Author: Max

The 2018 G-20 Buenos Aires summit came to the end. Leaders of the main world powers once again sounded global problems already known, but did not propose any rational solution, having made a joint photo they left. The main intrigue of this summit consisted in other thing – whether presidents Putin and Trump would meet. Results of the geopolitical totalizator are known to us – they did not meet and even could not communicate normally two minutes near the lavatory to what for some last years the Russian leader has already got used. The American president did not even vouchsafe the Russian counterpart with nothing significant than simple handshake.

The official reason of such cool welcome is caused by aggressive actions of the Russian militarymen in the Strait of Kerch: attack and seizure of the Ukrainian vessel a week before. The summit in Buenos Aires was similar to that held in Australia in November, 2014 in terms of the attitude towards Putin. That time Putin had to run away with shame, without having waited for its end. Let’s remind that summit happened against a background of invasion into Ukraine of active forces of the Russian army and crash of MH17 Boeing. In Buenos Aires the situation was similar, if not to take into account inappropriate jokes of the Russian president about impossibility of the NATO ships’ pass to the Ukrainian ports by the Sea of Azov. Though for recent years Putin has already said more than once about impossibility of what that after took place. It is worth remembering advantage of sanctions or prevention of raising of a retirement age in Russia. But in practice …

It is very important to specify that in realities of the Russian political elite when everything is bad in domestic policy, the negative is hidden under “achievements” in the external policy. And here a such failure! So paid propagandists of federal mass media had to be content only with calculation of number of the summit participants who stood between Putin and Trump. And they really were engaged in it! “Between them four more people, if it is interesting, stood” – that undoubtedly points to a brilliant geopolitical victory of Russia. It is a sarcasm.

There is also good news! Incidentally or intentionally, but at G-20 summit Putin was put near the crown prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad who now is listed among “pariahs” because of his implication in murder of the oppositional journalist Jamal Khashoggi in last October in the territory of the Saudi Embassy in Turkey. They could also talk and perhaps discuss important questions, for example, what it is like to be in isolation. Thereby they pointed to Russia its real place in the modern world once again. It should be taken into account that Saudi Arabia, though is a rich country, but its real influence on world politics is insignificant, even in own region. So diplomatic progress of Putin looks even less significant.

There are many princes and other pretenders to the throne (and after Khashoggi’s case Mohammad has a small chance to receive the crown) in Saudi Arabia. That is a problem! Russia has only one president as official propaganda claims. While he is engaged in the game “Russia-superstate”, Russia will remain further among pariahs and a raw appendage for other countries.

Read More

Russia is making little effort to disguise its leadership role in the self-proclaimed people’s republics in eastern Ukraine. Putin needs the regions to blackmail Kiev.

Does anyone still remember Donetsk? Europe, it seems, has long since forgotten the place. And yet there’s still a war going on there — one that has lasted longer than Hitler’s campaign against the Soviet Union. Soldiers and civilians on both sides die there almost daily.

On Sunday, Donetsk was back in the headlines because of elections held in the self-proclaimed Peoples’ Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. The European Union and the United States aren’t recognizing the vote because it represents a violation of the Minsk agreement. Kiev has described it as a farce, saying the elections have nothing to do with the will of the people. And Russia? Moscow is once again trying to convey the impression that it nothing to do with the ballot.

Sunday’s election does in fact deserve attention, because this time they were less a provocation than the product of political negligence. It goes back to Aug. 31, the day of the assassination of Alexander Zakharchenko, the head of state and prime minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic. When he and a handful of supporters entered a cafe that evening just around the corner from the government’s headquarters, an explosive device went off above the entrance.

International Newsletter

There is much to learn from what happened in the wake of the Donetsk assassination. First and foremost: Russia doesn’t particularly care about honesty when it comes to its dealings with the people of the eastern Ukrainian separatist republics.

After the explosion, Moscow — which always seems to view offense and the best form of defense — immediately accused Kiev of murder. The elimination of Zakharchenko, the Russian Foreign Ministry said, meant that Ukraine was transforming the hostilities in the Donbass region into a “bloody war.” The head of Russian parliament, the Duma, said he viewed the ongoing peace negotiations as having ended in failure and that the assassination “resets the meaning of the Minsk agreements to zero.” The same day, security forces in Donetsk reported they had arrested “Ukrainian saboteurs” responsible for the murder and that they would soon reveal the men behind the slaying. But that never happened. Soon, there was no longer any talk of the alleged saboteurs either. There is now broad consensus that Zakharchenko was either killed by Russian forces or by people from within his own camp.

Zakharchenko, who took power as prime minister of the Donetsk Republic in 2014 and later declared in an interview with DER SPIEGEL that he wished for a “Russian spring” in Donetsk and Crimea, was considered obstinate and difficult to control. Insiders in Moscow say that for the months before his assassination, he had been under a kind of house arrest. In an hours-long meeting with a high-ranking Western diplomat, which would prove to be his last with a foreigner, Zakharchenko said he was soon planning to step down from his post. By that point, however, he no longer had things under control.

As with Zakharchenko, a number of high-ranking separatists and commanders have either been sidelined or toppled in recent years. At the end of last year, it was the turn of Igor Plotnisky, the leader of the neighboring Luhansk People’s Republic. He wasn’t killed, but he fled to Russia. Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky are both signatories to the 2015 Minsk Agreement, alongside François Hollande, Angela Merkel, Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin. They were supposed to be guarantors of peace in eastern Ukraine.

Cleaning Up

It was a role they never lived up to. Instead, they did as they pleased and relied on criminal methods to secure their power. And all of it was accepted by Moscow in order to maintain their story that local representatives of the people governed in Donetsk and Luhansk. Then came the assassination. Even Putin’s own people can’t seriously believe in the idea of a Kiev-backed conspiracy. Particularly given what has happened since: an ongoing purge of the separatist leadership in Donetsk. The deputy head of government was arrested and people close to him left the republic “for security reasons.” The minister for taxes and duties — who was considered to be one of Zakharchenko’s closest friends — also disappeared.

