How more “toxic” can Russia get?
Russia’s international image is poor, and is getting worse. Cultural stereotypes about Russia have never been attractive, which may be true for many countries. But, in the recent years Russia championed in getting new ones and neither of them is positive. After 2016 Russia gained a reputation of a “cyberagressor”, and Russian officials became “toxic”. Russian hackers are associated with interference into elections and domestic affairs. After 2018 Salisbury episode Russian government established an image of a chemical weapon conspirator which made the term “toxicity” even more obvious. Besides, domestic developments in Russia draw a grim picture of a nation which failed the democratic transition and returns to authoritarian patriarch regime. As a result, Russian officials face new rounds of sanctions, and Western leaders tend to stop many tracks of cooperation with Russia.
As much as Russian foreign ministry tries to improve Russia’s positive international image, it is only making the things worse. Russia’s updated Foreign policy concept prioritized “enhancing the positions of Russian media in global information space, and explaining to wide audiences worldwide Russia’s official point of view”.
After serious deterioration of Russian-American relations in 2014 Russian government rebranded the Foreign Ministry public relation service by appointing Maria Zakharova as a press secretary, and reorganized the major government-sponsored media outlets, uniting many major and minor TV and radio stations into the single brand “International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya” more known in the US as “RT”.
Russian government perceives the poor international image as a result of a coordinated information operation executed by Western countries. At the end of 2019, a new department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was created responsible for International Information Security (IIS). Russian diplomats promote the idea of IIS, which is intended to ensure security from information threats as well as cyberattacks and influence operations.
Russia’s general image in the world is actually quite positive, but not among Western democracies, yet this particular fact raises the most concerns of Russian decision makers.
The key to improving the image and restore the healthy dialogue — is through public political activity, which happens to be Russia’s weakest point. Clearly relations with the West is a top priority in Russia’s foreign policy, despite recent Sergey Lavrov’s suggestion to «stop all communications» with the U.S. and Europe. Putin’s reflections about democracy in the World demonstrate that he sees Russia as a part of Western political paradigm opposed to Asian, Islamic or other civilizations despite serious cultural differences.
In the recent years there were a number of episodes which seriously enhanced Russia’s poor image.
First, new accusations of election interference and other forms of cyber aggression. Regardless of what Russian special services or state proxies really did or didn’t do, Russia have gained a strong image of a cyberagressor. It is especially disappointing for Russian decision makers, because Russia have consistently promoted the idea of nonmilitary use of information technologies for 20 years. Now, Russia’s pacifist proposals to make a noninterference pledge provoked Secretary Pompeo to say that Russia is “in fact one of the global internet’s greatest disruptors”, and assistant attorney General National Security John Demers said that Russia’s proposal is “nothing more than dishonest rhetoric and cynical and cheap propaganda”. However, Russian proposal intended not only to waive accusations of Russian interference, but also to commit the US not to interfere into Russian domestic politics.
Second, Navalny’s poisoning. Together with the Sergei Skripal episode two years ago, Russian leaders have once again confirmed their reputation of a chemical weapon conspirators. Alexei Navalny gained recognition as investigative blogger who published reports about corruption among Russia’s top elite, today became most prominent opposition leader. Last year, most of his anticorruption reports were devoted to the front men of Russian key state propaganda figures. It is notable that anticorruption is also a very important part of US critiques of Russia’s leaders. For example, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 directs the intelligence services to investigate of assessment of Vladimir Putin’s assessment of legitimate and illegitimate financial and other assets. Dozens of other bills introduced in 116th Congress were also aimed at exposing and countering corruption in Russia. Probably Navalny can partly take credit for that. In 2014 he published an article in NY Times “How to Punish Putin”, and named specific people from president Putin’s inner circle most of which were included in the sanction list the next day. After his miraculous survival Navalny appeared in CBS 60 minutes, where he condemned president Trump’s silence about his poisoning, thus explicitly positioning himself inside American political landscape. It looks like in Europe the poisoning case raised more concerns about Russia’s possible stockpiles of chemical weapons, rather than the fact that key opposition leader experienced the murder attempt. Nonetheless the story with Navalny is likely to be continued in the next American political cycle, where the Democrats may get more influence. In this case Navalny with his elevated status of a victim of the regime will have support — both, as a corruption fighter and counterpropaganda opinion maker. Needless to say, that Russian government-controlled media perform Navalny as an agent of Western interference, and declare him “enemy of the state”.
Third, a general trend in Russia related to the monopolization of foreign communication and sovereignization of internet. In the age of global cyberspace, it is simply impossible to make a digital analogue of an iron curtain, however Russian government continues to conduct such experiments. During the recent years Russian government have enhanced its legal authorities and technical capabilities to do that. While these policies may be somewhat efficient for the domestic audiences, it is impossible to control the information flows worldwide. The very infrastructure of internet today is becoming more and more suitable for public political activities. Public figures on the internet gain much more support and recognition compared to anonymous actors. It is much harder to disseminate fake news in the style of “Wag the dog” movie, but there are many more sophisticated ways to use public recognition for offering a stronger argument. Instead of embracing these opportunities, Russian government chose to suppress the unwanted opinions and delete the undesired content.
Fourth, every time Western leaders introduce new sanctions, or the media report any negative news about Russia, the Kremlin sells it to the Russian people as “Russophobia”. Having little success in controlling the content on the internet, Russian government still holds the monopoly on traditional media. As a result, many Russian people believe that the US and Europe are plotting against Russia. What is probably even more dangerous, is that in the recent years Russia expelled many American and European NGOs, educational and research institutions and civil society organizations in an effort to “protect” Russians from Western influence. These policies backfired during the pandemics when Foreign Ministry was not even able to get comprehensive information about the number of Russian students in the US. All these actions tend not only to form a mistaken perception among Russians about Western hostile intentions, they reduce the international relations to the top-level official communications and also create a very distorted image of Russia in the eyes of Western partners.
The efforts to counter foreign interference into Russian domestic policies have crossed the boundaries of common sense and now destroy not only real hostilities, but also damage friendly and normal tracks of cooperation. Even during the Cold war, Soviet Communist party, maintained relations with the American socialist movements, which were close do the left wing of the Democratic party. Such connections served as additional channel of communication with American political establishment.
Inability to conduct public political activities make Russian government toxic and starts to contaminate Russian people. Just recently, American research institution refused to accept for publication an article by Russian scientists, since Russia was under international sanctions. Later the American side offered an apology, but that is clearly a very bad precedent.
Thу issue of Russia’s poor image is a serious problem which is unlikely to be overcame in any foreseeable future. If current trends continue, Russia will eventually turn into a rogue state, and future generations will have to deal with the consequences. The only reason for interference would be to get in good with certain domestic political forces, in order to have good relations in the future should they win the elections. In general, such activities should not be condemned, it appears to be a normal intention to find ways of cooperation. Globalization and internet offered the possibility of domestic actors interact despite the official government position. States should seek a way to put such activities into a reasonable framework, but not to expel and accuse each other. The only way not to get the things worse is to maintain and develop dialogue on all possible levels.
