By Vittoria Elliott, Wired, 9/24/24

In the lead-up to the 2024 elections, the Biden administration has taken aim at several Russian information operations. Earlier in September, the Department of Justice unsealed an indictment against two employees of RT, a Russian state-backed news network formerly known as Russia Today. At the heart of the indictment was Tenet Media, a company promoting content from right-wing influencers. RT, prosecutors say, largely funded Tenet, and its employees “edited, posted, and directed” content. (The individual influencers deny they knew about the company’s ties to Russia.)

Last week, Meta announced that it would ban RT and other media outlets backed by the Russian state from its platforms. Meanwhile, YouTube said it removed more than 230 channels with connections to Russian-backed media. Those decisions followed the US State Department imposing sanctions on Russian state media, saying that in addition to spreading disinformation about the war in Ukraine, RT was supporting a crowdfunding effort to support the Russian military’s invasion and had developed operations directly tied to Russia’s intelligence agencies.

“These Kremlin-backed media outlets are not only playing this covert influence role to undermine democracy in the United States, but also to meddle in the sovereign affairs of countries around the world,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the time. “As part of RT’s expanded capabilities, the Russian government embedded within RT a unit with cyber operational capabilities and ties to Russian intelligence. RT’s leadership had direct, witting knowledge of this enterprise.”

Featured VideoKamala Harris Answers The Web’s Most Searched Questions

“Meta’s ban of RT and other Russian state media stings a lot because that has been a core channel for the spread of Russian propaganda,” says Samuel Woolley, associate professor and founder of the Propaganda Research Lab at the University of Pittsburgh.

In the US, RT pulled in former war reporter Chris Hedges and late night host Larry King before it lost most of its broadcast access following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But while the sanctions and deplatforming are certainly a blow to propaganda efforts directed at the US—Russian state media has seen some real success on social media—experts who spoke to WIRED say that it by no means will cap the outlets’ reach. RT is well regarded in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America, and Spanish language speakers make up the outlet’s largest market outside Russia. It has also invested heavily in old school television infrastructure, with offices in Havana, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Delhi, Algiers, and many other locations that will likely continue to operate unhindered, and offers services in French, German, and Arabic, in addition to English.

“English language speakers haven’t been the primary target of RT or Russian media’s propaganda efforts,” says Woolley. “And they’ve been building capacity for nearly two decades across Latin America, portions of Africa, and elsewhere in the world. And that has meant in those places that RT and Sputnik have almost become like a fixture of everyday life.”

In Latin America alone, RT’s channels run 24/7, and reported 18 million viewers in 2018. African Stream, which was also named by the State Department as part of Russian state media’s influence architecture and later removed by YouTube and Meta, garnered 460,000 followers on YouTube in the two years it was up and running. And Woolley notes that in these markets, there is likely less competition for viewership than there is in the saturated US media landscape.

“[Russian media] made headway in limited media ecosystems, where its attempts to control public opinion are arguably much more effective,” he says. Russian media particularly hones in on anticolonial, anti-Western narratives that can feel particularly salient in markets that have been deeply impacted by Western imperialism. The US also has state-funded media that operates in foreign countries, like Voice of America, though according to the organization’s website, the 1994 US International Broadcasting Act “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news.”

Rubi Bledsoe, a research associate at Center for Strategic and International Studies, says that even with Russian state media removed from some social platforms, its messages are still likely to spread in more covert ways, through influencers and smaller publications with which it has cultivated relationships.

“Not only was Russian media good at hiding that they were a Russian government entity, on the side they would seed some of their stories to local newspapers and local media throughout the region,” she says, noting that the large South American broadcasting corporation Telesur would sometimes partner with RT. (Other times, Russia will back local outlets like Cameroon’s Afrique Média). “All of these secondary and tertiary news outlets are a lot smaller, but can talk to parts of the local population,” she says.

Russian media has also helped cultivate local influencers who often align with its messaging. Bledsoe points to Inna Afinogenova, a Russian Spanish-language broadcaster who previously worked for RT but now has her own independent YouTube channel where she has more than 480,000 followers. (Afinogenova left RT after saying she disagreed with the war in Ukraine.)

And Bledsoe says that the ban from the US might actually be a boon for Russian media in the parts of the world where it’s actively trying to cultivate its image as a trusted media brand. “The narratives that were shared through RT and other Russian media and in Iranian media as well, it’s a kind of anti-imperialist dig at the West, and the US,” she says. “Saying the US is the driving force behind this international system and they’re plotting, and they’re out to get you, to impose on other countries’ sovereignty.”

Though Meta was a key avenue for the spread of Russian state media content, it still has a home on other platforms. RT does not appear to have a verified TikTok account, but accounts that exclusively post RT content, like @russian_news_ and @russiatodayfrance have tens of thousands of followers on the app. African Stream’s TikTok is still live with nearly 1 million followers. TikTok spokesperson Jamie Favazza referred WIRED to the company’s policies on election-related mis- and disinformation.

A post on X from RT’s account on September 18, the day after the ban, linked to its accounts on platforms like right-wing video sharing platform Rumble, X, and Russian YouTube alternative VK. (RT has 3.2 million followers on X and 125,000 on Rumble.) “Meta can ban us all it wants,” the post read. “But you can always find us here.” X did not respond to a request for comment.

YouTube link here.

(This interview was conducted on 9/24/24)

YouTube link here.