A special commission is now examining “illegal” expropriations said to have been initiated by the minister. Among other things, he is said to have confiscated the property of a large Donetsk merchant market with armed fighters last year, embezzling 850 million rubles in the process. Specialists with Moscow’s domestic intelligence service, the FSB, are investigating further cases of corruption, and armed separatist units have been placed under Russian control.

Taken together, the steps would seem to confirm longstanding claims made by Igor Girkin, the officer — suspected of being a member of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service — who started the war in Donetsk in 2014. He would later become “defense minister” of the People’s Republic of Donetsk. Girkin claims that “bandits” took power in both republics, and that the Donbass region is “simply getting robbed.” Many of the recent murders may have been part of a brutal battle for influence and riches.

Girkin claims Moscow is to blame. He says Putin’s Donbass representatives sucked the region dry and brought the most important specialists to Russia, thus doing serious damage to the economy. He claims Moscow never had the intention of turning the areas into independent countries and that they were just using them as levers in the dispute with Kiev.

That seems to be the case. Contrary to all its propaganda, Russia has never really done anything for the people living in the separatist areas. The economy is struggling badly, and in the mines that are still operating, miners only earn 15,000 rubles, about 200 euros, per month, not even a third of what miners in Russia earn. Electricity and water are frequently switched off, as is the mobile phone network.

Moscow’s Direct Influence

Still, it’s not in Moscow’s interest for the regions to implode completely. Which is why the assassination of Zakharchenko is not unwelcomed to the Kremlin. Now, Moscow is pulling the strings in Donetsk directly — and it isn’t really even trying to hide its influence anymore.

On the night of Oct. 1, OSCE observers documented for the first time how a convoy of trucks carrying anti-aircraft guns crossed the border from Russia to the separatist region on a dirt road. After the assassination, important Donetsk decision-makers were also put on buses and driven to Rostov-on-Don in Russia, where representatives of the Moscow presidential administration informed them of the future course of the “People’s Republic.” Russian officials also chose Zakharchenko’s successor, Denis Pushilin, who previously served as the head of the local parliament. He was brought to Moscow specifically for this purpose.

Upon his return, he announced increases in wages and pensions — the usual means Russia uses to calm the people. Voters formally elected Pushilin on Sunday in a vote that has been described as a sham by the United States and the European Union. Popular figures who have their own ideas about the future of their “people’s republics” were kept from running under spurious pretexts.

Pushilin has been installed to ensure that order returns to the separatist territory and that it functions at least halfway like an ordinary Russian constituent republic. This isn’t because Russia cares about the welfare of the people there — it’s because eastern Ukraine remains an instrument Moscow can use to foment unrest in the remainder of the country, also because the people in the east would likely lean back toward Ukraine if conditions became worse there than in the west over the long term. Even now, 63 percent of residents of the Donetsk Peoples’ Republic support reintegrating their territory into Ukraine.

Blackmail

The east, in other words, is only a means to an end. Russia is doing little to hide that fact. What, for example, does Ukraine’s decision to break away from the Moscow Patriarchate and establish an independent Orthodox Church have to do with the Donbass? Nothing really. But the uproar in Moscow has been considerable, since it will result in Russia losing significant influence in Ukraine.

Respresentatives of the Moscow presidential administration have threatened that it would worsen negotiations over the return of the Donbass region if Kiev were to carry out the plan. But connecting the one issue with the other is tantamount to blackmail. Worse yet: This blackmail goes hand in hand with calls by Russian state television for parishioners of churches in Ukraine that have thus far been under the control of Moscow, to rise up against Kiev — essentially a call for civil war.

Moscow issued the same appeal to eastern Ukraine after the 2014 Maidan uprising. That’s also how it played out in Crimea. Moscow wasn’t interested in the people there, either. Russia only ever saw its own strategic interests. It needs Crimea as a military post against the West and the Donbass region to be able to blackmail the regime in Kiev. Can Putin succeed? It’s difficult to answer the question with a clear “no.”

by Christian Neef, Spiegel

Read More

Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny has won the case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Navalny’s case concerned seven illegal administrative detentions in the period of 2012 – 2014, when he was arrested and found guilty of administrative offenses.

Alexey Navalny’s defence insisted on political motivation of the Russian authorities and the ECHR would recognize Article 18 violation of the European Convention on limits of restrictions on Alexey Navalny’s rights. This article is a mechanism for restricting an abuse of power, especially against political opponents. Applying this and several other articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court in Strasbourg has come to a decision on political motives of the Russian authorities behind Navalny’s persecution.

It should be noted that the ECHR very rarely acknowledges violations of Article 18. The last time it was in 2004 “in the case of Vladimir Gusinsky”.

The initial court’s decision in Navalny’s case was announced in February 2017. The Court recognized that the Russian opposition leader’s rights for liberty and security of person and fair trial (Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) had been violated six times from seven. The Court has also noted violation of Article 11 (a freedom of assembly and associations).

The Russian Ministry of Justice appealed against the initial February decision. On 15 November 2018, the ECHR Grand Chamber reached a verdict that cannot be appealed. Grand Chamber not only confirmed the previous decision, but also recognized violation of the Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Navalny which forbids the state to impose restrictions on the rights guaranteed by other articles (in this case – on the right of a freedom of assembly and security of person). Moreover, the ECHR “recommended that (Russian) government took the measures guaranteeing the right for a freedom of peaceful assembly in Russia”. The ECHR determined that Russia should pay 50,000 euros in “moral compensation”. The remaining sum was calculated from material and legal costs. In total – 63,000 euros ($71,000).

Alexey Navalny considers this decision as a victory that is of great importance for all those people in Russia whose rights are restricted by the authorities. It is especially important now when the situation with human rights in Russia is promptly worsening. The State Duma of the Russian Federation is going to adopt a number of laws depriving Russians, and in particular youth, the rights to peaceful assembly (will consider a question of introduction of penalties for “involvement of minors” into protest actions, and even deprivation of the parental rights is possible) in the near future. The purpose of the Russian authorities – to narrow opportunities for protest and to increase “cost” of participation in it.

