Russian disinformation: an example
Deny.
Deflect.
Blame somebody else.
Deny.
Deflect.
Blame somebody else.
On the fourth of March 2018, an attempt is made to murder the former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia in the small city of Salisbury in the south of England.
After a few days of investigations, the British authorities accuse Russia of being behind the assassination attempt, which was carried out using an extremely dangerous nerve agent, Novichok.
On 5 September 2018, the British police publish the names and photos of two suspects: Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, both agents working for Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU.
These are their agent names, however, and Western sources later discover that their real names are Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga, and his colleague presumed to be Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel Alexander Mishkin of the GRU.
17.07
On 5 September 2018, the British police publish the names and photos of two suspects: Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov.
In Russia, the authorities deny all accusations. The state-controlled Russian media support the authorities by:
For example, Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, says that the British accusations are rooted in ‘Russophobia’, that is, in an unjustified, extreme fear of Russians.
Zakharova also claims that the attack may have been carried out by the UK themselves or by Slovakia, the Czech Republic or Sweden.
17.08
It is clear that the Russian media are not at all critical of the Russian authorities' explanations.
It is interesting to take a closer look at the state-controlled Russian media campaign during the Skripal case. First of all, it is clear that the Russian media are not at all critical of the Russian authorities' explanations.
They do not check whether agents of the Russian government actually tried to kill a former colleague who had been convicted in Russia of selling intelligence to, among others, the United Kingdom. Perhaps because they do not want to, because they can’t, or because they are afraid to.
Once this is done, media consumers can choose whichever explanation suits them best. The editor of the state-controlled television channel RT puts it this way: ‘There are no objective truths’. The thinking is that all news is constructed and therefore influenced by its sender.
Shortly after the assassination attempt on Skripal, more than thirty alternative explanations were already circulating in the state-controlled Russian media.
The media broadcast a lot of alternative explanations, all of which go against what the British authorities say. Many of the explanations contradict each other, but that does not matter. The idea is that they need to flood the news market.
17.09
Shortly after the assassination attempt on Skripal, more than thirty alternative explanations were already circulating in the state-controlled Russian media.
Examples from the media campaign.
The state-controlled television channel 'Pervij Kanal' briefly explains that a 'possible former employee of the GNU has been admitted to hospital in Britain after being poisoned by an unknown substance'.
On ‘Pervij Kanal’, presenter Kirill Klejmenov rejects all accusations of Russian involvement in the poisoning of Sergei and Julia Skripal and warns that ‘the traitor’s profession is one of the most dangerous in the world.
Statistically, it is far more dangerous than being a drug courier. Very rarely do those who choose it live quietly and carefree until old age.’
The state-controlled television channel RT publishes an interview with the two suspected GRU agents, where they explain that they went on a weekend trip to the UK to see the cathedral in Salisbury. Due to bad weather, however, they were forced to return to London.
Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor-in-chief who conducted the interview, asked Petrov and Boshirov why they spend so much time together. To this, Boshirov replied: ‘You know, let's not violate anyone's privacy.’
The presenter on Russian state television, Dmitry Kisilev, says that: ‘London (...) has not yet been able to produce a single confirmed fact in support of its accusations against Moscow.
On the other hand the accusations against Britain are piling up with remarkable speed’.
The state-owned news agency Interfax publishes an interview with Julia Skripal’s cousin Viktoria Skripal, who says: ’Through my sources, I know that [Petrov and Boshirov] are ordinary people (...) the story of Petrov and Boshirov’s involvement is fake.
I have known this from day one’.
Finally, she states that ‘Petrov was not even in Britain at the time’.
Tweet from the Russian Embassy in Britain: ‘Putin: “They [Petrov and Boshirov] are private individuals.”’
Tweet from the Russian Embassy in Denmark: ‘... #Putin has encouraged the two “Salisbury men” (...) to appear in the media soon to tell their real story. Be patient... @informeren.’
The state-owned news agency Interfax publishes the headline ‘Putin calls Skripal a traitor and scum’.
At first, the russian media campaign seems to work according to the plan. The British accusations are rejected with a mixture of insult and ridicule.
Just three days after the assassination attempt, state-supported Russian TV actually has the energy to warn other Russian agents against following in the footsteps of Skripal by giving confidential information to other countries.
As a special feature of this case, the Russian media also presents interviews with a woman called Viktoria Skripal. She is Sergei Skripal’s niece and Julia Skripal’s cousin, and she talks about how well she knows them, and says she can feel they are not able to tell the whole truth from their hospital beds in England.
Viktoria Skripal acts as a kind of truth witness brought out to confirm that the British authorities are lying.
The more times you see a news story, the more likely you are to believe it. So says a study from Yale University. And that is the case whether the news is true or false.
You can read about the study here: Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news
Later on, however, the campaign turns chaotic and messy. In particular, the interview with Petrov and Bosjirov, the two accused agents, on state-owned RT TV on 13 September 2018 gives an impression of chaos and mess.
It is obvious that the interview has been arranged very quickly. And the two agents’ explanation about their trip to Salisbury becomes the subject of ridicule not just in the West but this time on social media in Russia as well.
Before the interview, the British authorities revealed that the two men had made several trips to Western European cities together, to spy and perhaps prepare operations.
The RT interviewer does not reject this information but hints that the two men are probably a gay couple who have been on romantic trips of some kind.
Most of all, it seems as if the Russian authorities have been surprised by the amount of information the British have been able to get their hands on.
The interview on RT has all the appearance of hastily improvised ‘damage control’, that is, an attempt to limit the damage before it all gets worse.
17.19
The interview on RT has all the appearance of hastily improvised 'damage control', that is, an attempt to limit the damage before it all gets worse.
The Russian authorities then forced Petrov and Bosjirov into the studio, where they had to try and explain why they were in Salisbury. Now the entire world knows them, so they are finished as secret agents.
It seems that they were sacrificed to stop the negative stories, particularly from the Western media. This did not work because the interview was so widely ridiculed, as well as resulting in a lot of memes.
‘The notion that Russia has produced dozens of fake narratives on Salisbury is fake in itself’ (Russia’s embassy in London, 7 September 2018; @RussianEmbassy).
Flemming Splidsboel Hansen is a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. He researches into Russian domestic and foreign policy.
