EXPOSE Network Series

Part 2 : – Examining the role of the EXPOSE network and authenticating the supporting evidence.

Part 3 : – Looking at the Network Facilitator for the EXPOSE Network established by the Zinc Consortium.

Part 4 : – Research into the EXPOSE Network partners and the web of globalist institutions behind them.

Part 5 : – Continuing to look at the EXPOSE Network partners and the web of globalist institutions behind them.

Part 6 : – The global funding streams and parallel international initiatives placing the EXPOSE Network inside a larger multinational operation.

An Introduction to the EXPOSE Network

A multinational, state backed, corporate funded, information control and censorship network is operational in Europe and beyond. The threat it poses to democracy, freedom of speech & expression and the people’s ability to openly and freely share information cannot be overstated.

Leaked documents reveal the purpose and scope of what we can call the EXPOSE Network, its facilitator (Zinc consortium) and its hub (the Open Information Partnership.) These documents are authenticated in Part 2 of the series. Following the leaks, a number of reports emerged. Many were from Russian state media outlets such as RT and Sputnik with others such as George Galloway and 21st Century Wire also drawing attention to the leaked documents.

We cannot be certain about the official name of this operation, or even if it has one. The only verifiable name is that given to the public facing element of its hub, the Open Information Partnership. However, as we shall see, the ‘counter disinformation’ network proposed by the Zinc led consortium is active. The capabilities they offered the FCO in their technical proposal are currently deployed across Europe, especially the Eastern Partnership. In the absence of any better term, we can refer to this project as the EXPOSE Network. This is the original name suggested by the FCO.

It has been claimed that the planned EXPOSE Network hasn’t reached fruition. The evidence revealed in this series of articles will show that it is presently operating at the heart of the European Union’s ‘Action Plan Against Disinformation’. It is clear that everything which challenges western state narratives is considered Kremlin disinformation. At no stage are the EXPOSE partners asked to consider the evidence substantiating this assertion. It is simply stated as fact.

The EXPOSE Network & The Open Information Partnership

The EXPOSE Network is a project of the Counter Disinformation & Media Development Program (CDMD), currently headed by Andy Pryce. The likely contracting authority is the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (then Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt). It is a £10 million tax payer funded 3 year project that was planned to run between Summer 2018 to 2021.

The Open Information Partnership (OIP) is the Network Hub of the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) EXPOSE network. It is a one part of a wider UK/EU/NATO strategic communication and data gathering operation.

We can rule out any idea the EXPOSE Network is genuinely concerned with beating manipulated information, as claimed by the OIP. At no stage, throughout its development, has any emphasis been placed upon investigation or the analysis of evidence. The attempts at uncovering genuine disinformation, which undoubtedly exists, have been distorted and exaggerated to such an extent, the findings are practically meaningless.

Investigative journalism is denounced as expensive and impractical, reporting verifiable evidence isn’t mentioned, and seeking recourse via international law is notable only by its absence. Counter disinformation is a transparent cover term for propaganda.

The Network Facilitator of EXPOSE is a consortium led by Zinc Networks who were formerly known as Breakthrough Media. The projects resource partners are Bellingcat, DFR Labs and the Media Diversity Institute. The implementing consortium partners are the Institute of Statecraft and Atkis Strategy (no longer operating) with risk management and security almost certainly provided by Toro Risk Solutions. Grant fund management is probably handled by Ecorys.

Both the EXPOSE network’s and the larger EU/NATO strategic communications (STRATCOM) operations are closely tied to globalist think tanks and multinational corporations. Its purpose is to promote EU/NATO policy objectives and undermine all who question them; it targets mainly European nations, especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans but also others in Central Eurasia, almost certainly with a view to expanding towards North & Central Africa and the Middle East.

Andy Pryce: Head of the CDMD

Its counter disinformation is based upon the assumption that anything and everything which challenges either EU/NATO policies or narratives are products of Kremlin disinformation. This is a ‘threat to national security’ and is therefore to be opposed. Those who challenge western state narratives or criticise policy will be identified and reported as Kremlin disinformation agents, assets, trolls or bots to the Counter Disinformation and Media Development Program (CDMD) of the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The EXPOSE networks STATCOM (a common euphemism for propaganda) activities are tied in with the raft of internet regulations being created by European states. These include the UK’s proposed Online Harms legislation and the EU’s recent copyright directives. Google, Facebook, Twitter and other ‘tech giants’ are both backers of, and in some cases likely involved in, the EXPOSE Network’s operation.

