[Please Note: This post uses excerpts from the investigative series on the EXPOSE Network.]

On both sides of the Atlantic we have been given the impression that Russia is running a large scale propaganda and disinformation campaign against numerous countries. Of course Russia operate state propaganda to some extent. All developed nations try to spin information in their favour. Any realist knows this and ‘caveat emptor’ should always be applied to anything any government tells us.

However, NATO and EU aligned states are categorically asserting that Kremlin disinformation threatens to undermine our entire society. So it is with good reason that we should be clear about the nature of this threat.

Among a slew of claims, we have been told the Russian disinformation effort has enabled the Kremlin to successfully influence the 2016 U.S. election, sow multiple false counter narratives, muddying the waters in the Skripal and MH17 investigations, sway the Brexit referendum and destabilise the Ukraine and other sovereign nations. If so, then it is undoubtedly the most powerful and effective disinformation operation ever devised.

Robert Mueller

According to the Director of the FBI Christopher Wray these “malign influence operations” pose a “significant counterintelligence threat.” There have been twitter and facebook purges of “alleged” Kremlin bot accounts; Russian “fake news” has been an ever present meme on the MSM’s 24hr news cycle for at least three years; governments across the West have continually pushed for censorship legislation to tackle the scourge of Russian disinformation and talking heads in the media consistently state Kremlin disinformation as a known fact.



Given the numerous investigation, extensive coverage and analysis, leading to apparently unequivocal certainty about this massive Kremlin disinformation effort, the supporting evidence must be overwhelming. So what is it?

Perhaps the most concerted effort to outline the evidence was undertaken by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Acting as special council to the U.S. Department of Justice, he led a large scale investigation into the allegations that the Kremlin “influenced” the 2016 U.S. election. His report led to the indictment of 13 Russian’s from a PR Firm called the Internet Research Agency (IRA). Mueller revealed that the IRA had spent $100K on 3500 Facebook ads that were “divisive.”



In a testimony to congress Facebook executives stated on the record that most of these ads had nothing to do with either Clinton or Trump and were largely purchased after the election. In direct social media add spend the IRA spent about $46K, the Trump and Clinton campaigns combined spent $81 million. The IRA ads had plenty of impressions but these were negligible compared to the reach of the presidential election campaigns. Given this huge disparity, quite how the IRA “influenced” the 2016 election remains a complete mystery. There wasn’t anything in the Mueller Report to explain it, and certainly nothing evidencing a large scale Kremlin disinformation operation.

Surely there must be more evidence than this? It seems we need to look to others to see if we can find any.

This summer, NATO’s self proclaimed Digital Sherlocks (Digital Forensic Labboratories – DFRLabs) released their report into an alleged plan by a Kremlin disinformation cell they called Operation Secondary Infektion. In reality there is no such operation, it’s just a name DFRLab made up.

Most people might expect a ‘forensic investigation’ to analyse the available evidence, giving clear citation and attribution and then form a meaningful conclusion based upon the known facts. That is not what DFRLab did.

DFRLab made some dramatic claims:

“The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) uncovered a large-scale influence operation that spanned nine languages, over 30 social networks and blogging platforms, and scores of fake user profiles and identities…..The scale of the operation, its tradecraft, and its obsession with secrecy, indicate that it was run by a persistent, sophisticated, and well-resourced organization……”

They add:

“Possibly an intelligence agency.”

Possibly I suppose but, using Occam’s Razor, probably not.

DFRLab claim their investigation was based upon Facebook’s discovery of a “small network of fake accounts emanating from Russia.” They can’t be certain they were Russian because“DFRLab does not receive access to Facebook’s backend data.”

DFRLab decided they probably were Russian because “contextual and linguistic points helped to corroborate Facebook’s attribution to a likely Russian source.” These accounts were said to be spreading disinformation. However, “there were only 16 accounts, and their posts had little impact.”

So Facebook appear to have identified a small, ineffectual group of accounts posting stupid stuff on their platform. They may or may not have been Russian. Their English wasn’t great so they were probably not from an English speaking country. Their syntax indicated they might be Eastern European, or possibly even Russian. No one knows for sure.

According to DFRLab this was just the ‘tip of a much larger iceberg.’ They claim the iceberg was “operated from Russia.” Unfortunately, they don’t present a scrap of evidence to substantiate any of this.

They allege “The operation was ambitious, although its reach was small.” So not so much of an iceberg, more of an ice cube. It also begs the question, if its reach was small, how DFRLab knew the scale of its ambition? They go on:

“Fortunately, almost none of the operation’s stories gained traction. Some were ignored; others were mocked by forum users as soon as they were posted, in a welcome sign of public awareness of the dangers of disinformation.”

In this statement DFRLab managed, not only to utterly undermine their own claims, but also the entire Kremlin disinformation narrative. Despite having no reason to do so, let’s accept DFRLab’s story for a moment.

If a network of Russian disinformation operatives are posting information online, which doesn’t gain any traction and ends up either being completely ignored or mocked, what on Earth do the public need to protection from? How can such an ineffectual “operation” pose a significant threat?