The ECHR decision in the case of Alexey Navalny actually recognizes that human rights violations in Russia are politically motivated. At the same time, this victory can be considered as a serious support for the Russian opposition, all those political and civil activists who assert believes, rights and freedoms in Russia with risk for their own lives.

Read More

Russia extends its aggression in the Azov/Black Sea region

Act of military aggression by Russia near Kerch strait constitutes the new phase of Russian aggressive policy of de-facto occupation of Azov Sea. On November 25, 2018 Ukraine’s warship group was blatantly attacked by the Russian border guard patrol near Kerch strait. Three Ukrainian military ships were shot at and seized by the Russians in neutral waters on their way back to Odesa port. 23 Ukrainian servicemen are captured (the navy suffered casualties: 6 wounded, including 2 in critical condition).

Russia’s provocations clearly fall under the UN definition of the aggression. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees the rights of Ukraine as a coastal state in waters near the Crimea and the Kerch Strait. Thus, according to Article 2 of the Convention, sovereign rights of Ukraine as a coastal state extend to its territorial waters (within 12 miles) around the Crimean peninsula, even despite unlawful temporary occupation of it by the Russian Federation.

The actions of the Russian Federation regarding the prevention of the passage of warships in the territorial sea of Ukraine, including the attack on the Ukrainian naval forces’ ship «Yani-Kapu», constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

The next step of Russia on November 25, 2018 was blockade of three Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait. The Russian Federation artificially created obstacles for the passage by ships through the Kerch Strait, which is an international duct in the sense of Article 38 of the UNCLOS, and therefore Russia’s actions constitute blocking of navigation through international duct, which is a violation of Articles 38 and 44 of the Convention.

Actions in the Kerch Strait are also a violation of the bilateral Agreement on the use of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait, which envisages free passage of the parties’ warships through the Kerch Strait. By its actions, Russia has actually recognized that the Treaty is null and void.

Ukrainian ships have left the Kerch Strait and were moving towards Odesa, after their exit from the territorial waters in the exclusive economic zone of Ukraine they were attacked, stopped and then detained by the Russian Federation. These actions constitute a flagrant violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, namely the interference with and prevention of free navigation and freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone, guaranteed by Articles 56, 58, 88, 92, as well as violations of the immunity of warships, envisaged by the Article 32 of the UNCLOS.

The attacks by the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian naval forces’ ships, which moved towards the port of Berdyansk initially in the Black Sea, and then also in the region of the Kerch Strait, constitute another fact of ongoing aggression against Ukraine.

In accordance with UN GA resolution 29/3314 of 14 December 1974, notwithstanding the declaration of war, the act of aggression is an attack of the armed forces of one country on land, sea or air, or on the naval or air forces of another country (article 3d).

Martial law is a critically necessary response to Russian escalatory policy. Russia is trying to turn it into its internal lake by blockade of Berdiansk and Mariupol and by military buildup in Crimea and Azov Sea. Russia has switched from hybrid to overt military aggression. Shooting to kill in Ukrainian sailors and ramming Ukrainian boats, which conducted a legitimate and peaceful maneuver, is a blatant and barefaced use of military force.

As Ukraine enters a critical phase of elections, Russia increasingly activates its hybrid toolbox. Military escalation is one of such tools of meddling.

Fake elections in Donbas in November 2018 reset a spiral of instability and violence. Last time in 2014 fake elections became a preparation for Debaltsevo full-fledged attack.

Actions in the Kerch Strait indicate the creation of prerequisites for the complete blockade of the seaports of Berdyansk and Mariupol, as well as the preparation for a possible full blockade of the Black Sea coast of Ukraine by Russia.

Thus, on November 26, 2018, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the martial law for limited period – 30 days, in 10 regions of Ukraine in order to create all prerequisites for proper counteraction to Russian acts of aggression.

Prompt and consolidated international reaction must ensure that Russian aggression will not go unpunished. The Russian Federation is fully responsible for the escalation in the Azov and Black Seas and undermining the peaceful settlement of the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict. On the request of Ukraine, the special meeting of the UNSC was held. Nobody believes Russia, isolation of Russia is obvious.

Dramatic escalation of the situation in the region needs a prompt reaction to:

demand Russia to immediately release 23 captured Ukrainian soldiers and 3 ships;

de-escalate security situation;

ensure sustainable unblocking of the free crossing of the Kerch-Yenikale canal and freedom of navigation in Azov sea according to international law;

elaborate of a new set of sanctions aimed at addressing the situation in the region, including against the Russia’s Azov ports, imposition of additional individual, economic and sectoral sanctions;

ensure permanent posture of allies, including NATO military ships, in the Black Sea;

conduct with NATO joint trainings in the Sea of Azov;

provide Ukraine with effective radar to monitor the maritime situation in the region, as well as with naval defense systems;

establish OSCE SMM monitoring in the area of the Sea of Azov and Kerch strait;

support Ukraine’s UN GA draft resolution on the militarization of the Crimea and the Sea of Azov;

Escalation of aggression by Russia is a clear evidence that NS2 should be immediately blocked. If Ukraine will lose its significance as a transit country may encourage Putin to wage a full-scale war to take over Ukraine.

Read More

How do you think, what is the most difficult to prove?

The president of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin presented to the whole world his vision of the answer to this question. It appears the obvious things are the most incredible to prove.

All Russian actions aimed to break down the international law and stability in the world hide conveniently behind this Putin’s formula.

Let’s take illegal annexation of the Crimea. The Kremlin presented it as the Crimeans’ will and a return of the peninsula into the motherland’s fold: “Any violence! Fair referendum and point!” However, there are many proofs that it is nothing, but the armed occupation of the other state’s territory. “Prove it!” – Putin is mocking.