It is these global corporations and Social Media giants who will be tasked, under the new Internet regulations, with applying the necessary ‘rules’ to ensure those identified as peddling Kremlin disinformation are effectively silenced online. The network of actors, directed by the CDMD, will also be supported to lobby for further regulation of the Internet.

The Implications of the EXPOSE Network

This article is 1 of 6 examining the web of western governments, Civil Society Organisations (CSO), Non Governmental Organisations (NGO), journalists & smaller scale actors, bloggers and activists who form the EXPOSE network. As I’m sure you’ve figured out by now, there’s a lot of detail to cover. Please stick with it, if you can make the time. I think you will find it worthwhile.

We will also consider how the EXPOSE Network is embedded, throughout Europe and central Eurasia. We’ll look at who is funding the operation, some of their history, motives and objectives. We will examine the evidence, cited throughout, which prompts reason for concern.

Before we do, let’s briefly think about the implications suggested by the EXPOSE Network. Leaked documents reveal its true purpose and scope, its facilitator (Zinc consortium) and its hub (the Open Information Partnership.) In Part 2 we’ll authenticate those documents. For now, let’s just consider what they say.

The EXPOSE Network document Upskilling and Upscale: Unleashing the Capacity of Civil Society To Counter Disinformation defines disinformation as:

“Kremlin influence operations within the communications environment.”

The examples cited are:

“Smear campaign against the White Helmets, a group trusted by the UK government, especially their evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Russia and its allies in Syria.”

And:

“Creating multiple false narratives to reject the UK Governments analysis of the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury or muddying the waters around the shooting down of the MH17 airliner by Russian controlled forces in the Ukraine.”

Aside from the fact this appears to confirm the UK Government’s ‘open source intelligence’ (OSINT) on alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria came from the White Helmets and they believe Russia, not just the Syrian government, were responsible, this definition raises other concerns.

This investigation is not about me, but perhaps some self disclosure is pertinent. I am one among many who have questioned the Skripal narrative, the Syrian chemical weapons attack claims and the role of the White Helmets. I’m a British citizen, I don’t know any Russians and I don’t support the Russian state. I don’t believe the Russian mainstream media (MSM) any more than I believe the western MSM. Nor do I unquestioningly accept reports by the so called ‘alternative media.’ I don’t claim to represent anyone else’s views, but I know my experience and approach are fairly common.

Defending media freedom?

My initial suspicions about these official state narratives were alerted not by others opinions but rather by noticing the apparent lack of any verifiable evidence supporting them. MSM reports that “experts say” or “intelligence sources confirm” are not sufficiently convincing for me. When I see such phrases, I want to know more.

Like millions of others, before believing something I’m told I want to see the actual evidence to properly inform my opinion. Especially if the public, myself included, are then invited, usually by the ubiquitous MSM, to rally behind a state policy to blame a foreign power or launch military action as a result. Apparently, in accordance with the OIP’s own statements, an informed public is also something of great importance to the EXPOSE Network.

When researching these events I used a variety of information sources. Mainly western based mainstream media, official government and NGO reports, political and official statements, alternative media (fellow bloggers and websites) and books, freely available for purchase in the UK. All of it in the public domain. My motivation has always been to understand as much as I can about world events and share my perspective. Like anyone else I have cognitive bias, but I try to stay as objective as possible and focus on evidence.

I’m not so interested in opinion but rather cited primary and secondary sources where I can read information, eyewitness accounts, official reports and so on for myself. I reserve the right to make up my own mind.

In general I find the ‘alternative,’ or rather ‘independent’ media better at citing their sources than the MSM. They tend to be more useful from a research perspective, simply for this reason. However, the MSM also provide valuable information. It just requires additional research to track down their sources. There are still a dwindling number of decent journalists working in the MSM. While I am critical of the MSM as a whole, I do not suggest it is useless.

I strongly support the notion of a truly independent media, investigating powerful influences and forces. Given their resources, it would be preferable if the MSM applied themselves to the task and gave greater prominence to journalists who question power. They don’t appear too inclined to do so and a vacuum has been created which has been filled by others.

Unfortunately, when former UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt spoke about independent media at the Global Conference for Media Freedom his version of an ‘independent media’ was the media, either owned by a handful of global corporations or state run, which doesn’t question power.

