Polonium, Novichok and Propaganda

Alex Goldfarb and Marina Litvinenko with their attorney in Manhattan after filing the complaint on 6 September 2018. Source: stoprussianlies.com

On Tuesday, I attended a talk held by the Henry Jackson Society in which Alex Goldfard and Marina Litvinenko spoke about their plan to fight back against the so-called "Russian propaganda machine" and the disinformation campaign.

Marina’s husband, Alexander Litvinenko, was the Russian defector poisoned with Polonium-210 in London back in 2006. Marina’s tireless efforts to get the truth about her husband’s murder led to a public enquiry, published in 2016. The enquiry affirmed suspicion that his killing was an FSB operation ‘probably’ approved by President Putin. Alex Goldfarb, a close friend of Litvinenko, assisted Marina in her efforts.  

Many comparisons have been made between Litvinenko’s murder and the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury this year: both men were considered 'traitors' by Moscow, both involved the use of highly unusual weapons and were carried out by a team of two Russian men. Another similarity is the Russian press' response. When the news of Skripal's poisoning broke, the Russian media used the same narrative they had 12-years previously: that this was a Western conspiracy to put the blame on Russia. 

“They tried to destroy everything I have done over the last ten years” - Marina Litvinenko

Amongst their coverage of the Skripal case, Channel One and RT (Russia Today) came out to name Goldfarb as a CIA agent who was responsible for the murder of Litvinenko. In response, Goldfarb has filed a defamation lawsuit against the television channels. Marina stated that these reports “tried to destroy everything I have done over the last ten years” through their total disregard for the  findings of the public enquiry. She also added her concern that such disinformation would prevent a proper investigation into Skripal, for which she hopes another public enquiry will be made. 

These libellous reports spurred Goldfarb and Marina to establish a three-pronged “action plan” to counteract the pervasive disinformation campaign in Russia:
​

1. Legal action: Goldfarb’s defamation lawsuit.
2. Media sanctions: Goldfarb and Marina highlighted the fact that no Russian media organisations were subject to Western sanctions. As the media is almost totally controlled by the state, they believe it should be included in ongoing sanctions by the West.
3. The flow of money: The bulk of Russian TV channels’ revenue comes from western multinationals. Goldfarb stated that if these western companies threaten to withdraw their advertising, it would be very effective in limiting the disinformation the various media outlets produce. He wants to increase the pressure on CEOs and companies to stop sponsoring Russian media, claiming it is fuelling war with the West. Goldfarb cited the case of FOX News' Bill O’Reilly who was fired after more than sixty sponsors, including Mercedes-Benz and BMW, pulled their advertising from his show amidst numerous sexual harassment allegations.

Katy's Commentary:
Russia's ability to spin such ludicrous webs of rumours, conspiracy theories and lies to deflect from the truth is something we have seen time and time again since flight MH-17 was shot down in 2014. The Russian state pushes multiple stories so as to confuse the public and  confound reality. There is no doubt that this type of information warfare needs a tailored response.

Goldfarb's defamation lawsuit may seem like a mouse trying to fight an elephant, but it is necessary  in the battle against the propaganda machine. Although Goldfarb does not expect to win much, if any, compensation, it has the potential to set a precedent for similar cases. The lawsuit also fits into the wider narrative of the West-Russia relationship. The UK and the US have come under criticism for letting Russia get away with things, increasingly so since the annexation of Crimea. Putin has become more reckless and willing to take risks, as demonstrated by the Skripal poisoning and the attempt to hack into the Hague's chemical weapons watchdog a few weeks ago. These are just some examples of Russia's carelessness and its brazen attitude to breaking international law. Therefore, cases such as Goldfarb's against the Russian media are essential in trying to curtail the Russian state. 

With regards to media sanctions, there is the obvious problem that the Kremlin spin would be to present it as Western Russophobia and criticise the censorship as hypocritical. Goldfarb mentioned the US's exception to freedom of speech whereby the false statements of fact are not protected by First Amendment rights to defend this point.
Nevertheless, other than sending a message and playing into Putin's Russia-hating portrayal of the West, Russian media viewership in the West is very small - 0.04% in Britain - so the effectiveness of this could be limited. 

Whilst I could not find any figures on Western MNC's sponsorship of Russian media, if they do in fact contribute significantly to revenues, then removing their advertising would have great negative consequences for the Russian organisations. Pressure from the general public on the Western companies would be the most effective way to do this.

Overall, the 'Stop Russian Lies' campaign could do a lot of good in terms of educating the public on the lies purported by state-run media organisations in Russia. Any media report, whether Western or Russian, needs to be looked at with a critical eye; too many people take what they read in the news as gospel. 

Ultimately, there needs to be an increased international effort to counter the information war being waged by Russia. Marina Litvinenko stated that ‘propaganda can be as toxic a weapon as Polonium and Novichok when used to undermine democracies’. She is right. 

---