Russian cultural centers operate worldwide, influencing young people with Kremlin narratives while concealing its crimes in Ukraine – and in D.C., it’s operating tax free.
When you talk about the scale of global Russia Houses it makes me think of the attention economy. Attention is a limited resource. Capturing and retaining someone’s attention isn’t just important for businesses and social media for their market share, it’s also important for ideology and propaganda.
Yes, there’s always a way to fight back! Promoting Ukrainian narratives (this Substack is one example) and counter-narratives. I’ve recently been reading Weaponized Words by Kurt Braddock. It’s about the use of persuasion in violent radicalization & counter radicalization but I think a lot of what he has to say can apply here. A narrative is a story that an audience can connect to. If they believe the source is credible and they can see themselves in the story then they can start to align with the story’s message. Unfortunately, not every story is effective or even effective on every audience member. Some stories resonate and others don’t. Also, scale is a factor. The attention economy is a tight market. You’re not just competing against Russian propaganda but also local politics, the job market, inflation, health concerns, daycare availability, education, summer camp alternatives, entertainment, etc, etc. But it’s not impossible. There’s always a way!
Yes, that’s exactly. And the longer the world ignores this, the deeper Russian propaganda seeps into society. Do you think there’s any real way to fight back when people’s attention is so easy to capture and hold?
All embassies and their subsidiary ‘cultural houses’ should be closest and staff deported in the event of invasive military action by an aggressor state.
This is an abomination! How infuriating! I would hope the Americans who go to this travesty in DC will look with discerning eyes. And the camp in Crimea is doubly egregious! I am thoroughly disgusted with anyone who doesn’t see Putin as the scourge he is; as I am extremely ashamed and disappointed in any American who ignores trump’s lawlessness and corruption. I’m a peaceful person, but I’d be more at peace if both Putin and trump were assassinated.
These emotions are completely understandable, especially when we see the scale of these people’s crimes. But what do you think, peaceful change is still possible, or has the world already crossed that line?
I don’t think peaceful change will be possible, but that is all on Putin. He’s a reprehensible being, intent on grabbing as much of Ukraine’s territory as possible. I believe that he won’t stop until he takes more of Ukraine. He believes that he owns Crimea, but I know that the US and other western nations see Crimea as Ukrainian.
I don’t know what will end this war, but I pray that something happens soon so you don’t continue to lose everyday Ukrainians. It’s truly a travesty!
A lot of Russian and far-right propaganda targeted at the west paints Russia as a haven for people with conservative, traditional values. This is the kind of nonsense that Russian assets like Tucker Carlson like to peddle. I also think that many of the people who are actually swayed by this have racist tendencies and probably think of Russia as a “white European” country, which (sadly) has appeal to them.
The best antidote for this ignorance is education, but that’s not an overnight fix. However as others have said, publications like the Counteroffensive are an important part of the mix.
Yes to all of this, and also there's a contrarian element: "the people I hate keep insisting that Russia is the enemy. I'm going to go see for myself. I bet I can prove them wrong!"
Welcome to the party. The Soviets were behind feeding most modern day antisemitic propaganda to the left, and the allegedly progressive left picked it up and ran with it. If you want to see where public opinion on Ukraine is heading, just look at the influence of the Free Palestine cult, originating in Russian propaganda and amplified with Qatari and Saudi petrodollars.
Yeah, it’s definitely a worrying trend, especially seeing how quickly these narratives are going mainstream. Do you think there’s still a chance to stop it?
Actively going after propagandists, rather than accepting it as “Free Speech”. I want it to be illegal for universities to take “donations” (investments) from foreign nations, and all media companies need to disclose any “investment” from foreign sources, like Cucker Qatarlson’s recent Russian and Qatari petrodollars.
I agree that this sort of influence operation should definitely *not* be subsidized and should have some sort of restraints. At the least, visitors need to be alerted as to what it is.
But we need to be careful about actually shutting down foreign influence operations. The US has its own influence operations. From Wikipedia:
"The foreign editor of The Washington Post described the NDI's parent organization the National Endowment of Democracy as 'the sugar daddy of overt operations'. NED cofounder Allen Weinstein told The Washington Post that 'A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.'" (/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute)
Sometime the role of NED has been benign. NED promoted the evolution of Ukraine from a vassal state of the former Soviet Union to a young democracy (https://www.ned.org/ukraines-success-after-25-years/). Sometimes its role has not been benign. It has been involved in destabilization of democratically elected governments.
