Conversely, RT’s coverage of Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative, focusing on her leaked e-mails and accusing her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials echoed state lines for the influence campaign – saying Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war between the United States and Russia – and, in August, Kremlin-linked political analysts suggested avenging negative Western reports on Putin by airing segments devoted to Clinton’s alleged health problems. RT’s most popular video on Clinton, “How 100% of the Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to…Themselves,” had more than nine million views on social media platforms, while the most popular English language video about the then President-elect, called “Trump Will Not Be Permitted to Win,” featured Julian Assange and had over two million views. According to the intelligence report, Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its influence efforts to denigrate Clinton, and this effort amplified stories on scandals about the Democratic candidate and the role of WikiLeaks in the election campaign. The likely financier of the so-called Internet Research Agency – which the agencies defined as “professional trolls located in Saint Petersburg” – was, the report says: “A close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence.”
Again, I’d ascertained exactly the same thing, with the addition of more detail, then added Trend’s underground market into the mix. One leading expert cited in the CIA report on the Internet Research Agency claimed some social media accounts which appear to be tied to Russia’s professional trolls – as they were previously devoted to supporting Russian actions in Ukraine – started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015. Social media trolls, of course, featured heavily in the Brexit and Macron campaigns and had already resurfaced in the UK during the 2017 general election, though many were still mid-transition – bearing mixed US/UK biographies and content. A side-line of my principal investigation had already found since Twitter took steps to allow non-verified accounts to be kept muted, a greater number of these accounts were being human-managed. Additionally, I found it worth noting that, very often, the troll accounts simultaneously support Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and, odd as I thought it was at the time, Scotland remaining a part of the UK.
Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 US presidential election, according to the CIA report: “Represented a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations aimed at US elections.” The analysts assessed: “The 2016 influence campaign reflected the Kremlin’s recognition of the worldwide effects that mass disclosures of US Government and other private data—such as those conducted by WikiLeaks and others—have achieved in recent years, and their understanding of the value of orchestrating such disclosures to maximize the impact of compromising information.” During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin, according to former KGB operatives. Since the Cold War, however, Russian intelligence efforts related to elections have primarily focused on foreign intelligence collection. For decades, Russian and Soviet intelligence services have sought to collect insider information from US political parties which could help Russian leaders understand a new US administration’s plans and priorities. Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Directorate S (Illegals) officers, arrested in the United States in 2010, were reporting back to Moscow on the 2008 election and, according to the same former KGB operatives, in the 1970s, the KGB recruited a Democratic Party activist who reported information about then-presidential hopeful Jimmy Carter’s campaign and foreign policy plans.
The CIA’s declassified report concluded: “Election Operation Signals”, hybrid conflicts, are the new normal in Russian influence efforts and the intelligence services firmly believe Russian intelligence services would have seen their election influence campaign as: “At least a qualified success because of their perceived ability to impact public discussion.” Putin’s public views of the efforts suggest the Kremlin and its intelligence services will continue to consider using hybrid operations because of their belief these can accomplish Russian goals relatively easily, without significant damage to Russian interests.
Russia had also sought to influence elections across Europe, the report confirmed, adding the hybrid conflict in the US had not ended with the Trump win. “Russian intelligence services will continue to develop capabilities to provide Putin with options to use against the United States, judging from past practice and current efforts. Immediately after Election Day, we assess Russian intelligence began a spear-phishing campaign targeting US Government employees and individuals associated with US think tanks and NGOs in national security, defense, and foreign policy fields. This campaign could provide material for future influence efforts as well as foreign intelligence collection on the incoming administration’s goals and plans.”
Even having confirmed nothing was over, the report didn’t stop being useful.
After my own significant findings were sent as a statement to international agencies and parliaments in mid-May, the FBI came out at the start of June and declared Nigel Farage a person of interest in their Trump-Russia probe253. One source in the Bureau told the Guardian: “If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks, Assange and Trump associates the person who comes up with the most hits is Nigel Farage...he’s right in the middle of these relationships. He turns up over and over again. There’s a lot of attention being paid to him.”
While making sure the dubious activity of a public figure came under review by the proper authorities was a clear win for both democracy and independent journalism, Farage immediately took to all media outlets denying any Russia connection whatsoever and decrying the FBI interest as “fake news.” In a statement, Farage said: “This hysterical attempt to associate me with the Putin regime is a result of the liberal elite being unable to accept Brexit and the election of President Trump. For the record, I have never been to Russia, I’ve had no business dealings with Russia in my previous life and I have appeared approximately three times on RT in the last 18 months. I consider it extremely doubtful that I could be a person of interest to the FBI as I have no connections to Russia.”