Another example – unleashing of armed conflict in Donbass and creation of the so-called DPR/LPR separatist entities. Everything is obvious, once again. There is a set of evidences of direct Russian military aggression and presence of the Russian servicemen there. The Kremlin says: “We are not present there. Prove it… Only miners and peasants are at war with the Ukrainian junta, using equipment and arms which they bought via the Internet in the world Army Surplus…”

What about civil Boeing? Who did shoot down it? Anyone, beginning from drunk Ukrainians and finishing by aliens, but only “not us”. Although, the obvious facts will become a trial subject with the obvious verdict soon.

Apparently, using of the chemical weapon in the Great Britain is evident! We can hear again: “It’s not us. Prove it…”

What are we dealing with? The Free World put up with it. Sanctions have been declared for conscience’s sake. Nevertheless, cooperation with the aggressor continues: Northern and Turkish Streams are being built; Mr. Putin is being received as an honorable guest at weddings and festive events, orban, zeman, salvini dote on Putin.

Finally, there is a new fact of the Kremlin’s aggression against the sovereign state. Having annexed the Crimea, thanks to the constructions of Kerch Straight Bridge (besides illegal), Putin cynically realizes the project of the Azov Sea blockade. Naval Forces of Russia carried out a naked military action against the Ukrainian ships to receive a formal reason for full closing of the Kerch Strait and blockade of the Ukrainian ports on the Azov Sea.

Everything is extremely obvious! This time things have gone far enough and presented a risk of a direct military clash with Ukraine with unpredictable consequences. Dear Sirs in Brussels, Bonn, Paris and Washington, is it obvious for you now that you should react rigidly to this accident up to rendering effective military support to Ukraine?

Or do you still need any more evidence else?!

Read More

Recently the Russian website on public procurements posted a very interesting message about holding a closed auction on deployment of the latest Samarkand complexes for radio-electronic fight in 13 military units across all Russia and… in Belarus. The initial contract costs 61 million rubles. According to the plan, these complexes have to be put into operation until 10 November 2019.

In Belarus the Samarkand complexes are planned to be deployed on two military facilities of the Russian Federation which remained there since the USSR (radiolocation station near Gantsevichi and post for a long-distance communication with submarines of the Naval Forces of Russia near Vileyka), thereby gradually expanding the military presence in this state.

Moscow has never covered their longstanding plans to create the full-fledged Russian military bases in the territory of Belarus. Finally, they found the excellent opportunity to put these plans into practice – the Poles proposed to construct US military base on their territory supposing to place the US light armored division.

The U.S. and Polish Presidents, Donald Trump and Andrzej Duda, already discussed this issue during their meeting in Washington. The Polish authorities declared their determination to allocate 2 billion dollars for this project.

It’s very likely to assume that during negotiations behind closed doors in Sochi on September 22 one of the preconditions for renewal of the Belarus economy’s “hydrocarbon sponsorship” laid down by Putin was establishment of the Russian military base in Belarus. Well, that is an assumption only. However, on 21 October new ambassador in Belarus Mikhail Babich in his extensive interview to the Belarusian TV said that Moscow would qualify any military attack on Belarus as an attack on Russia. Commenting on a possible establishment of permanent US base in Poland, he said also that increase in the US military commitment near Russia and Belarus borders would not promote safety of neighboring states: “Since precisely neither for Poland, nor for the neighboring states… where these bases are deployed, such opposition will bring nothing good”.

It is noteworthy that discussing a possibility of Russian military operations in the territory of the allied State, the Russian ambassador speaks about his country of residence as not an independent state, but as a part of Russia, ignoring the position of the Belarusian leaders.

The issue of establishment of the Russian military base in Belarus was subjected to long and difficult discussions in 2014-2015. In 2015, the Russian government considered the draft agreement with Belarus on deployment of Russian Air Force base on their territory. That time the question was a deployment of a wing equipped with SU-27 fighters in Belarusian city Baranovichi. It is remarkable that the Russian servicemen considered a matter of the new Russian military base in Belarus already settled and spoke about it as about the accomplished fact. However, in 2015 before the next re-elections Mr. Lukashenko refused deployment of the Russian military base in Belarus.

Meanwhile, Moscow strengthened their pressure upon Belarus in the field of defence. The apogee was the last year’s Zapad 2017 military manoeuvres accompanied with a range of scandals related to lack of coordination between the Russian servicemen and the Belarusian Joint Staff on the Belarusian territory as the first pursued to make it clear who is the master.

Today Kremlin obtrusively suggests Minsk to accept the Russian military base in the Belarusian territory again, having secured this idea in the intergovernmental document – the military doctrine of the Allied State. Since then, in case of possible Lukashenko’s free will, Moscow may put in “failure to follow allied obligations”.

Further relations between Minsk and Moscow will depend on whether Alexander Lukashenko would sign the new “allied” military doctrine without specific objections or he would fall again to chaffer.

Read More

Recent midterm elections in US another time showed the continuing efforts of the third parties to affect the voting results using media platforms. Facebook stated it blocked 115 accounts for suspected “coordinated inauthentic behavior” linked to foreign groups attempting to interfere in Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections, particularly 30 Facebook accounts and 85 Instagram accounts.

Twitter, meanwhile, has said it has identified more than 4,600 accounts and 10 million tweets, mostly affiliated with the Internet Research Agency, which was linked to foreign meddling in U.S. elections, including the presidential vote of 2016. The agency, a Russian troll farm, has been indicted by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller for its actions during the 2016 vote.

The response of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI was a joint statement declaring the law enforcement is working in “unprecedented ways” to combat foreign influence operations.

“Americans should be aware that foreign actors – and Russia in particular – continue to try to influence public sentiment and voter perceptions through actions intended to sow discord,” the statement said. “They can do this by spreading false information about political processes and candidates, lying about their own interference activities, disseminating propaganda on social media, and through other tactics.”