My belief is that every nation should be free to find its own way, including having the right to make mistakes--even terrible mistakes. When big, powerful nations overpower weaker nations using influence operations, they prevent them from doing so, often with tragic results.
As long as influence operations are clearly labeled as being from a foreign country, it's hard to see what legal justification there is for shutting them down.
Instead, the West needs to rediscover its ideals. We have drifted away from democracy. There are a lot of social ills we aren't addressing. Many young people lack a sense of their place and importance in the world. Let's have a Revolution of Dignity in the West that drives out the corruption, the influence-peddling, the old-boy politics that makes us less than democratic. If our societies were genuinely happy, people wouldn't be interested in what Russia has to sell.
I don't think it's possible, at least in a legal sense, to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable influence that won't damage democracy as much as it helps it.
The correct line is, of course, between truth and falsity. So when an organization is propagating claims that are generally understood to be false ("vaccines are dangerous," "the government is controlling the weather," "the moon landing never happened") it's pretty clear that this is unhelpful to society. But even with testable claims, it's not so easy to prove truth or falsity. In the *1990s*, the New York Times was still pushing Charles Murray's claims of racial superiority and, granted, this is because they didn't read his "research" carefully-- but neither did most of his critics. In the Bell Curve, he presents a graph that actually disproves his whole thesis. In a large number of unsatisfactory refutations, I never saw this pointed out.
So many topics *aren't* susceptible to scientific or logical testing, and there, dividing truth and falsity is much more difficult.
The best solution to refuting Russian propaganda is to point out its inconsistencies: to use their text to refute their text. This is difficult, but inconsistency is the characteristic of lies. When Trump claims that Obama "wrote" the Epstein files, he's making the claim that his own Justice Department somehow was fooled into successfully prosecuting Epstein for... what, exactly? The explosion on the right about the Epstein files is because their pathetically ineffectual bulls--t filter has finally filled up, overflowed, and disgusted them. Their text has refuted their text.
Gosh well done for uncovering this absolute scandal - I hope some action I taken to shut these places down
When you talk about the scale of global Russia Houses it makes me think of the attention economy. Attention is a limited resource. Capturing and retaining someone’s attention isn’t just important for businesses and social media for their market share, it’s also important for ideology and propaganda.
Yes, there’s always a way to fight back! Promoting Ukrainian narratives (this Substack is one example) and counter-narratives. I’ve recently been reading Weaponized Words by Kurt Braddock. It’s about the use of persuasion in violent radicalization & counter radicalization but I think a lot of what he has to say can apply here. A narrative is a story that an audience can connect to. If they believe the source is credible and they can see themselves in the story then they can start to align with the story’s message. Unfortunately, not every story is effective or even effective on every audience member. Some stories resonate and others don’t. Also, scale is a factor. The attention economy is a tight market. You’re not just competing against Russian propaganda but also local politics, the job market, inflation, health concerns, daycare availability, education, summer camp alternatives, entertainment, etc, etc. But it’s not impossible. There’s always a way!
Yes, that’s exactly. And the longer the world ignores this, the deeper Russian propaganda seeps into society. Do you think there’s any real way to fight back when people’s attention is so easy to capture and hold?
A most informative (and infuriating!) article. Thank you for researching this loophole. Let's find ways to pressure Germany to close it.
All embassies and their subsidiary ‘cultural houses’ should be closest and staff deported in the event of invasive military action by an aggressor state.
This is an abomination! How infuriating! I would hope the Americans who go to this travesty in DC will look with discerning eyes. And the camp in Crimea is doubly egregious! I am thoroughly disgusted with anyone who doesn’t see Putin as the scourge he is; as I am extremely ashamed and disappointed in any American who ignores trump’s lawlessness and corruption. I’m a peaceful person, but I’d be more at peace if both Putin and trump were assassinated.
These emotions are completely understandable, especially when we see the scale of these people’s crimes. But what do you think, peaceful change is still possible, or has the world already crossed that line?
I don’t think peaceful change will be possible, but that is all on Putin. He’s a reprehensible being, intent on grabbing as much of Ukraine’s territory as possible. I believe that he won’t stop until he takes more of Ukraine. He believes that he owns Crimea, but I know that the US and other western nations see Crimea as Ukrainian.
I don’t know what will end this war, but I pray that something happens soon so you don’t continue to lose everyday Ukrainians. It’s truly a travesty!
