Ideological dressing room: networks of Russian propagandists
The rhetoric of present-day Russia is hybrid. Putin and his team draw on the ideas of fascism, communism, outdated imperialism, and religious conservatism in their propaganda, with the ultimate goal of maintaining power. This ideological dressing room is suitable for all scenarios. Dressed in the tattered uniform of a fascist, the worn leather jacket of a communist, or the robes of a religious figure, Russian agents in the US attempt to pull in a wide variety of groups into their orbit.
Working with far-left groups, agents of the Federal Security Service pretend to be enemies of racism, fighters for gender equality, and opponents of colonialism. Marxism comes into play here. Among left-wing Americans, it continues to be associated with the USSR, which they do not want to see as an empire, and they refuse to believe in its collapse. Thus, a number of Marxist African-American groups in the US have fallen under the influence of Putin’s bluff, such as the African People’s Socialist Party and the Uhuru Movement (collectively referred to as APSP) in Florida, Black Hammer in Georgia, and one group in California.
On April 18th, the US Federal Court charged four members of these groups with cooperating with Russian intelligence services. The charges were also brought against three Russians who recruited, financed, and directed these groups. The Federal Security Service’s intention was for African-American activists to sow discord in American society and spread pro-Russian propaganda. Additionally, Russian intelligence agents were involved in covert financing and directing of candidates in local elections.
One of the important goals of the operation was to persuade Americans to support the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territories. For example, in May 2020, one of the accused, an agent of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Alexander Ionov (currently wanted), convinced members of the groups under his control to make a statement in support of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic’s (DPR) independence. Later, Ionov informed the FSB that the recorded video speech in support of the “DPR” became the first instance where “American non-profit organizations congratulated citizens” of the occupied region.
On the day the full-scale war began, Ionov sent an “urgent message” to his protégés containing pro-Russian theses in support of the invasion. Afterward, members of the APSP gathered multiple times with Ionov in video conferences, during which the agent from a country where national minorities are not considered human beings claimed that anyone supporting Ukraine also supported nazism and white privilege.
“The Russian service used our right to freedom of speech, enshrined in the Constitution, as a weapon — a freedom that Russia denies its citizens The goal was to sow discord among Americans and interfere in elections in the United States,” said Matthew G. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General for National Security from the Department of Justice’s.
See also: Dismantle rashism. First in theory, then in practice
Olsen pledged to “vigorously expose and hold accountable” those who “serve hostile foreign interests.”
Carrying out this intention is not so easy. Thanks to the prevailing freedom of speech in democracy, Russian accomplices among the left continue to spread Russian propaganda on their websites and in magazines. An example of this is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which includes five members of the United States House of Representatives. “DSA calls on the US to withdraw from NATO and put an end to the imperialist expansion that laid the groundwork for this conflict,” members state on their website.
Interestingly, while criticizing NATO “expansion,” socialists only take into account Russia’s imperial ambitions and ignore the rights of Eastern European countries to choose allies and self-determination.
A similar position is held by the well-known left-liberal magazine, The Nation. Its authors are typical “non-identifiers”. They criticize Putin but have a negative stance not only towards NATO but also towards the removal of Yanukovych. When discussing the events of the Maidan, these left-liberals fail to realize that, influenced by Russian propaganda, they contradict their own beliefs. Without reflecting or pondering, these supporters of revolutions undermine the subjectivity of Ukrainians, who exercised their political will to change the government.
Contradictory values: Russian agents cozying up to different ideological groups
While one team of Russian agents cozy up to socialists and black activists, another team embraces conservatives and white neo-Nazis. Here, Russian agents deploy different, often contradictory values — Christianity, idealization of “traditional” hierarchical family relationships, suppression of the rights of sexual minorities, and glorification of the white male.
As a result of such propaganda, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, once referred to Russia as the “key to white survival.” Similarly, Richard Spencer, a leader of white supremacist advocates, called Russia the “sole white state in the world.”
Right-wing extremist groups in Russia have a particular interest in far-right journalists and bloggers. A good example is the correspondent for One America News Network, Jack Posobiec, who is known for his support of neo-Nazi groups and has over a million followers on Twitter. According to investigations by US intelligence agencies and Hatewatch, Posobiec had close ties to the Russian-registered website SouthFront. Posobiec spread disinformation about biolabs in Ukraine, the same ones that allegedly trained “combat mosquitoes.” He cast doubt on the reality of the mass killing of civilians in Bucha.
“We cannot say what happened in Bucha,” he stated in his youth-oriented podcast.
The anti-Ukrainian position is closely tied to anti-democratic activities in the United States. For example, during the 2016 elections, Posobiec aided an anti-democratic project aimed at invalidating legitimate elections called “Stop the Steal” to become viral.
One of the most dangerous advocates for Russia was recently ousted from Fox News, the immensely popular and radically conservative host Tucker Carlson. He did everything in his power to undermine democracy in America. Despite being aware of the facts himself, he tirelessly insisted that the US presidential elections were fraudulent.
Carlson has faced numerous accusations of racism. He referred to Iraqis as “semi-literate primitive monkeys,” claimed that immigrants made the country “poorer and dirtier,” and attributed the “creation of civilization” to “white people.”
Hinting that racism is not a vice in Russia, he posed a rhetorical question on air: “Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to fire me for disagreeing with him? These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is ‘No.’ Vladimir Putin has not done any of these things,” Carlson stated.
He openly declared his support for Russia in its war against Ukraine and repeated Russian propaganda so frequently, including the falsehoods about biolabs, that he became a favorite of the Russian press. When he was fired for reasons known only to Fox executives, Russian propagandist Solovyov publicly offered him a job.
Uneven influence: pro-Russian far-left and far-right in the US
The influence of pro-Russian far-left and far-right in the US is uneven. There are only a handful of left-liberals in Congress, and their influence on democratically inclined voters is weak. According to a March survey by Axios/Ipsos, the overwhelming majority of Democrats (79%) support assistance to Ukraine.
The far-right direction is much closer to the reality of Russia and significantly more effective in its propaganda. The “Putin wing” in Congress consists of several dozen individuals, and they have a significant influence on their republican constituents. As a result (according to Axios/Ipsos), only 42% of Republicans in the country currently support assistance to Ukraine.
Sometimes, far-left and far-right unite based on their love for Russia.
Last year, the most liberal and the most conservative members of the House of Representatives voted together against a bill on the confiscation of assets of Russian oligarchs under sanctions, with the intention of using their funds to support Ukraine. There were a total of eight of them together.
But these groups do not engage in serious cooperation. Mutual alignment would force them to admit the obvious — they are not like-minded individuals, not partners of the Russian government, but pawns in the ideological voids of a criminal regime.
Originally posted by Anna Brodski-Krotkina on Zn.ua. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