Facebook, Twitter and other companies have been fighting misinformation and election meddling on their services for the past two years . There are signs they’re making headway, although they’re still a very long way from winning the war.

According to data provided by researches who monitored 2018 US elections, while these measures made less effective specific sort of interference the Russians engaged in two years ago, they haven’t fully stopped Russian influence operations. It seems to a greater extent that they stimulated Russia to develop and shift to new tactics

According to Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox, who run a New Knowledge cybersecurity company, this year it was registered more overall activity in real time from continuing Russian online influence operations targeting the midterm elections than it was disclosed by social media platforms or detected by researchers during the same period before the election in 2016.

In the past month the researchers have collected more than 26 million social media posts concerning the 2018 midterms, particularly a large portion of all relevant content on Twitter as well as a smaller targeted sample of all relevant content on Facebook.

Analysis shows that more than 400 websites are likely to be Russian propaganda outlets aimed at American audiences. More than 100 of these websites were confirmed as under the direction of the Russian government or are thought to be Russian with a very high degree of confidence.

In the month of October alone, the company tracked 110,000 social media posts that referenced a United States midterm candidate, topic or hashtag and contained a link to one of these websites. More than 10,000 of these posts contained a link to one of the websites we have either confirmed as Russian-directed or believe to be Russian with a very high degree of confidence.

The top three websites linked to these social media posts are the site of RT, Russia’s state-financed international cable network (5,275 links); The Duran, a right-wing news and opinion site (1,328 links); and Sputnik, a news and commentary site run by the Russian government (1,148 links).

The company have also identified 1,451 social media posts aimed specifically at midterm voters from social media accounts assessed with high confidence as belonging directly to Russian influence operations. These posts are largely focused on the geopolitics of the Middle East, the Saudi-assassinated journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh.

The most-shared article of known Russian origin for October on Twitter was an article from The Duran purporting to show how groups financed by the billionaire Democratic fund-raiser George Soros “plotted with Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to eliminate conservative ‘right wing propaganda.’”

The Russia-linked social media accounts were active during the Kavanaugh hearings, drawing attention to sexual and domestic abuse allegations against various 2018 Democratic candidates and potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. They have been amplifying anti-immigrant sentiment, including conspiracy theories about the caravan of migrants in Central America, and have promoted the idea that the mail-bomb campaign of the Trump supporter Cesar Sayoc Jr. was a Democratic plot.

Because of the numerous changes since 2016 in social media platforms and propaganda-detection practices, a straight “apple to apples” comparison of 2016 and the current election cycle is not possible. And no analysis of the social media landscape is ever complete because no one has access to all the data.

But any significant detectable quantity of Americans who are unwittingly sharing Russian propaganda on their social networks is cause for concern. And based on activity that the analysis attributes to Russian government efforts, we may estimate that at least hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even millions, of United States citizens have engaged with the content of Russian propaganda online.

The consensus among academic researchers and Russia experts in the intelligence community is that Russia does not take a timeout from information battles. It considers itself to be in a constant state of information warfare. Its online influence operations are inexpensive and effective, and afford Russia an asymmetric advantage given the freedoms of expression afforded to Western democracies.

We are heartened by the seriousness with which many social media platforms and government agencies are treating this situation. But while progress has been made since 2016, we must remain vigilant in the face of confirmed Russian efforts to undermine our democracy.

Read More

Thanks to the Russian special services, Austria is becoming a trendsetter in loud espionage scandals. Such phrases as “Russian intelligence man failed in Vienna” or “Russian spy was found in Austria” will be permanently integrated in everyday life. Given the number of Russian residencies from the Federal Security Service, Main Intelligence Directorate and Russian Foreign Intelligence Agency, operating in the capital of European architecture, this sounds quite natural.

On Friday, November 9, it became known about the alleged agent of the Russian special services in Austria – an officer of the Austrian army, who has transferred information to Moscow over the past 20 years, that was reported on Friday morning by the Polish news channel TVP Info, with reference to the Kronen Zeitung. According to the Kronen Zeitung, the suspect of espionage in the interests of Russia was a retired Austrian colonel and occupied an “inconspicuous post” in the Austrian army. He acted very professionally and received € 300.000 for his work. Every two weeks, the alleged spy met his Russian curator “Yuri” and received tasks. As a result of the work of the “mole”, Russia could get information about the Austria’s air force, artillery systems, high-ranking officials.

Two days later, the same newspaper Kronen Zeitung, with reference to a source, reported on another Russian spy case. According to the information, on November 11, an employee of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism was detained. The employee had access to secret documents and handed them over to his curators in Moscow. The spy was discovered as a result of an investigation that lasted for a year.

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz demanded the Russian side to provide transparent information. The Austrian side believes that such cases will not improve relations between Russia and the European Union, and considers espionage in European countries “unacceptable”.

The agents recruitment from different branches of troops or special services is a fairly common practice for Russian special services in relation to hostile states. But here the situation is somewhat different, since Austria is considered by many to be one of Russia’s main allies in the European Union. This is confirmed by the fact that it was Russia that became the first country beyond the EU, visited by Sebastian Kurz after his post of Chancellor in the fall of 2017. After that, a series of meetings between Putin and Kurz took place, both in a formal and an informal setting, including the wedding of Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl, where Mr. Putin was among the honored guests. Austria also became one of the few western countries which had decided not to expel Russian diplomats after poisoning of a former Russian military officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, England.

And now, again, new spy scandals, but now in Austria… Russia in its natural style “#Wecannotbeblamedif…” tried to smooth out the occurred scandal.

But it seems that even for patient Austrians, these cases turned out to be “too much”, and caused the cancellation by Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl and “Putin’s loyal dance partner” of her planned visit to Russia at the beginning of December. It is possible that this decision is a signal of a possible cooling of bilateral relations and that Austria has decided to join the UK, which after the Skripal’s case had decided to impose sanctions against the high-ranking heads of the Main Intelligence Directorate, while hoping to attract the support of key EU players.