A truly independent, subscriber supported, investigative media has been flourishing online. If Hunt was serious about media freedom then it is this small cottage industry of shoestring teams of investigative reporters he should encourage, alongside the established MSM. They would undoubtedly benefit from resources, legal advice and technical support.

Market competition is surely what a free market economy is all about? Do we live in one or not? However, rather than support them, Hunt is among those who see them as a ‘threat to national security’.

Independent or ‘alternative’ media? A threat to national security?

This is not based upon the quality of their work, which often exceeds the MSM’s, but rather their subject matter. It appears ‘independent media’ is defined by the UK Government solely as those who unquestioningly support EU/NATO policy and have the corporate or state resources to promote it.

Thanks to the Internet, with sufficient time and interest, anyone can do their own research, look at the evidence and make up their own mind. They don’t need to be told what ‘the truth’ is by anyone. This, I suggest, is the real problem the EXPOSE Network and its OIP, among others, have been tasked to combat.

If the EXPOSE Network’s definition is to be believed then I, thousands of others and all of these sources, including the MSM and official government reports, are Kremlin disinformation. Which means that the Kremlin are running by far the most powerful, expensive and all pervasive propaganda operation in history. Despite the fact NATO and U.S combined defence spending is more than 25 times greater than Russia’s. We will see that the EXPOSE Network has consistently failed to provide plausible evidence to validate their claims about the scale of this alleged Kremlin disinformation program.

Reasons for Concern

The notion that all who question the UK government’s official accounts are, by definition, Kremlin disinformation agents is not only absurd it is antithetical to both free speech in a democracy and the essential function of a genuinely free and open press to question power. Many in the so called ‘alternative media’ predominantly question Western power. These mainly U.S. and West European outlets do so, not because they favour Russia, China or Iran (for example) but because they are citizens of western democracies holding their own elected governments to account. As is both the supposed purpose of the media and everyone’s right in alleged democracies.

Some will say this shows bias, but those of us who live and work in the West aren’t subject to the laws, social contracts and taxation of Moscow, Beijing or Tehran. Citizens in the West are subject to the rule of western governments and they exercise power in our names. The onus to hold this power to account is upon us. We can’t expect the Russians to do it for us. This doesn’t mean the ‘independent media’ aren’t, for example, critical of Russian or Chinese policies. Asking questions of your own government does not signify support for another.

State funded broadcasters, such as RT, al Jazeera, the BBC and the USAGM global media network do periodically spread state propaganda, and disinformation. All governments use compliant media outlets in this way. This doesn’t mean that state funded broadcasters report nothing other than propaganda, but they are available to disseminate it when required. Recent history is littered with examples of Western states deliberately using the mainstream media (MSM) to mislead the public, cover up wrongdoings and use propaganda to sway public opinion.

For example, state disinformation underpinned the mainstream media narrative which provided former UK Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, allied with then U.S. President George Bush, the necessary political clout to launch the illegal Iraq War in 2003. A war that killed millions, destabilised the Middle East, created the conditions for the further spread of terrorism and led to increasing hostilities which now appear ominously close to starting another major conflict. With a few notable exceptions, the Iraq war is now almost universally acknowledged as an avoidable disaster.

Hyde Park 15/02/2003 – An Estimated 6M people marched across the world.

Millions of people protested the decision to go to war with Iraq. They marched through cities across the western world imploring the lunatic fringe of neocons and war-hawks to halt what they knew was a war of conquest founded upon lies and disinformation. Yet even this unprecedented level of public outcry failed to impact upon the decision makers we elect. Ably assisted by the mainstream media, any narrative, no matter how doubtful, can be sold to a largely misinformed ‘silent majority’ through the use of propaganda and disinformation.

Labeling all dissent Kremlin disinformation appears to be a deliberate ploy to silence any criticism of EU/NATO aligned policies. In doing so it utterly destroys the founding principles of our society. That of every citizen’s equal right to freedom of speech, expression and free & open access to information. Including the right to cite evidence justifying their disagreement with state policies.

These are not rights we should casually toss aside in the name of national security. If national security requires that the people themselves are effectively labelled enemies of the state, simply because they disagree with it, then we must ask whom national security is intended to protect. Because it doesn’t appear to be the ordinary citizen. If such actions prevail, how can any of us consider the state a democracy?

The Purpose of the EXPOSE Network

The EXPOSE network is an attempt to ensure that the likes of the huge 2003 anti-war protests, propelled by public awareness of evidence presented by people like Hans Blix and Dr David Kelly, never happen again, especially online. Such a groundswell of disparate individuals sharing relevant material, evidence and opinion via the Internet could quickly overwhelm the more limited information strangle hold of the mainstream media.

