Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Russia Is a Threat, But Not Because They’re Hacking John Podesta’s Emails
A Russian fleet is steaming toward Syria from the North Sea through the English Channel. The New York Times, formerly a newspaper, has no information about this anywhere on the front page and none on its world page either. You can read about how Egypt is having a sugar shortage and people with a sweet tooth are undergoing hardship because of it — no, really, you can — but you won’t be able to read about the real growing threat from Russia.
Published in General
Here’s another report worth reading, for people who have a bit of time to spare today. The authors are focused on Europe, not the United States; the title is Full-Scale Democratic Response to Hostile Disinformation Operations: 50 Measures to Oust Kremlin Hostile Disinformation Influence out of Europe.
I’d be curious to know if anyone here can think of other measures, and whether you think any of these measures could or should be applied in the US.
I don’t understand your point: Are you saying that Russia is justified in behaving as it does? From that, do you conclude that we needn’t be concerned about this behavior?
This makes sense to me. Russia is in deep economic doodoo (to use the technical term). US frackers have forever capped any demand-driven price rise for Russian energy exports. Corruption and cronyism are working their magic so there is zero hope of a turnaround.
An elected government would be terrified but Putin knows that the appearance of a Soviet style expansion in conflict against the old enemy (the US-Led West) might create braod psychological justification for returning to Soviet-style shortages and lines.
A shot fired against one of his ships in the Med or the Channel would justify seizing Baltic territory without fear of a strong US response (unless you count John Kerry bringing down the hammer by offering up parts of Germany and Poland in secret ‘peace’ talks). And all economic hardships from now on would instantly by the fault of the West.
Putin is playing a weak hand and does not even have to cheat to keep taking pots because Obama is the weakest player ever to sit at the big boys’ table.
Almost none, most are appalling. The ones that aren’t appalling are pablum.
For the appalling:
Let’s take “1.” – “Codify disinformation efforts into the European Global Strategy (by which I assume they mean this document).” What will this mean? It will mean the EU will take a position on what is “true” and punish anything that is not “true.” And it will be punishment, first through naming and shaming, then through political pressure and finally by jail time. We see this over and over when a government takes a position on “truth.”
So free speech is abrogated, as determined by “experts.” Even if MEP’s or national governments want to descend into Orwellian control of public speech that’s antithetical to the 1st Amendment.
How about “12”: Monitor and name connections between Kremlin and extremist groups. Who are these extremist groups? Well the link gives us a clue: UKIP, Alternative For Germany, Jobbik, the Front National.
In other words the EU needs to start surveilling anyone who expresses opposition to the EU itself and tries to work through the established political process. I’m against unwarranted surveillance based solely on political opinion.
38: “The Commission should appoint 15 million EUR starting 2017 for NGO projects.” Who’s staffing these NGO’s? What’s their mission? What’s the budget at the end of the day? Who do they answer to? Well, I’m sure this will be worked out in the U.S. We can trust President Clinton to have the best interests of the country at heart when directing tax dollars to a NGO dedicated to countering disinformation like “trickle down economics” or “voter ID laws”.
42: “Public broadcasters could dedicate special attention to covering disinformation.”
Translation: we can tell the media what to say directly and what is a lie. And people will trust the media! Aside from the First Amendment implications, again, there’s a small problem: Pew Research estimated in April that 6% of the American public have a lot of confidence in the mainstream media. Six percent. And you think giving the media an approved narrative will help?
There’s some pablum too:
2. “European diplomacy” (By which the writer means the EU’s diplomats) “should address disinformation aggression.” Yes, Putin is going to be really scared by some Belgian calling him a liar.
8. “Eurostat should conduct polls on vulnerability of European socities” What are “illiberal” narratives? Illiberal as in the UK should make all its own laws? Illiberal like leaving the Euro when it becomes insupportable?
49. “Civic & media education should be taught at…schools” – so Unions need to work alongside NGO’s (more jobs for the boys) to teach civics. That’ll go well here, no ideological bias in NGO’s or Teachers Unions in the US.
Maddening and terrifying, @austinmurrey. Thanks for doing the reading and analysis most of us are too lazy/depressed to do.
Spiegel’s conclusion:
An example: a 2014 Brookings piece cited Gorbachev’s recollections of 1990 but failed to mention the other sources and the larger context described five years previously by Spiegel.
There were a series of miscalculations regarding Bosnia.
France and Britain sought the consolidation of a Christian Europe (!) without Bosnia (which, according to Taylor Branch in The Clinton Tapes is the real reason they opposed arming Bosnia.) This ignored the demographic collapse of “Christian Europe” which was already well underway.
