In today's #vatnik soup I'll discuss how Russia and Putin influenced politics and attitudes in European countries since (at least) 2007 by investing into the energy, financing and the real estate sectors.
1/18
This analysis is based on Catherine Belton's "Putin's People" and Heather A. Conley's fantastic analysis from 2016 called "The Kremlin Playbook", and it partly explains why the West were so hesitant to act against Russia before Feb, 2022.
2/18
"Putin's Web" is a term coined by Belton. It refers to the interplay between intelligence services & economic services to exploit weaknesses in the system. It's a new version of USSR's "active measures", and they applied this tactic effectively in most European countries.
3/18
In the early 2000's, there were signs that Russia wanted to become closer with the Western world, but they just exported their kleptocratic system into the West instead.
In 2009, a group of Central and Eastern European politicians wrote an open letter to Barack Obama.
4/18
In this letter, they spoke of a "Russian economic war" to change and influence countries attitudes. Russia's goal was to change political orientation via economic influence. The basic idea with this "economic war" was that when Russia made a large investment ...
5/18
... in a country, large state revenue was usually involved. This provided incentive for the politicians to support the projects,as some of the funds also benefited the country (or in case of corruption, the politicians).
6/18
After a while,the political influence became so large that it became a dependency.For example,in the early 2000s Hungary had little to no economic ties with Russia. But they became dependent on Russian energy,which also increased Russia's political influence in the country. 7/18
After the politicians were corrupted with Russian money, the dependency grew again stronger. Russia didn't want to raise too many concerns, which is why they did most of the financing via offshore companies and front organizations.
8/18
Another good example is the Nord Stream project, in which Russians involved several prominent political figures, including Gerhard Schröder and Paavo Lipponen.
Besides energy, Russia invested in the financial sector and in real estate.
9/18
By controlling a bank, Russia could control where that bank invests in a country. Real estate business was used to hide funds and influence local politicians. London is one of the prime examples of Russia's real estate businesses in Europe, ...
10/18
... which is why it's sometimes referred as "Londongrad". Russians have invested over 27 billion pounds in Britain, and at least 1,5 billion pounds of that money have been invested into UK property by the Russians.
11/18
To handle all this incoming money, many dubious companies that managed money flow from Russia have emerged in the UK and in the Netherlands.
In Bulgaria the Russians were looking for anti-US/NATO politicians and funded their parties.
12/18
They also mobilized fake-NGO's and funded the media, making it more pro-Russian. By controlling the key politicians, media, energy and financing sector they had Bulgaria in a tight chokehold.
13/18
Because of this "economic war" so many European countries were screwed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They wanted to condemn their actions, but they also had to consider the dependency on Russian energy and/or money.
14/18
When looking at the EU countries and their support for Ukraine, these statistics are very much in line with Russia's influence operations. Of course there are outliers, such as Finland that was heavily dependent on Russia's natural gas.
15/18
One of the biggest losers in all this is Germany. Prioritizing the idea of Ostpolitik (the idea of "change through trade"), they wouldn't condemn Russia's actions after they invaded Crimea, but actually increased their energy imports and focused on the Nord Stream pipeline.
16/18
Their whole economic model is based on Russia's energy imports and goods exports to China, which is why this transition will be extremely painful for them.
But in a German way, they have been extremely effective in eliminating the use of Russian energy.
17/18
Of course this economic war was just one aspect of Russia's influence operations in the West. As I have written before, they also invested huge sums into propaganda and espionage.
In this 4th Debunk of the Day, we’ll refute an absolute classic of vatnik BS, the crown jewel of peak dishonesty: whataboutism.
Now, not everything that looks like whataboutism is wrong. Seeking consistency or comparing actions or responses is normal. 1/5
But when someone pulls some completely unrelated event, that happened to completely different people, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you know what you’re dealing with: a crass denial of the problem at hand, a bad-faith attempt to derail the topic. 2/5
Logic or chronology plays no role here, nor your opinion on these other topics. You could be the staunchest critic or supporter of these other actions thrown into the discussion, it doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant whether these other things are true or not, or bad or not. 3/5
In this 3rd Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “ending” the war by surrendering or ceding territory.
Nearing four years of the 2-day “special military operation”, Russia is desperate to obtain through other means what they failed to conquer on the battlefield. 1/5
An endless army of vatniks therefore tries to demoralize both Ukrainians and supporters.
They sound noble: “anti-war” or concerned about the fate of Ukraine’s civilians, soldiers and cities. They claim that if we just stop fighting or helping, this horror would magically end. 2/5
What they never mention is… WHO started the war, WHO murders Ukrainians, WHO destroys Ukrainian cities: the same monsters they suggest Ukrainians be at the mercy of. Surrendering wouldn’t end the atrocities of the occupation, it would enable them. Surrendering wouldn’t even…3/5
In today’s Debunk of the Day (2), we’ll look at… nuclear blackmail. Vatniks love using Russia’s nuclear threats as a reason for surrendering or for not lifting a finger to help Ukraine: “see, they have nukes, we have to give them whatever they want”.
The argument is absurd: 1/5
Nuclear deterrence has been a reality for decades. Both the US and Russia have lost wars without resorting to nukes. We are not submitting to the whims of Pakistan or North Korea either. For vatniks, it’s just an insidious way of siding with Putin. 2/5
We can’t just give in to the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail, to the threats their officials and propagandists make five times a day to scare us into letting them have something they know perfectly well is not theirs, with no limit to their appetite. 3/5 vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-thr…
In today’s Vatnik Soup, we introduce a Ukrainian “scholar” and social media activist, Marta Havryshko (@HavryshkoMarta). She’s best known for spreading anti-Ukraine and pro-Kremlin narratives online, along with a habit of spotting neo-Nazis everywhere in Ukraine.
1/20
Marta hails from Ukraine, where she studied history at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. She received her PhD in history in 2010. Her academic work focused on gender-based violence and wartime atrocities, including publications on sexual crimes in occupied Ukraine.
2/20
She is currently working as a visiting Assistant Professor at the Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies at Clark University in the US. According to the center’s website, Marta teaches courses on antisemitism, racism, and gender-based violence in armed conflicts.
In today’s (first) Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “realistic expectations”.
Russia has the GDP of Italy. NATO — which Russia claims to be fighting — has 20 times their GDP, and a much stronger and more modern military. 1/5
Russia’s full scale invasion was supposed to take 2 days, but we’re nearing 4 years. They’ve lost a million men. Their economy is in shambles.
And yet we're letting them set their red lines instead of massive sanctions, strong support for Ukraine, and an immediate sky shield. 2/5
Russia thought their war was “realistic” because we’d let them get away with it. It wouldn’t be “realistic” to invade a European nation and redraw borders by force if the West had a strong and united response.
What’s “realistic” is what public opinion tolerates and accepts. 3/5
In this first (and maybe last?) Basiji Soup, we’ll look at… the Islamic Republic of Iran, its disinformation operations, its hypocrisy, how it sells its atrocities as virtue and its repression as morality, how it serves the Kremlin, and the current protests against it.
1/20
Basijis are members of the most fanatical part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In a broader sense: Iranian regime loyalists & propagandists. They may be fewer than vatniks or wumaos, but the goal is the same: destabilize the West to protect a brutal regime.
2/20
The regime oppressing Iran is a “theocratic” authoritarian state around a “Supreme Leader” hiding behind religion to justify its crimes: censorship, repression, executions, torture and terror — similar to Russia and its “holy war” against Ukraine.