The Kremlin has intensified its propaganda efforts targeting Western nations, seeking to coerce Ukraine into accepting unfavorable negotiation terms and prompting NATO countries to limit aid to Ukraine. Russia is particularly active in attempting to influence France and the USA. This campaign includes information warfare and threats of nuclear blackmail. For insights into Moscow's heightened activity and its objectives, refer to Apostrophe’s article.
To make you shudder
The American Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has highlighted the escalation of information operations led by Kremlin figures such as Dmitry Peskov, Sergei Shoigu, and Sergei Lavrov. These efforts aim to pressure Ukraine into accepting unfavorable terms during negotiations and to urge restraint from the West.
ISW analysts underscore Sergei Shoigu's strategy of leveraging threats against France to curtail its support for Ukraine and his pretense of interest in peace talks, all within a broader Russian information campaign. This campaign seeks to persuade Western nations to pressure Ukraine into accepting inequitable negotiation terms.
Moscow's primary objective is to persuade the United States, a pivotal geopolitical actor, to pressure Kyiv into initiating the negotiation process by taking the ‘first steps.’ Additionally, in response to French President Emmanuel Macron's calls for heightened assistance to Ukraine, the Kremlin has launched information attacks aimed at France. Dmitry Peskov declared a ‘direct confrontation’ between NATO and Russia, alleging that the Аlliance is becoming entangled in the Ukrainian conflict and accusing it of encroaching upon Russia's borders.
‘Following Macron's remarks concerning NATO troops in Ukraine, we observe a heightened propaganda onslaught aimed at France and Macron personally. The Kremlin is unequivocally signaling its preparedness for "retaliation." Russian authorities are striving to exhibit their "leverage," whether through orchestrating military provocations, instigating Islamist terrorist attacks on shopping centers in EU capitals, or disrupting the Summer Olympic Games in Paris. Concurrently, Moscow is attempting to exert pressure even on Beijing by insinuating potential military confrontations with the West. These tactics aim to induce hesitation in Paris and other capitals, ultimately dissuading them from supporting Ukraine,’ Volodymyr Fesenko, the head of the Penta Center for Applied Political Research, tells Apostrophe.
Putin's bluff
Russian officials have consistently depicted NATO and the West as existential threats to Russia, providing a rationale for potential military intervention in Ukraine. Peskov's recurrent mentions of ‘direct confrontation’ serve to bolster this narrative, possibly as a component of a reflexive control strategy aimed at shaping Western decisions regarding support for Ukraine.
Lavrov further advances information operations by pretending to be interested in negotiations. He utilizes meetings with foreign ambassadors to criticize Ukraine's ‘peace formula’ and assert Russia's willingness to engage in dialogue on its own terms.
ISW highlights Russia's readiness for a potential armed conflict with NATO forces, noting military reforms and the reconstruction of military districts. Meanwhile, Russia accuses NATO of creating conditions conducive to such actions.
The surge in activity among Russian ‘talking heads’ prompts the question: Why now? From an external perspective, the heightened rhetoric from the Kremlin threatening Western escalation raises suspicions that Russian leader Putin may currently seek a temporary reprieve.
‘Despite the bravado from figures like Shoigu, Peskov, and Lavrov, Russia is currently incapable of launching a strategic offensive operation. Resorting to political blackmail, they aim to intimidate the West, halt further assistance to Ukraine, and impose negotiations on Kremlin terms. These negotiations could serve Putin's agenda either to conclude their "special operation" or establish a formal "truce," during which Russia intends to persist in bluffing and blackmail to advance its objectives within the framework of a negotiation process,’ the military expert Ivan Stupak tells Apostrophe.
Fear persists in the West, though
However, apprehension still lingers in the West. To execute their scheme, Russians must consistently escalate tension and threats, potentially including the use of nuclear weapons. It appears that belligerent alcoholic Dmitry Medvedev, known for his aggressive social media posts and excessive drinking, remains in the Kremlin for precisely this purpose. Unfortunately, it seems the West is considering these prospects with caution, if not outright alarm.