In isolation, street protests, no matter how large, can be side-lined or downplayed by the MSM. Wider public opinion can be controlled to a certain extent. Modern communication technology has changed that. The state has found itself unable to muster the kind of all-encompassing propaganda it deployed in 2003 to drive the decision to go to war with Iraq.

A recent example of how states, or elements within states, have lost narrative control was the U.S. national broadcaster A.B.C’s ‘fake news’ story on Turkish forces allegedly attacking Kurds in Northern Syria. ABC repurposed 2017 footage from a night fire demonstration at the Knob Creek Gun Range in Kentucky, citing it as primary evidence (on the ground footage) of what they called the Turkish “slaughter in Syria.” Thanks to the Internet, ordinary people quickly identified and exposed this propaganda, forcing ABC to issue a retraction.

Had this occurred prior to the Internet age, it is unlikely the disinformation would have been revealed. Those who noticed the deception could have easily been dismissed as cranks, conspiracy theorists or Kremlin disinformation assets. ABC’s fake news could then be cited as ‘evidence’ by others supporting the promoted narrative.

The Internet meant proof of the deception was shared globally in a matter of hours. It quickly achieved viral reach simply because sufficient numbers of people were interested enough to share it. Faced with this technological reality, the MSM can no longer hide the full extent of its disinformation. Its credibility, and propaganda value to the state, has waned markedly as a result.

The ABC debacle is just one of thousands of examples of western MSM disinformation which ‘citizen journalists’ have been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Among the most egregious of these was the BBC’s 2013 documentary ‘Saving Syria’s Children.’ Thanks to the diligent research of Robert Stuart the evidence that the BBC faked footage of the medical response to an alleged attack on a Syrian playground is overwhelming. Especially in light of the BBC’s failure to adequately address any of the evidence.

The Great Fear Driving the EXPOSE Network

Are you the threat to national security?

The EXPOSE network is just one part of a concerted effort by all states, including Russia, China and other nations, to regain control of information. The current iteration of the Internet empowers the people. This is clearly seen as a problem by the holders of power, wherever they may be.

Consequently, in the West, highlighting U.N weapons inspector’s opinions or their engineering assessments, which challenge the state’s version of events, is now defined as Kremlin disinformation. For its part, the Kremlin deem criticism of the state to be bad form. Its the same game, just a different tactic.

Despite the MSM’s apology for their Iraq war propaganda‘ the MSM’s overall standards haven’t improved. Since 2003 there hasn’t been a single western military intervention they haven’t thrown almost their entire weight behind. Those few MSM journalists who do question power have found it increasingly difficult to get stories passed their editors. If they do, they rarely make the headlines.

Having seemingly learned nothing, far from questioning official narratives, as a whole the MSM unfailingly support and promote them. Contradictory evidence, available in the public domain, should prompt the MSM to do their job, investigate and report it. Yet they consistently divert the public’s attention away from the evidence, primarily by insisting that the those who highlight it are crazy conspiracy theorists or Kremlin disinformation assets.

The Internet had made it possible for ordinary citizens to research the issues that interest them. If inclined, they can then create blogs, videos, podcasts, memes and more and then share their opinions with their fellow citizens on a previously unimaginable scale. Predominantly by using social media. That time is rapidly coming to an end.

Some, but far from all, of this content is ill informed, based upon poorly referenced sources, driven by political or social agendas or even influenced by genuine Kremlin disinformation. However, this is an unavoidable consequence of free speech in an open and free society. The alternative, adopted by the EXPOSE network, is to attack everything that questions the state.

All of us are wrong at times. As I am undoubtedly about to prove. This is nothing to fear. Responsible adults are capable of critical thinking and due diligence is within everyone’s grasp. I urge you to read these posts with a critical eye. I have no special insight into ‘da troof.’ Discovering we are wrong is an essential part of the learning process. If the only information we access simply reinforces our existing beliefs, never challenging them or offering an opposing view, then we learn nothing.

Orwell’s warning wasn’t a suggestion.

If the state effectively eradicates all information which questions it, in an effort to police the tiny proportion that is a result of foreign state disinformation, all the people will have left is the official opinion of the state. Orwell tried to warn us about this, he wasn’t suggesting it as a policy. The EXPOSE network is taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. We would be foolish to ignore the possibility that this is deliberate.

