downplayed.
For EX: Iran’s Fars News Agency tweeted that the Pfizer vaccine “kill[ed] six people in America,” omitting (and never correcting) that:
- 4 of the 6 ppl who died had received a placebo
- authorities determined no causal connection b/w vaccines and the deaths of the other 2
The team at @SecureDemocracy took a look at 2,900 tweets from China's diplomatic and state media accounts over the past three days to get a sense of Beijing's messaging on #coronavirus. Here's what we found.
First, China is using the #coronavirus crisis to position itself as a provider of public goods (an implicit contrast to the United States) -- in other words, as the new partner of first resort for our allies in Europe.
Among the top tweets by engagement are posts from China's embassies in France, Italy, and Spain. All of them highlight assistance from China.
As he so aptly puts it: Putin's ultimate goal is not to strengthen a particular candidate or party, but to weaken the United States.
We at @SecureDemocracy have been tracking Russian overt messaging on the 2020 contest. Its all about raising doubts about the legitimacy of the process and amplifying fissures. It mentions particular candidates, but the candidates are not the point.
A few thoughts I hope don't get lost in the crush of news around Russian efforts to interfere in 2020 (a thread).
1) In this broadest sense, this isn't really news. Over months, multiple senior administration officials have warned of Russian activity targeting 2020. That it aims to undermine confidence in the vote and puts the primary in its crosshairs isn't surprising.
2) That's in large part because Russian interference never stopped! It didn't end after 2016, or 2018. Elections are but flashpoints in what we must understand is a long term, ongoing effort to weaken our democracy.