In any case, if for Russia it is just the next spy scandal in a series of failures that have recently followed one by one, then for Austria it is quite a serious situation, since it is about its reputation. After all, if Vienna slows down this scandal and does not demonstrate a tough and uncompromising stand regarding Russia, this may aggravate communication with the main EU partners which try to toughen measures against Moscow, and may be also a blow to its reputation as a strong player in international politics and once again confirm that Austria is only a sequacious partner in a waltz with Russia…

Read More

In his interview to the Foreign Policy Alexander Hug, Deputy Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine declared lack of direct evidence of participation of the Russian Federation in Donbass conflict and noticed that everyone is free to buy the Russian military uniform in any shop. However, remarkable it may be, the OSCE Representative made such statement the day before his resignation. Such unexpected and uncovered tribute to Kremlin certifies to the fact that Hug’s statements are synchronized with Kremlin “grey eminence”, while OSCE’s objectivity and ability to perform their function in Donbass properly have often raised great doubts.

Since Mr. Hug’s statements do not hold water, such unprofessional opinion declared on behalf of the whole monitoring mission causes significant damage to the OSCE image and confirms its engagement as well as the fact that formerly authoritative and solid organization discredited itself and called into question its ability to perform the role which historically was assigned to it. The use of this organization’s authority for dissemination of unveracious data and subjective data interpretation, is unacceptable for heads of such level.

Hug’s statement contravenes EU shared position concerning the Russian Federation. His words also call into question advisability of sanctions policy against Russia and weaken EU unity in a question of counteraction to aggressive Kremlin actions. Hug’s speech appeared right after the resolution of the European Parliament on strengthening sanctions in case of aggravation of a situation in the Sea of Azov as well as declared support of sanctions policy by the Austrian Foreign Minister K. Kneissl (Austria presides in the EU Council).

However, there are a lot of questions to the OSCE aside from that. One should ask, why monitoring mission was not admitted in due time to the place of MH-17 crush, as well as to the places of shootouts and Zakharchenko murder while the Russian intelligence agencies and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation played there the master. By the way, daily reports of the OSCE Monitoring Mission constantly record Russian military equipment, weapons and military personnel in the combat zone.

Documents recorded movement of motor columns, particularly equipped with antiaircraft mounting, through uncontrolled sector of the Ukrainian-Russian border even as of October 23 this year. At the same time there were no official statements and claims from the OSCE in this regard.

Resignation of the Swiss official was not overlooked by ORDLO (Separate regions of Donetsk and Luhansk territories). D. Pushilin, leader of Donetsk terrorists, gave positive estimate to Hug’s performance and noted that positive moments of cooperation prevail over negative ones.

One should also bring to notice that should be a penultimate interview of Alexander Hug as the first deputy head of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. The last was scheduled in temporarily occupied territory of Donbass. Such sequence serves as unambiguous hint about those whose allowance was worked out by this official of the international organization.

As we know, while working for the OSCE (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Gaza Strip) Hug maintained close contacts with Russian representatives in this organization. It is quite possible that the latter offered Hug support and assistance in further career growth within the organization or within other international authorities upon termination of his functions in the OSCE. We will keep an eye on it and get to know in the course of time.

It may also happen that Hug became a target for blackmail by the Russian intelligence agencies. As is known, in July, 2018 internal documents of the OSCE Mission to Ukraine, including briefs on mission members (personality traits, tendency to alcohol, financial position, interest in the opposite sex) and Hug’s communications profile. The OSCE Mission did not report the results of investigation.

We may only hope that the end of Hug’s commission in monitoring mission and his substitution with Mark Etherington from Great Britain will favorably affect objectivity and overall performance of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. To the best of our knowledge, communications with the Russian intelligence agencies and Kremlin involve further consequences for engaged foreign politicians and heads of various international organizations. The new Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine and other officials and representatives of influential international organizations should think thoroughly about the aftermath of “close” communications with the Russian Federation and their intelligence agencies. Short-term benefits can turn into much bigger losses for them and for the European safety.

Read More

Today’s EU is far from its former unity: we are increasingly confronted by those opposing the idea of an “open society,” but who are ready to live in a confederation format, where a certain state will play the major role rather than the Union. And it was not Brexit that gave rise to such appeals – it was the ascent of autocratic leaders across Eastern Europe.

The most striking example is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – someone who once so actively fought against the Soviet past, suddenly become an actual advocate of the Soviet-style present.

Hence, the harassment of mass media, neglect of independent judiciary, high profile corruption, with Orbán increasingly resembling Vladimir Putin, or more precisely, becoming Putin’s even smaller copy. Therefore, there is no surprise that someone, who back in 2009 so zealously fought with the Russian gas monopoly and resisted the seizure of Hungary’s chemical facilities, just handed over to Russia the country’s entire nuclear industry. Moreover, now he is demanding that Brussels not prevent Russian gas flows through the southern pipe to Central Europe.

At the same time, the Hungarian conservative, together with the Italian populists and the Czech opportunists, keep insisting on the need to lift sanctions imposed against Russia in connection with the Ukraine conflict.

Let’s ask ourselves a question: can we lift sanctions today, allowing Russia to pursue its aggressive policy in Ukraine? However cynical it may sound, it’s no. We can’t. That’s because in this case, we run the risk of facing a powerful adversary, willing to restore their former Soviet influence.

Ukraine again – however cynical it may sound – remains a kind of an outpost against Russian destructive policies and aggression threatening all civilized Western democracies. Everyone seems to understand this, except for Viktor Orbán.

The head of the Hungarian government is not just trying to play along with Putin in his campaign to weaken the EU. He also intends to take part in dismembering other countries, to make many Hungarians’ dream come true, that is, to reunite all the lands that Budapest claims were illegally snatched from Hungary with the Treaty of Trianon signing. Now we see that Orbán is set to start with the Ukrainian Zakarpattia.