Rather than just marching in the streets, the people can now communicate directly with their elected representatives on an almost daily basis. What’s more, others can see the questions asked and note the responses, or lack of them. Lobbying politicians and decision makers is no longer the sole province of those with deep enough pockets to afford it. This too is apparently a threat to national security.

Online communication comes with some risks. Public figures, like anyone else, deserve protection from harassment and threats. We need to carefully balance people’s individual safety, especially the safety of children, with the right to freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, the state appears to be exploiting this concern, absent any genuine debate, as a justification for draconian Internet regulation and online STRATCOM operations.

Baseless State Censorship of the Internet

In its current form the Internet has the potential to transforms political accountability far beyond the ballot box. It is essentially nonviolent and offers the possibility of an informed citizenry asking the questions of power that the MSM have largely failed to do. The people can form their own lobby groups, generate petitions compelling debate (in theory) and raise awareness of issues important to them.

The Internet is undoubtedly the most democratic of innovations. Yet all we see from the state are continual attacks upon it and demands to regulate, legislate and curtail the freedoms it affords.

We are constantly told how ‘fake news’ and Kremlin disinformation threatens our democracy, our children, our ‘way of life.’ We are inundated with MSM stories about how the Internet radicalises people to commit violent acts, even acts of terrorism. It is as if terrorism and violence never existed prior to the Internet age.

Those of us old enough to remember the horrors of Omagh, Birmingham, Guildford and elsewhere should perhaps inform those who aren’t of some uncomfortable truths. Outrages like the Manchester Arena bombing or the Christchurch shooting are not the product of online disinformation. The root causes are far more complex.

Terrorism and the deranged acts of mad men have existed for thousands of years. They have not suddenly become worse, or more prevalent, because of the Internet. No matter what the state and the MSM claim.

However, the message we are given to believe is clear. The Internet, the open and free sharing of information, is dangerous and something must be done. We need to ask, dangerous for whom?

The EXPOSE network is part of a much larger transatlantic movement aiming to silence all criticism of western state policies, actions and narratives. Kremlin disinformation can be absolutely anything at all. From questioning vaccine safety to climate science, raising concerns about western state reports of major events, exposing government corruption, critiquing western policy or military action. All is deemed Kremlin disinformation. Whether it is or not.

No evidence is required to validate the Kremlin disinformation assertion. Whatever the criticism may be, no matter who makes it, if not approved by the state, it will be labelled as such. The EXPOSE network is self-referencing, its own unsubstantiated propaganda can be cited as ‘evidence’ to support further propaganda. It is rings within rings exemplified.

Moving Forward

Sir Nick Carter thinks he’s at war.

Though we may not know it, we need to understand we are in an information war. Recently the British Chief of Defence Staff Sir Nick Carter, sharing a platform with the former Director of the CIA, told the Cliveden set:

“The changing character of warfare has exposed the distinctions that don’t exist any longer between peace and war….I feel I am now at war, but it’s not a war in the way we would have defined it in the past. And that is because great power competition and the battle of ideas with non-state actors is threatening us on a daily basis…….The character of warfare is evolving…..Information is going to be at the core of so much that we do. Future warfare is going to be very much information-centric….”

Apparently war and peace are the same and non state actors (people) are the enemy. We have had no political debate about this redefining of warfare but, as far as the head of British defence and security forces understands, that’s just the way it is. The new battleground is cyberspace and the information sphere.

This notion of perpetual hybrid war can arguably be traced to former U.S. President Reagan’s 1982 Westminster Address. It is certainly evident in Theresa May’s vaunted Fusion Doctrine. The people didn’t ask for this but it has been foisted upon them by the state.

Prior to the Internet, control of reported information was, by and large, relatively easy for the state. Some careful manipulation of the mainstream media, the odd D-Notice thrown in, and all was as it should be.

Our use of the Internet has transformed the information landscape and we are now far less reliant upon single sources of information. The daily paper has been replaced by the daily scroll through our news feeds. The traditional television and newsprint media are losing their audiences and revenue. State control of information has diminished as a result. It wishes to reassert it. Non state actors are their target.

We should be under no illusions. Our online freedoms are under heavy and sustained attack. If we consider online freedom of speech and expression to be an important part of our modern democracy then, by implication, democracy itself is also under attack. Perhaps it always has been.

With that in mind, in Part 2 we’ll start looking at the recent leaked information which uncovers the EXPOSE network and the Open Information Partnership.