Meanwhile, Germany (where the Muslim Brotherhood had long been active, in parallel with Turkish Islamist organizations whose members were brought in by Germany to compensate for its own demographic collapse) sought to end the arms embargo on Bosnia.
The US under Clinton triangulated: clandestinely arming the Bosniaks (whose leader Izetbegovic was portrayed as secular rather than the Brotherhood affiliated Islamist that he was) and bringing into the fray Sunni jihadis backed by the Saudis and Pakistan, plus the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah.
First: If you don’t agree that Jobbik is an extremist group, you obviously don’t believe that there’s such a thing as “an extremist group.” I’d argue that the others meet that definition too, but let’s at least agree about Jobbik, shall we?
Second: What would you propose Europe do to counter this kind of disinformation? Keep in mind that we supported strategies just like this during the Cold War, which we won.
Third: Why do you think it’s wrong to name and shame people who are consorting with an enemy?
No one thought “duck and cover” was an effective solution for having a nuke detonate overhead. But between the area of total destruction around ground zero of a blast and distant areas of no damage would be a rather large circle of significant, but survivable, damage. In that zone, taking cover could mean the difference between death and survival, or avoiding getting blinded by flying bits of glass, for example.
First: I agree that Jobbik is extremist, I disagree with how they’re lumping in every other group they dislike with them and I realize what that means in the nature of the document.
Imagine a Brooking’s Institution list of prominent “fringe” conservative journalists like “Claire Berlinski, Charles Krauthammer and Alex Jones.” Don’t you agree Alex Jones is a fringe journalist? Don’t you object to being told you’re of a kind with Alex Jones? I’d object on your behalf.
Second: I trust the Thatcher, Reagan – hell even the Kennedy, Johnson and Carter – administrations a hell of a lot more than I trust the EU. The EU has shown time and again that it’s their way, period. The idea of the EU bureaucracy directing funds to special NGO’s to publicize “the truth” makes my skin crawl.
The idea of a US taxpayer funded bureaucracy doing the same with the recent history of the IRS, EPA, FBI corruption, the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin and myriad other incidents is a bad idea. Why in the world would I trust the likes of Lois Lerner and James Comey with exposing “the truth”?
Third: First, who defines “the enemy”? Today it’s the Kremlin, tomorrow it could be Budapest or London or Athens or Rome. Second, the government, nor any government funded entity, has no business designating objects of hate. If a media organization does an exposé on Russian funding of AfD, that’s fine. If Angela Merkel goes after a comedian for mocking Erdogan that’s not fine.
The bottom line is that the EU, and in fact many national governments, in Europe have proven themselves in the past to be untrustworthy
“Being concerned about this behavior” means exactly what? Russia moving missiles into Kaliningrad is viewed as provocative by the West; the fact that St. Petersburg has for many months been within range of NATO artillery emplaced in the Baltics is viewed in Moscow as provocative.
I think that the West should put the squeeze on Poroshenko to implement Minsk II and allow limited home rule for Donetsk and Luhansk in exchange for Russia’s putting the squeeze on the separatists in those regions. I think we should offer to withdraw the forces in the Baltics which Russia says they see as a threat in exchange for Russia withdrawing the missiles from Kaliningrad. I don’t think that there is a chance in hell that the US and NATO will use the guns to wage war with Russia to defend the Baltic states, so why rattle sabers there?
I think that Russia’s analysis of Syria is correct: if it’s not Assad in Damascus it’ll be jihadis. Maybe the US should have acted differently in Syria and then things would be different – but that was then. We reelected Obama. I think we should work to try to reinstate the humanitarian cease fire in Syria that we wrecked when we bombed the Syrians.
If we were all taking money from Putin or praising him as a hero, don’t you think it would make sense to lump us together? These groups aren’t chosen at random.
Thanks.
Well, the EU’s what we’ve got. If you think a united front against Putin is a good idea, there’s no other plausible vehicle.
But it’s not “the truth.” It is the truth. Unless you think Putin’s not a threat, or a trivial one.
Okay, do you think the Kremlin is not an enemy? In that case, we’ve identified our disagreement. Otherwise, you seem to be making some kind of postmodern case that “enemy” is completely subjective.
It could be, I suppose, but let’s deal with today — things that are really happening are more urgent problems than some hypothetical scenario in which London has rogue. Surely you don’t see a moral equivalence between the EU, with all its defects obvious, and Russia (Crimea, and eastern Ukraine) under Putin?