Hungary has long been working out the idea to return territories the country has lost throughout history. Judging by the outcome of the latest parliamentary elections, most Hungarians support the project. It’s us, Europeans, who are partly to blame: for the past 15 years, the EU has done nothing to change the ideology in Hungary; we failed to convince both the local government and the people there of the advantages of globalization and open society. It turns out, not everything rests on the economy, market relations, and democratic values.

Hungary aggressively protects their interests in Serbia, where it formed a broad territorial and full-fledged national-cultural autonomy in Vojvodina; Slovakia, where Budapest currently avoids unnecessary confrontation trying to enlist Bratislava’s support in his confrontation with Brussels and Romania, where the main goal is to regain Transylvania (Szekely Land).

Why did the Hungarian Prime Minister choose Ukraine and its western lands (Transcarpathia) as his main target? It is because the Crimea annexation happened. Whether anyone likes it or not, Russian seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula has set a precedent. Anyone today could take advantage of it – both at the borders and in the heart of Europe. This is also about a major prevalence of Hungarian communities living in several areas of the Transcarpathian region. An important note: it is only a few areas within a particular region. And, of course, these communities’ financial dependence on Budapest is on the table.

Nevertheless, let’s take a look at the real numbers. Of 1.2m people living in the Ukrainian region bordering Hungary just over 150,000 are Hungarians. This is not the majority seen in the Serbian province of Vojvodina – on the contrary, it is a clear minority. Does this mean that Ukraine must protect the rights of any ethnic group, including the Hungarians? It definitely does. However, this in no way means that Kyiv should put the interests of any minority above the law.

The conflict between Budapest and Kyiv began in 2017, after the Ukrainian parliament passed a law on education. The new legislation has seen enough criticism and support at the same time, while the Venice Commission found no violations in its text concerning the infringement of national minorities rights.

Indeed, the law defends the Ukrainian language, making it the main language of instruction at schools. Starting from middle classes, all schools are obliged to teach in Ukrainian, while some classes can be taught in the languages of EU states (one of which is Hungary, I must recall).

The Orbán government responded to these initiatives with an ultimatum, blocking the highest-level meetings of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, turning them down to the level of ambassadors, while Hungarian foreign minister Peter Szijjarto threatens to block Ukraine’s EU integration process under the Association deal. At the same time, Hungary allocates millions of euros to support pro-Hungary political movements in Transcarpathia that is, brazenly interfering in the neighboring state’s internal affairs – something Szijjarto does not mention in his statements on Ukraine.

Budapest also funds Hungarian organizations abroad through charities, organizes seminars and round tables, attracting the youths. Through the Robert Schumann Institute in Budapest, Hungarians also fund experience exchange programs for young Ukrainians living in the bordering region. In fact, this is about training young politicians who will one day become part of local governments and promote Hungarian interests.

What is the most surprising here is that, while failing to secure any support in Brussels, Budapest found it in Moscow. Hungarian officials met with their Russian counterparts, to slam the Ukrainian language law. Moreover, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov agreed with Peter Szijjarto to jointly oppose Ukraine’s legislative moves and hinder its educational reform.

The saddest thing though is that this, and many other things, has being done under the cover of the EU. Yes, it is precisely their experience of integration into the EU that the Hungarian authorities use to cover up their meddling in another country, which is not even an EU state. A very simple question arises: would we really choose to be complicit in Viktor Orbán’s outright violations?

We must definitely avoid a conflict being created and escalated on the EU borders. However, it’s time for the European Union to look into the ways to fix the situation. We have seen a rather dangerous move by Hungary whose consul has been openly handing out passports to representatives of Hungarian minority living in Ukraine. The danger stems from the fact that in the Ukrainian territory, in contrast to a number of EU states, dual citizenship is officially banned.

Budapest, once so wary of Ukraine launching protectionist policies, has now become the very force pushing Kyiv toward the adoption of the new legislation— the new language bill, which had already passed its first reading in the Ukrainian parliament. Now Ukraine once again hears Hungarian officials voicing an ultimatum. This means that escalation is inevitable, with the next step of the Ukraine authorities possibly being passing changes to the law on citizenship.

It would be less complicated though if it were all about citizenship issues and Hungary’s will to boost population numbers. In fact, we are well aware that it’s not Hungarians who Viktor Orbán and his government believe are so important – it’s the lands that used to belong to Austria-Hungary and a revanchism-focused flirting with voters. Indeed, Orbán does need a cheaper labor force, but only those who always return home, to Western Ukraine. What he really craves for is a territory that will later seek to become part of the Great Hungary. This is the reason why the Hungarian government has also been campaigning among the Ukrainian nationals living in the bordering region.

Meanwhile, the situation could spin out of control, which is exactly what Moscow seeks to exploit. The Hungarian government recently approved a classified plan on Ukraine. It allows Budapest to deploy troops across the Ukrainian border without NATO’s consent in case an “emergency” arises.

Interestingly, a Hungarian intelligence agency recently received a number of specific instructions: to strengthen its operations not only in the Transcarpathian region, but also in Ukraine as a whole; and create conditions for economic and political expansion in areas where Hungarians reside. It has also been ordered to strengthen partnership cooperation with Russian intelligence.

At the same time, the Russian Wolf International Special Combat Training Center has been boosting its presence in Hungary. Its founder is a Russian national who has been put on the U.S. sanctions list. Most importantly, the organization has already opened a real network of cells.

This is happening amid Hungary’s efforts to boost the total number of military reservists. Hungarian defense minister István Simicskó this August announced the need for 20,000 reservists to join the already 30,000-strong army. And this is despite the fact that last year the Hungarian army started the practice of signing up Hungarians living beyond the country’s borders, most of them, residents of Ukraine.

Now let me ask you the most important question that we all will soon face. What shall we do if a conflict breaks out on the Hungarian-Ukrainian border? What about the EU and NATO treaties? After all, we are now talking about the destructive actions of a NATO ally and an EU member state which maintains political and economic ties with Russia, in relation to a non-EU and non-NATO state which at the same time has been actively repelling the Kremlin’s aggression in close proximity to our eastern borders. So what do you think? Could an outside player be able to provoke a conflict, as it had already happened in history?