I had clearly set out every reason Farage would be a person of interest to the authorities – in the exact manner specified by the FBI – but some further attention was clearly warranted on the basis of the politician's response, which specifically referred to RT. Thankfully, the declassified CIA document additionally included an extensive annexe of material which was highly relevant254.
Annex A of the declassified report was specifically dedicated to RT, the broadcaster which had been tied to UKIP for a number of years. The annexe was originally drawn up in 2012, five years before Farage himself was knighted on the channel in early 2017.
The CIA report introduced RT with a detailed description, saying: “RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties. The rapid expansion of RT's operations and budget and recent candid statements by RT's leadership point to the channel's importance to the Kremlin as a messaging tool and indicate a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest. The Kremlin has committed significant resources to expanding the channel's reach, particularly its social media footprint.” The network, of course, also runs a successful operation in Britain, on which Farage has appeared and the CIA stated “a reliable UK report states that RT recently was the most-watched foreign news channel in the UK” and highlighted that the US incarnation: “Positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties to the Russian Government.” As I had established significant ties between Farage, Brexit, Trump, Russia, and the US election, there was subsequently no need for me to limit the sco
pe of the rest of the report, by restricting its definition as being localised to the US.
The CIA assesses, in the run up to the 2012 US presidential election, RT intensified its critical coverage of the United States. “The channel portrayed the US electoral process as undemocratic and featured calls by US protesters for the public to rise up and “take this government back.”
“In an effort to highlight the alleged lack of democracy in the United States,” the CIA report stated, “RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a sham.” Much of this content was also recognisable in respect of RTs coverage of UKIP and Farage himself. On the 28th June 2016, for example, Farage appeared on the channel255 just after the Brexit referendum saying, “Oh, gosh! Who would’ve believed it? Who would’ve believed that despite all the threats and bullying from the international community, President Obama, the OECD, [British Chancellor of the Exchequer] George Osborne, the Bank of England… who would’ve believed the British people would have the courage to say: ‘No, no, no, no. We’re not listening. We actually want to take back control of our country, our democracy and our lives.’ That’s what happened.” The narrative was almost an exact re-sit of US content aired by RT over a number of years – featured in the CIA report – including a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement where the network framed a fight against “the ruling class” and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured calls to “take back” the government. The core message connections were extensive, with the US personified as an undemocratic union of self-interest. Farage has appeared on RT peddling much the same message about the EU with clips dating back to 2011.
Interestingly, the report noted RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health, stating: “This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability.”
Farage, I found, had consistently been for fracking, reaffirmed as recently as 2016 in a BBC appearance256, though he and his party have been broadly dismissive of other renewable energy projects which would reduce the UK's reliance on imported fuels. Campaigning in Grimsby in 2015, for example, he claimed, by 2020, people would be paying a “20% surcharge on their electricity bill just to subsidise the renewable industry.”
“So I have to say, I think in ten years' time there won't be a renewable industry, we will have rethought the whole thing,” Farage added, speaking to BBC Humberside.
By early 2017, the Russian state was seeing heavy lobbying efforts to escalate the reduction of subsidies for renewable energy production and the Russian government has since lowered its target for wind generation between 2021 to 2025 by two hundred and fifty megawatts to just over three gigawatts. In addition, it has also halved its goal for small hydropower plants.
The CIA report also stated: “RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging “information wars” against the Syrian Government.” Farage had also mirrored this position for some time. The report also referred to the years before 2011, saying “in an earlier example of RT's messaging in support of the Russian Government, during the Georgia-Russia military conflict the channel accused Georgians of killing civilians and organizing a genocide of the Ossetian people. According to Simonyan, when the Ministry of Defense was at war with Georgia, RT was: “Waging an information war against the entire Western world.” In 2008, I found evidence of Farage supporting the Russian position in another BBC interview257.
