It is a proven method of the Russian propaganda machine: using a website that looks like a legitimate Western news site to spread misleading and polarizing (dis)information. Voice of Europe is one of them, the Czech intelligence service revealed this week. The site was founded by several Dutch investors, including Erik de Vlieger and Annemiek Ploumen. But they are said to have sold the domain name to a Czech media company around 2020.
“Russia is very adept at creating these types of news sites, the status of which is unclear,” says Mariëlle Wijermars, assistant professor of cybersecurity and politics at Maastricht University. “They may have an editorial team, and the people who work there may not know anything about it, but they do have a clear agenda. That's hard for readers to determine, though, because it's unclear that it's being paid for by Russia and they look pretty decent.”
Many European countries have their own version of Voice of Europe, says Pekka Kalliomieni, the Finnish founder of 'Vatnik Soup', a Twitter account and website that exposes pro-Russian propagandists worldwide. “In Finland there is a website called MV-Media, which started out as a kind of gossip magazine. But he was sold to the Kremlinist Eurosceptic and conspiracy theorist Janus Putkonen. Now the website only distributes news from channels such as Russia Today and Sputnik. In every EU country, Russia is trying to have such an alternative platform in the local language.”
In that sense, the news about Voice of Europe did not surprise Wijermans and Kalliemieni. What did surprise them is that, according to the Czech intelligence service, the website was used to pay European politicians in various countries, including the Netherlands, to portray Ukraine in a bad light. In recent years, Voice of Europe has offered a platform to various Dutch politicians, such as FVD leader Thierry Baudet, MEP Marcel de Graaff (FVD) and PVV leader Geert Wilders.
But Wijermans thinks it is too early to draw conclusions. “We are still missing a lot of details, as far as I am concerned. Were those politicians paid for, for example, an interview on that site? Or did they receive money to promote those views elsewhere? We currently have too little information about the nature of the payments. The AIVD warned FVD in 2020 about attempts by Russia to influence the party. But we don't know what evidence lies beneath that.”
It is not the first time that Baudet has been accused of acting as a mouthpiece for the Kremlin. In 2020, Zembla revealed apps from him in the broadcast 'Baudet and the Kremlin', which showed that he had a secret relationship with “a Russian who works for Putin”. Baudet defended himself by arguing that the messages were intended to be ironic. “It is very difficult in the context of that time and mutual interaction to distinguish what was said with irony and playful exaggeration.”
The broadcast raised the question of whether there were financial ties between Baudet and the Kremlin, but hard evidence was lacking. That is often the case with Russian interference, says Wijermans. “We have many indications that Russia is engaged in this, and that it is using a wide range of methods. But prove it. Because they are of course also adept at leaving no traces, for example by hiding behind a series of intermediaries or companies.”
Baudet would not be the first radical right European politician or opinion maker to accept money from the Kremlin. The French radical right party National Front borrowed in the past millions of euros from Russia for an election campaign. Also employees of the radical right party Alternative für Deutschand got money from Russia. Latvian MEP Tatjana Zdanoka, who holds very pro-Russian positions, worked for years as a spy for Russia. The same applies to Austrian businessman Jan Marsalek, former top manager at the now bankrupt German payment service Wirecard. who ran a Bulgarian spy network. And the renowned German journalist Hubert Seipel turned out for his books and documentary about President Putin, which painted a fairly positive picture of him, to have been paid for by Russia.
Refined
Given their ideological affinity with Putin, Wijermans finds it difficult to say whether radical right politicians are tailoring their message to the Kremlin. “The most complicated thing about this is causality. Because Russians often choose topics that are already important in a country, such as immigration. These are issues that people are legitimately concerned about, and that are divisive. They look for ways to reinforce existing sentiments. That also makes it so refined.”
The themes are constantly changing, according to Kalliomieni. “Now, for example, it seems to be that huge bridge that collapsed in the United States. The message is: we should not send any more aid abroad until we have repaired our own infrastructure. But it could be anything. It's very cynical and opportunistic. Whatever it is, they are trying to link it somehow to the war in Ukraine or to countries helping Ukraine. Just see what sticks.”
Moreover, propaganda outlets such as Russia Today and Sputnik, which target foreign countries, are adept at mixing disinformation with normal reporting. They pretend to be a legitimate news channel, but their coverage of Europe is selective and follows a set pattern. They invariably report on protests, especially when the police intervene heavily. Problems with migrants and the European Union are magnified. Wijermans: “Just to show: the government is against you, the European Union is of no use to you, and you are not being defended.”
Russia Today and Sputnik have been banned in Europe since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the websites and streaming services are still easy to reach in many places in Europe. It shows how difficult channels are to ban in the internet age. After the European ban, the role of Russia Today and Sputnik was taken over by the official social media accounts of Russian embassies, consulates and government officials, according to Wijermans. “And they have a different status, because we naturally want to impose far fewer restrictions on official political representatives,” she says. “So Russia can take advantage of that. That's what makes it so difficult.”
What further complicates the situation is that the Russians are now using so-called hybrid information operations, where Russian activists hijack protests or other real-world events and try to make them go viral. “That's something they do quite often now,” says Kalliomieni. “Did you see those Stars of David that the FSB graffitied on several houses in Paris last year? That had to be an anti-Semitic message. They took photos of it, which they then tried to make go viral using online methods of influence.”
All this makes it very difficult to take action against Russian disinformation and political interference, say Kalliomieni and Wijermans. Both argue for restraint in banning media, because that is ineffective and fuels distrust towards the government. “The most important thing is to invest in good information provision,” says Wijermans. “So in journalism in the broadest sense. Not just quality newspapers like NRC, but also regional media that know better what is going on in society. And they tailor their news accordingly. So that people gain more confidence in the media and are less inclined to look for other sources of information.”
#Disinformation #payment #uncertain