So Russia’s an “object of hate,” rather than a country that just he moved nuclear-capable missiles close to Poland and Lithuania, sent an aircraft-carrier group down the North Sea and the English Channel, threatened to shoot down any American plane that attacks the Assad’s forces, is moving ahead with a program to produce a ground-launched cruise missiles in violation of the INF treaty, and shows television newscasts full of ballistic missiles and bomb shelters while warning that “impudent behaviour” on our part might have “nuclear consequences?” A country ruled by a despot who has brought back the secret-police state, Soviet-style coercive psychiatry, a new gulag of political prisoners, the falsification of history, the loss of academic freedom, the use of beatings and assassinations, and who daily eructs and exports a crude and contradictory mixture of anti-Westernism, nationalist bombast, and Soviet nostalgia? One that’s blasting Europe with propaganda, twisting its arms with energy supplies, channelling money into its politics, and sponsoring subversion? There’s a reality here that you seem to be dismissing with the quotation marks around “object of hate,” as if pointing this out were merely the latest politically-correct fad.
What does the Boehmermann case have to do with Russia? The case was thrown out, by the way — but this is irrelevant.
So you think this means they should do nothing? I’m sure you can’t really mean this, so I don’t know what you mean. Again, we supported measures very much like this during the Cold War.
So … okay. We just fundamentally disagree, and there’s no possible way around it.
I think that if we recognize that Russia has real concerns and that the West is not a blushing innocent virgin, we can dial things back in Europe. I think that if we do that and cooperate with Putin in Syria, it will deescalate things significantly.
We will have to eat crow, but I think Putin has correctly seen that we will not go to war over Ukraine or the Baltic states. In contrast, in Cold War I, the Soviets correctly saw that we would go to war if their tanks rolled into the Fulda Gap. It’s worth noting that the anticipated conflict there was not inside the borders of Mother Russia. NATO correctly saw that the Soviets would go to war if NATO rolled eastwards.
Unfortunately, rather than speaking softly and carrying a big stick Obama has been running his mouth and whittling away at the stick. That has created a new reality. So did NATO expansion in the face of rising Russian nationalism under Putin. We assumed he’d fail. Oops.
In the new reality, we try a goodwill gesture – and then, if Putin’s response does not show cooperation, if we have the will (and that’s a big if; if we don’t any threats on our part will be seriously counterproductive) we do something. What we don’t do is keep writing checks with our mouth that our butts can’t cash, or that we’re not willing to risk our butts to cash.
I think so. I wish we were in a position to do what you think ought to be done – we would have much more freedom of action and would be speaking from a position of strength that would decrease the risk of war. I don’t think the political or economic reality at home supports that any more.
Uncle Joe Biden has been running US policy in Ukraine, much to his family’s profit.
Diane James lasted eighteen days as the leader of UKIP. And the idea that UKIP is simply a front for Russian intelligence or to do Putin’s bidding discounts the millions of people who voted UKIP. James Delingpole wanted to stand for Parliament for UKIP! What are you doing as an editor of Ricochet to oppose the London Calling podcast so you’re not helping to disseminate Russian propaganda?
Every European nation has multiple TV stations, newspapers, blogs, national intelligence services – they do not need Brussels to oppose disinformation, nor do they need pan-Europe NGO’s to tell them what to say.
What makes you think that the putatively anti-Putin NGO’s will stick to opposing Putin alone? What happens if Putin or his successor gains control of the NGO’s or a member government and starts using these disinformation-discrediting sources to spread disinformation? What about Saudi-backed disinformation? Or Chinese? Or American?
Russia is a geopolitical foe of the US and European nations. So, for that matter, is China. I don’t trust the EU to create organizations to fight a singular enemy and not to identify other opponents, particularly domestic opponents, as equally or more deserving of their attention.
This is an attempt to redirect from my point that we should not have governments, particularly the inarguably corrupt US government, determining and disseminating official truth and untruth at the systematic level called for by the proposal you provided. The proposal is concerned with Russian disinformation feeding domestic opposition to the EU, not military deployments, Syria or the treatment of Russians in Russia.
The idea that they can change the target of their remit to oppose disinformation to Athens for reporting on the devastating effects of the adoption of the Euro by a nation who should never be included or economic reports from London post-Brexit is not farfetched, nor is it concerning military deployment.
(Continued)
It is entirely relevant to my point that you cannot trust governments with abridgement of speech, nor should we create organizations to determine what correct speech is either under color of law or through government funding. The Boehmermann case is an example of why you cannot trust governments with that power in Europe.