Clayton Morris is a former FOX News anchor. Natali Morris is a former anchor and reporter for MSNBC, CNBC and CBS News. On Redacted, the married couple (not brother and sister!) and former mainstream news professionals take an in-depth look at the news the mainstream media largely ignores. They explore the legal, social, financial, and personal issues that matter to you. They want to set the record straight and bring you the stories nobody else tells. Along with the facts and the complete picture, Redacted offers real-world analysis without an agency driven by corporate overloads. With Clayton’s extensive journalism experience, he isn’t afraid to demand the truth from authorities. Redacted is an independent platform, unencumbered by external factors or restrictive policies, on which Clayton and Natali Morris bring you quality information, balanced reporting, constructive debate, and thoughtful narratives.

***

Putin Effect? Iran Attacks Israel After Russia PM’s Visit; Netanyahu Gets New Warning From Moscow – Hindustan Times

YouTube link here.

YouTube link here.

Kim Iversen interviews Greg Stoker, a former United States Army Ranger with a background in special operations and human intelligence collection. He conducted 4 combat deployments to Afghanistan and is now a human rights activist and geopolitical analyst at Mint Press News.

By Aaron Sobczak, Responsible Statecraft, 9/23/24

Earlier this summer, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which “requires a report on the casualty and equipment losses for both sides involved in the conflict in Ukraine.”

His amendment was accepted into the House’s version of the NDAA and awaits review by the Senate.

In an interview with RS, Rep. Massie — who almost succeeded in getting a similar measure into last year’s NDAA — talked about his motivation behind presenting his amendment this year, as well as some insight into how the conversation about Ukraine is trending on Capitol Hill.

He said several factors motivated him to introduce the amendment, namely that even the House Speaker didn’t know how many Ukrainians have been killed or injured in the war, and that State Department officials seemed to know only Russian casualty statistics — but not those for Ukraine.

Here is the full interview which has been edited for clarity:

RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: When looking at this year’s NDAA, what was your particular motivation for introducing an amendment like this?

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Well, in a classified briefing, I stood up and asked what the casualties were on the Ukrainian side, and in that meeting I believe, you had representatives from the intelligence community, and they were briefing us, and they went out of their way to tell us how many Russian casualties there were, and they would not answer my question of how many Ukrainian casualties there were.

And this was a briefing to Congress in a classified setting. They really didn’t have an excuse, other than they weren’t really sure, which seems like an incredible lie. So then a few months later, I’m in the Speaker’s office, and I asked the Speaker if he knew the number of casualties in Ukraine? He began telling me how many Russian casualties there were. I said, Do you know how many Ukrainian casualties there are? And he said, No. I said, Have they ever told you? And he said, No. I said, Have you ever asked? He said, I should ask. So the Speaker of the House doesn’t even know. Didn’t even know at the time how many casualties there were. And if you ask, for instance, an AI assistant, how many Ukrainian casualties there are, even the AI assistants here in our country can’t tell you how many. At the time when I drafted this, AIs came up with wildly different numbers because they’re relying on everything that’s been published. And there’s virtually nothing reliable that’s been published.

RS: So based on what you’re seeing with support or lack of support, do you have any indication as to how confident you are that this might make it into the final draft this time?

MASSIE: It’ll be up to the conference with the Senate, and it’d be interesting to know if there’s somebody in the Senate that wants it taken out, because I’ve heard no real resistance to it here in the House. And think about it, nobody has a good reason.

RS: From my perspective, it’s a really good way to bring transparency to the issue. Who can deny that we should have basic casualty numbers?

MASSIE: I’ll give you a related amendment to my amendment, which was from Warren Davidson (FY2024). It said that the administration has to have a strategy and goals related to the Ukraine war. We fought even harder to get that one to a vote, and it failed. And that just blows my mind, that Congress could say, No, we don’t want to have any stated goals in Ukraine, we’re just going to keep sending money.

RS: Okay, this goes back to my earlier question. Why do you think it’s been so difficult to get official numbers on casualty and equipment losses. Have you ever seen this kind of blackout or lack of curiosity related to other conflicts?

MASSIE: We’re just being fed propaganda in these classified briefings. And if other members of Congress couldn’t see that when I asked the question, then shame on them. Part of the reason I asked that question in that setting, was to show the other members of Congress that they’re just giving us one side to try and motivate us to keep sending the money and weapons. I think it’s obvious that they’re just feeding us propaganda in classified settings, and then I think it’s also true that the Speaker himself has been a subject of propaganda and lacks the curiosity to even question the narrative that we’re being fed.

RS: Can you speak on why they’re presenting you with propaganda?

MASSIE: It’s the State Department that’s pretty much directing this, and then Congress. It’s the tail wagging the dog. Congress is the dog, right, and the State Department believes that war is a tool of statecraft, or diplomacy, that they’re going to use war for diplomacy, and they don’t want Congress to get in the way. So once it gets started, we’re supposed to just open the pocketbooks and let the money flow. And they’re afraid if we got any bit of bad news about how the war was going, that there would be a reluctance from Congress to keep funding it, or push for an ending.

RS: Maybe some of your colleagues would contend that the only reason you’re raising the issue is to disparage the war effort and make the case for preventing more aid from going to Ukraine. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MASSIE: Well, it’s certainly the case that I don’t want to send more aid to Ukraine. But if continued funding for Ukraine requires sticking your head in the sand, then I think we need to quit funding Ukraine. I mean, I would just put it back on somebody who thinks that way. If they are worried that knowing this number might diminish the appetite for funding the war, then that’s the main reason that Congress needs to know the casualty numbers.

RS: Was there any other information related to the amendment that you would like people to know?

MASSIE: I hope it makes it into law, and I hope they follow the law and the spirit of the law when it makes it into law, because we certainly have these numbers. We must have very close numbers, and even if they can’t make them public, they need to tell Congress. Ultimately, we’re the ones who are responsible for watching what’s going on and deciding if and how much money to send for this effort.