I'm reminded of the story this week of an American couple who moved to Russia, only for the husband to be sent to the front lines when he enlisted.
Yes, it’s such a telling story. Why do you think people from the West still move to Russia?
A lot of Russian and far-right propaganda targeted at the west paints Russia as a haven for people with conservative, traditional values. This is the kind of nonsense that Russian assets like Tucker Carlson like to peddle. I also think that many of the people who are actually swayed by this have racist tendencies and probably think of Russia as a “white European” country, which (sadly) has appeal to them.
The best antidote for this ignorance is education, but that’s not an overnight fix. However as others have said, publications like the Counteroffensive are an important part of the mix.
Yes to all of this, and also there's a contrarian element: "the people I hate keep insisting that Russia is the enemy. I'm going to go see for myself. I bet I can prove them wrong!"
Welcome to the party. The Soviets were behind feeding most modern day antisemitic propaganda to the left, and the allegedly progressive left picked it up and ran with it. If you want to see where public opinion on Ukraine is heading, just look at the influence of the Free Palestine cult, originating in Russian propaganda and amplified with Qatari and Saudi petrodollars.
Yeah, it’s definitely a worrying trend, especially seeing how quickly these narratives are going mainstream. Do you think there’s still a chance to stop it?
Actively going after propagandists, rather than accepting it as “Free Speech”. I want it to be illegal for universities to take “donations” (investments) from foreign nations, and all media companies need to disclose any “investment” from foreign sources, like Cucker Qatarlson’s recent Russian and Qatari petrodollars.
I agree that this sort of influence operation should definitely *not* be subsidized and should have some sort of restraints. At the least, visitors need to be alerted as to what it is.
But we need to be careful about actually shutting down foreign influence operations. The US has its own influence operations. From Wikipedia:
"The foreign editor of The Washington Post described the NDI's parent organization the National Endowment of Democracy as 'the sugar daddy of overt operations'. NED cofounder Allen Weinstein told The Washington Post that 'A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.'" (/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Institute)
Sometime the role of NED has been benign. NED promoted the evolution of Ukraine from a vassal state of the former Soviet Union to a young democracy (https://www.ned.org/ukraines-success-after-25-years/). Sometimes its role has not been benign. It has been involved in destabilization of democratically elected governments.
My belief is that every nation should be free to find its own way, including having the right to make mistakes--even terrible mistakes. When big, powerful nations overpower weaker nations using influence operations, they prevent them from doing so, often with tragic results.
As long as influence operations are clearly labeled as being from a foreign country, it's hard to see what legal justification there is for shutting them down.
Instead, the West needs to rediscover its ideals. We have drifted away from democracy. There are a lot of social ills we aren't addressing. Many young people lack a sense of their place and importance in the world. Let's have a Revolution of Dignity in the West that drives out the corruption, the influence-peddling, the old-boy politics that makes us less than democratic. If our societies were genuinely happy, people wouldn't be interested in what Russia has to sell.
You’re right that influence operations exist in many countries, and NED also has a controversial history.
Perhaps the solution isn’t a ban but transparency — so people can see where the message is coming from and make an informed choice.
Where do you think the line is between acceptable influence and dangerous manipulation?
I don't think it's possible, at least in a legal sense, to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable influence that won't damage democracy as much as it helps it.
The correct line is, of course, between truth and falsity. So when an organization is propagating claims that are generally understood to be false ("vaccines are dangerous," "the government is controlling the weather," "the moon landing never happened") it's pretty clear that this is unhelpful to society. But even with testable claims, it's not so easy to prove truth or falsity. In the *1990s*, the New York Times was still pushing Charles Murray's claims of racial superiority and, granted, this is because they didn't read his "research" carefully-- but neither did most of his critics. In the Bell Curve, he presents a graph that actually disproves his whole thesis. In a large number of unsatisfactory refutations, I never saw this pointed out.
So many topics *aren't* susceptible to scientific or logical testing, and there, dividing truth and falsity is much more difficult.
The best solution to refuting Russian propaganda is to point out its inconsistencies: to use their text to refute their text. This is difficult, but inconsistency is the characteristic of lies. When Trump claims that Obama "wrote" the Epstein files, he's making the claim that his own Justice Department somehow was fooled into successfully prosecuting Epstein for... what, exactly? The explosion on the right about the Epstein files is because their pathetically ineffectual bulls--t filter has finally filled up, overflowed, and disgusted them. Their text has refuted their text.