Citizens United is an example in the US: just because SCOTUS threw out the McCain-Feingold rule that attempted to muzzle political speech doesn’t mean people who opposed McCain-Feingold were wrong to do so until SCOTUS ruled or that its proponents were pure of heart and to be trusted until that moment.
If European governments want to do something, the things they should do are to increase transparency with regards to political funding and encourage a vigorous and inquisitive free press. If they’re worried about media cooption they can also put in place laws that allow for corporations records to be publically available.
Funding special NGO’s, government committees and implementing surveillance and intelligence probes against political opponents neither promotes nor secures freedom from Russian interference.
You think that our bombing the Syrians wrecked the ceasefire? Do you see no difference between a screw-up and a deliberate policy of levelling a whole city?
But that’s exactly what they’re suggesting. Almost verbatim. I don’t think we have a significant disagreement:
No, it isn’t. I don’t think I’ll have much luck persuading you of that, but if anyone wants to read the document in question, it’s here.
The war drums do seem to be beating loudly in DC, mostly by people that seem to think they can contain it to “safe” war like air strikes and cyber ops. When wars come, they tend not to adhere to your plans and schemes.
That document is arguing for expansions of government spending, power and control of information. It argues for more government. I argue for less government.
It’s called “Full-Scale Democratic Response to Hostile Disinformation Operations 50 Measures to Oust Kremlin Hostile Disinformation Influence out of Europe”.
It’s summary I will quote below:
You linked it yourself.
If we’re concerned about his behavior we stop making empty threats and consider Russian interests in our planning. Obama makes threats then backs them up, if at all, ineffectually. Hillary Clinton is pugnacious, but to back up her threats would require wars that would cripple what’s left of the rule of law and civil society in the USA.
The internationalist European experiment is failing. Healthy nationalism is handicapped by the survival of the Soviet propaganda ploys that nationalism (except, under Stalin, for Russian nationalism) is the root of fascism (and that the Nazis weren’t socialists.) This tends to be self-fulfilling; non-neonazi nationalists have no natural European political homes.
Europe, except for France (even in France the numbers would be worse except for devout Muslims living within its borders) is in a demographic death spiral. So is Russia. So is China. Russia and China are making grabs for resources to cushion the fall. Europe has a mature economy and an aging workforce; it has been importing Muslims hoping for workers to support its welfare states; that’s not working so well and “not well” now includes violent jihad; it would take almost all of France’s security budget just to keep track of the jihadis presently in France.
The Europeans are lost. They can legislate and regulate — expand the bureaucracy and push around the NGOs — but they’ll never successfully defend against their enemies (of which Russia is just one; they’ve invited mass immigration from another) until they believe in something more than government.
The impulse to use government in this way is so characteristic of the EU and the Left — but I repeat myself.
I think the Russians are correct in viewing al Nusra as dangerous jihadis. (I think McCain’s photo op was delusional.) I think we are playing with fire when we arm al Nusra. I think the Russians understandably see that as diminishing our anti-jihadi credibility. I think the Russians have long memories and think that the US has Russian blood on its hands due to our arming the jihadis in Afghanistan. so that when we carry out aerial reconnaissance over a Syrian base and then bomb it they (and in this they are not alone) are skeptical when we say it was an accident. How I see it is irrelevant. How the Russians see it is relevant.
There might once have been effective non-jihadi opposition to Assad. Whatever there once was, Obama’s inaction destroyed. Whether the Russian strategy about Assad was right all along is now irrelevant save to future historians.
I fear that Russia’s is (especially with the Libyan catastrophe in mind) for now the least bad approach for Syria. Yes, the Russians and the Syrians are war criminals. Do we go from Cold War II and a proxy war to a shooting war with Russia for that reason?
If we do, what happens when the Chinese take advantage and attack Taiwan? It looks as though our carrier battle groups are seriously blunted there.
We view Nusra as dangerous jihadis, too. The Russians claim we’re arming them. All of these rumors trace back to Russia (or Seymour Hersh).
I am sure that there is no possible unintended consequences of the government controlling information. It seems to work well in places like Russia and Syria.
If you can only print what the government approves of as the truth, it should be easy to learn about government corruption.
This isn’t what they propose. Really, it isn’t. Why not read the proposal? Won’t take but 15 minutes.
Not just the Russians, I think. And the State Department says, “well, not directly arming them.” But money and weapons are fungible.
Also, this. Don’t know if the German source is a Russian conduit or not.