It's noteworthy that the first signs of hesitation emerged within the White House. Republican member of the US House of Representatives and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Michael McCaul, stated that National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is cautious about ‘over-helping’ Ukraine, fearing that Russia could resort to a nuclear strike.
‘I like Colin Powell's doctrine. You either resolutely get down to business, or you remain completely on the sidelines, but do not take “half steps”. You know, we give Putin exactly what he wants. This is a situation without change. War of attrition. And he has more people to throw into battle,’noted Michael McCole.
The congressman is among the Republicans actively advocating assistance to Ukraine.
In response to an interviewer's remark regarding differences between Blinken and Sullivan, McCaul underscored Sullivan's extreme caution and reluctance. He highlighted Sullivan's concerns about the potential consequences of excessive support for Ukraine, which could provoke Russia into a tactical nuclear attack. McCaul noted that most intelligence he had seen did not justify such fears, implying that Sullivan's apprehensions might be unfounded.
McCaul repeated his assessment of Sullivan as ‘overly hesitant and cautious’ and expressed disappointment that the measures that were eventually taken were too little and too late, despite all the concerns that Sullivan had expressed.
Vitaly Kulyk, head of the Center for the Study of Civil Society Problems, points out that despite constant Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons, the current configuration of the front and the control system of the Armed Forces of Ukraine suggest that such action wouldn't lead to the collapse or capitulation of Ukraine. However, it would significantly alter the dynamics of the conflict, prompting more countries to consider developing their own nuclear arsenals. Kulyk suggests that Ukraine, with its specialists and capabilities, could potentially be among the first to pursue this course of action.
‘During the election campaign, both Republicans and Democrats engage in finger-pointing. Trump supporters are accused of obstructing assistance to Ukraine, while moderate Republicans find themselves in a dilemma. They must navigate dialogue with right-wing conservatives while also criticizing the White House. The contention is that President Biden and his team, particularly Sullivan, are labeled as "cowardly" for their alleged fear of Russian nuclear weapons,’ Kulyk says.
Press Freedom vs. Aid for Russians
One more well known Russian tool is the Kremlin’s parasitism on Western freedom of speech and democratic institutions.
Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany, Alexey Makeev, criticized Berliner Zeitung for its coverage of the Russian war against Ukraine, highlighting systematic distortion of information and departure from reality. He also raised concerns about the newspaper providing a platform for former employees of Russian state media.
In response, the editors of Berliner Zeitung urged the Ukrainian Ambassador to respect freedom of speech in European democracy."
“We consider the completely unfounded attacks on the named journalists and authors as an attempt at intimidation and therefore as an attack on press freedom,” the Berliner Zeitung added.
While there's no explicit proof linking Berliner Zeitung to Kremlin interests, the presence of Russian intelligence networks in the EU post-Ukraine invasion raises concerns. Propagation of anti-Ukrainian narratives in Europe aligns with Russian interests, particularly amidst the numerous Western Hemisphere elections in 2024.
Against the backdrop of four impending election campaigns in Germany, encompassing European Parliament elections and those in the eastern federal states of Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg, the political landscape is undergoing significant scrutiny. As confidence wanes in Olaf Scholz's ruling coalition and the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany party gains momentum, coupled with farmer protests and heightened international tensions, European analysts are pondering the potential for substantial political shifts in Germany, the largest democracy in Europe.
‘The Kremlin seems to overlook the fundamentals of Western democracy. While both right and left-wing parties may secure seats in national and European parliaments, they often lack the majority needed to govern independently. Instead, they must negotiate with moderate parties and groups. The recent case of Geert Wilders' party in the Netherlands is illustrative—despite their victory, Wilders had to temper his rhetoric and demands, highlighting the necessity for coalition-building in a diverse political landscape,’ political strategist Alexey Golobutsky tells Apostrophe.
The Kremlin appears to be biding its time until the next presidential elections in the United States, likely planning to assert its demands openly to the incoming administration. However, behind the scenes, Moscow is already laying the groundwork for diplomatic maneuvers and strategic decisions.