Don’t you see that we finally have to think about our own safety? Perhaps it is time that we engage in the negotiation process and take a closer look at the general situation in Hungary. These are all questions demanding answers. Today.

Read More

Every day the Nord Stream 2 project is becoming more and more popular. We hear dispersedly about those benefits and prospects which this project promises. Nevertheless, so frank euphoria is absolutely strange. In fact, not all countries will benefit from the project, but in consequence we will pay off all together.

At first sight it may seem that Germany’s energy dependence on Russia, which with implementation of Nord Stream 2 will increase from present 55% to 80%, will create problems both economic and political only for the Germans. At the same time, you should not forget that Germany, despite the undoubtedly strong economic positions, is a member of the European Union. According to the European legislation its problems in case those arise (and they will arise of course) will lay down on shoulders of all the European community. And only some experts have already paid attention that Nord Stream 2 project’s price may actually be too high. That is exactly what Thierry Bros, who is a Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies where he is in charge of the Quarterly Gas Review, a visiting professor at SciencesPo Paris and a senior expert at Energy Delta Institute, is telling. According to him, “there is the issue of the European legislation. We have legislation on security of supply binding us to act collectively. If a country is exclusively dependent on one supplier, does it meet the N-1 regulation (readiness for action in case of the disruption of a major gas source)?

What if there is a problem? It does not have to be the Russians; it can be a technical problem…

According to the legislation, in case there is a problem in Germany, we will have to switch off the French, the Polish, the Hungarians, and the Italians to provide gas to the Germans. Germany is not following all those EU rules. The problem is that – contrary to what Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin stated at their August meeting – Nord Stream 2 is a political project, not only commercial. Eventually Angela Merkel had to admit after many, many months that Nord Stream 2 is not only commercial, but also a political project. And if it’s political, it has to be discussed with the other EU Member States.

Brussels has tried to stop Nord Stream 2 in different ways, because it wants some Ukrainian transit. A WTO ruling is generally in favour of Brussels’ decisions. The Commission now knows it can push for more unbundling. The power of Brussels is a bit stronger. Germany shows absolutely no sign of willingness of entering into a decent, fair bargaining.

Merkel was one of the leading figures at the European level when France had a weak government. That’s over. France is back on track, Greece, Portugal and Spain are back on track. There is a unity.”

It is also necessary to remind that earlier, in Vilnius, heads of parliaments of Poland, Lithuania and Latvia signed the letter with the danger warning of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline addressed to heads of parliaments of the European countries. Later Nord Stream 2 was also opposed by Estonia.

It is absolutely clear that Nord Stream 2 not only violates the provisions of the European legislation in the energy, which reduces monopoly power of electricity and gas suppliers, but it poses obvious threat for all EU MS. Nevertheless, despite all ‘not benefits’ and disagreement of many states, the project of the gas pipeline construction is being still implemented. Let’s ask for whose benefits the European politicians supporting the Nord Stream 2 project act?

Read More

“All is fair in love and war”, as the proverb says. Let’s leave aside love and turn regard on war. Modern wars increasingly often find the battlefield in the economic, diplomatic, religious and other spheres. Even ecology is not an exception for confrontation. However, let’s start from pre-history.

The diplomatic scandal around the ethnic population of the Transcarpathian region of Ukraine and their rights has been smoldering for a long time between Ukraine and Hungary, particularly the cn nationalists led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Recently it became known that the Hungarian consulate issues in secret their national passports to the Ukrainian citizens. Naturally, such actions were condemned by the European institutions and the leading states. In response, the Hungarian side repaired to play on ecological safety of Europe.

River Tysa, which is one of the largest inflows of Danube, originates in Ukraine and before falling into Danube goes through several countries including Hungary. Hungarian defenders suddenly took care of the water condition originating from the Ukrainian territory. They found huge amount of heavy metals, harmful chemistry and household waste, in particular plastic bottles there. That’s why it became a new stumbling block in Ukraine-Hungary relations.

Today main ‘accuser’ of Ukraine is Hungarian eco-activist Gergely Hankó. He was also among organizers of unusual performance: making boats and canoe from the bottles fished out of the river and rafting down the river on them. The future of these “means of swimming” is unknown, possibly, they continue poisoning river banks in a more structured form.

The main Mr. Hankó’s argument against Ukraine is a case of spring, 2015, when a large volume of garbage fell into the river in consequence of heavy floods. The Hungarian part restricted themselves to recording the event and taking many shots of dirty river while they turned on the HPP taps and made garbage a problem of their neighbors. At the same time, both Ukrainian and Romanian experts reported about no registered fact of cross-border pollution of the river basin.

We can’t say for sure whether Mr. Hankó’s activity has strictly mercantile features. Possibly, that is manifestation of his altruistic nature, and he really bother about river condition. However, the actions of Hungarian government are by no means altruistic. They have their own goals, the main among which is to retain power. To this end, they use such drastic measures as issuing Hungarian passports to Ukrainians with a view to draw national minorities as their main electorate in advance of upcoming elections. For the same purpose, they make advances to nationalists and are ready to confront the whole Europe and NATO.

Frankly speaking, Ukraine and Hungary are on the brink of mutual expulsion of diplomats that is a very serious step. However, position of Hungarian part in this conflict is the most unflattering, due to propaganda of the nationalist ideas, confrontation with other states, and many other facts. Here tame “ecologist” is needed, he will tell how Ukraine poisons the European rivers and why it is impossible to conduct constructive dialogue with them as their authorities don’t care about citizens of other states. By the way, ideas of ecological safety in Europe advert more and more supporters.

It’s too prematurely to give forecasts as to the end of this confrontation. Most probably, the Hungarian government relies on the support of Russia and their allies in Europe, therefore behaves so aggressively. The main thing the European politicians may assure today is prevent making them fool by high-minded statements, which disguise quite mercenary incentives.

Read More