Even in 2012, the CIA had captured the truth of RT's position, with the report stating: “In recent interviews, RT's leadership has candidly acknowledged its mission to expand its US audience and to expose it to Kremlin messaging.” However, agents recorded the RT leadership “rejected claims that RT interferes in US domestic affairs.” The intelligence agency meticulously documented comments by RT’s Editor in Chief, Simonyan, who claimed in popular arts magazine Afisha: “It is important to have a channel that people get used to, and then, when needed, you show them what you need to show. In some sense, not having our own foreign broadcasting is the same as not having a ministry of defense. When there is no war, it looks like we don't need it. However, when there is a war, it is critical.” The also report stated: “According to Simonyan, “the word 'propaganda' has a very negative connotation, but indeed, there is not a single international foreign TV channel that is doing something other than promotion of the values of the country that it is broadcasting from.” She added: “When Russia is at war, we are, of course, on Russia's side,” and “RT's goal is “to make an alternative channel that shares information unavailable elsewhere in order to conquer the audience and expose it to Russian state messaging.” The annexe concludes that “RT hires or makes contractual agreements with Westerners with views that fit its agenda and airs them on RT.” According to the CIA: “Simonyan said on the pro-Kremlin show, “Minaev Live,” that RT has enough audience and money to be able to choose its hosts, and it chooses the hosts that “think like us,” “are interested in working in the anti-mainstream,” and defend RT's beliefs on social media.” Interestingly, the report added: “Some hosts and journalists do not present themselves as associated with RT when interviewing people, and many of them have affiliations to other media and activist organisations.”
The CIA report along with Farage's response on the FBI probe raised questions as to whether he is aware of the CIA assessment that RT is a direct arm of the Kremlin and, subsequently, how this information defines (or redefines) the nature of his relationship with Russia. It also leaves more questions in respect of the former UKIP leader's adoption of a number of Russian policy positions, including on Syria, Georgia, and renewable energy, along with his apparent regurgitation of the descriptive narrative aimed at the EU, which exactly reflects that of Russian state propaganda against both the EU and the US.
I never managed to elicit a comment or response from Farage or his representatives through his EU parliamentary offices, but his denials were left in tatters in the face of the cumulative evidence.
While coming from two very different places, my investigation and the intelligence services had arrived at the same conclusions and, I found, the EU – in the meantime – had started taking more concrete measures not only to counter the Russian threat but some of the structural defects which had allowed issues like Farage and Le Pen to be left unchecked, often through the lack of effective enforcement powers in units such as OLAF.
The closer alignment of the EU and NATO was intriguing, especially in light of the risks to the transatlantic alliance posed by Russia using both US and UK as leverage and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that, at some point in the not too distant future, NATO could become something else entirely. Another clue to this was easily found in the EU developments on Ukraine.
The Dutch Senate, following the failed election attempt of far-right candidate Gert Wilders, voted through the ratification of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine in a move Russia saw as provocative258. The vote came in the wake of bold statements by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and newly-elected French President, Emanuel Macron, both of whom had directly confronted the pervasive issues of Russian influence targeted at Western elections, and the impact of it upon collapsing international relations with the US and UK.
Responding to the Dutch vote, EU President Juncker said: “Today's vote in the Dutch Senate sends an important signal from the Netherlands and the entire European Union to our Ukrainian friends: Ukraine's place is in Europe. Ukraine's future lies with Europe. I would like to thank the Dutch government and the leadership of
other parties for their efforts in bringing this process to a positive conclusion. We are nearly there. Our Association Agreement, including the Deep And Comprehensive Free Trade Area component, is now one step closer to being ratified. I would like to see the process now being finalised swiftly, in time for the EU-Ukraine Summit in July.”
“The European Union is fully committed to our partnership with the Ukrainian people, which has developed into one of our closest and most valued. The Association Agreement has already increased trade between us, has brought increased prosperity for entrepreneurs, has helped to initiate and consolidate a number of reforms in Ukraine, and has brought new opportunities to European Union and Ukrainian citizens alike. Let us harness the positive momentum generated by today's vote to further strengthen our partnership,” he added. In December 2016, the EU Heads of State and Government had agreed on a legally binding decision setting out their common understanding of certain aspects of the Association Agreement with Ukraine, clarifying the convention did not confer European Union membership, or offer collective security guarantees or military aid/assistance to Ukraine, or give Ukrainian nationals access to the labour markets of EU Member States. They added at the time it did not commit the Member States to financial assistance to Ukraine and underlined that the fight against corruption was an essential element of the arrangement.
Alternative War: Unabridged Page 31