As if that wasn’t enough, DFRLab add:

“Open sources cannot attribute this operation to a particular Russian actor with high confidence, although the approach and tradecraft resemble an operation by an intelligence service.”

Ben Nimmo (Kremlin Disinformation expert?)

If Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) can’t tell the difference between an SVR agent, spinning online propaganda, and a stoned Lithuanian teenager, winding people up on Reddit for a laugh, what use is it? This abject bilge continues for more than 60 pages. Listing numerous spoof accounts and fake stories which literally anyone could have posted. Tenuous links are drawn between alleged ‘networks’ (no evidence provided) as the whole random heap of jumbled rubbish ends in its depressingly irrelevant conclusion:

“More research would be needed to verify the attribution.”

So no evidence there either. Where is this massive Kremlin disinformation campaign?

EXPOSE Kremlin Disinformation

The so called EXPOSE Network, named in leaked documents, is a project of the Counter Disinformation & Media Development Program (CDMD), currently headed by Andy Pryce. 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.

The EXPOSE Network appears to be a clandestine element of the EU Action Plan Against Disinformation. The EU plan states:

“Disinformation produced and/or spread by Russian sources has been reported in the context of several elections and referenda in the EU. Disinformation campaigns related to the war in Syria, to the downing of the MH-17 aircraft in the East of Ukraine and to the use of chemical weapons in Salisbury attack have been well documented.”

Of course “reports” aren’t evidence and while much has been “documented” about Russia’s alleged role in the downing of MH-17 and the Skripal affair, hard evidence proving Russian culpability is notable mainly by its absence.

To substantiate the claims of a significant Kremlin disinformation campaign EU cite the work of the European External Action Service (EEAS) with a particular focus upon its Strategic Communication (SRATCOM) capability. In particular the EU make it clear the East Strategic Communication Task Force (ESTF), a division of the EEAS, are central to providing all the EU’s evidence of Russia’s disinformation threat.

So vital is this work, protecting EU states, that the EU propose a €123 billion investment to enhance the capabilities of the EEAS with a 22 fold increase in defence spending including an increased focus upon counter disinformation efforts. In order to assess the supposedly immense threats of Kremlin disinformation the EU state:

“The East Strategic Communications Task Force, has catalogued, analysed and put the spotlight on over 4,500 examples of disinformation by the Russian Federation, uncovering numerous disinformation narratives….”

So at last we seem to have some clear evidence of a genuine, large scale Russian propaganda effort. The full record of the Task Force’s work on disinformation is available on the ESTF’s own EUvsDisinfo website. Anyone can read this evidence for themselves, I suggest you take a look.



Compelling EU vs Disinfo Evidence?

In their report on 24th October 2019 the East StratCom Task Force claimed to have identified another 60 cases of Russian disinformation. There were 12 cases of ‘enemy of the west’ narratives, 7 about western moral decay, 5 alleging NATO war preparations, 10 saying the Ukraine is bad and 11 protesting Russian innocence. Only 45 in total, of which only 31 were linked to alleged evidence.

Given the ESTF are referenced by the EU as providing over 4,500 hard evidence examples of Kremlin disinformation, it would be helpful to see all 60. Otherwise, how can we trust the figures?

Clicking on any of the 31 contextual links, such as “Neo-Nazis have outsized influence” takes you to a page like this. In every case the ‘evidence‘ consists of allegedly identified Russian disinformation, called a Summary. The response, or ‘Disproof,’ is then provided by an anonymous ESTF ‘actor.’ You can also view the source of the Summary claim. In this case it’s an episode of RT’s “Cross Talk” political discussion program.

In order to ‘Disproof’ something, it has to exist in the first place.

The observation that Neo Nazi’s have an “outsized influence” was made during the program by Prof. Nicolai Petro, a professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island and a former special assistant to the U.S. State Department. He said:

“I would take a slightly different tack with respect to the right wing, neo-nazi element in Ukrainian politics. It exists, it has an outsized influence, but I don’t really think it is the thing that is preventing change right now.”

From this, the ESFT identified the following Kremlin disinformation:

“Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative casting Ukraine as a Nazi country.”

At no point in the “Cross Talk” discussion does anyone cast the Ukraine as a Nazi country. The identified ‘disinformation’ doesn’t exist in the example given.

Another example is the link to crime infested no go zones where the ESTF identify the disinformation as:

“Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative linking migrants and asylum seekers in the EU to violent crime.”

The ESTF quite rightly criticise RT for not citing the evidence to back up some of their claims. This is a common failing with the MSM.

For example, when the UK Express newspaper wrote Europe’s No Go Zones they only provided a couple of links. When the Canadian national newspaper, the National Post, wrote on the same subject, they too could have offered more evidence, as could the U.S based Fox News.

Regardless of their quality, what these articles demonstrate is that there is no evidence of the claimed “pro-kremlin disinformation” in the cited example. Unless the ESFT believe that pretty much the entire western MSM is “pro-Kremlin.” I am not aware that they are.

Fox News. Pro Kremlin? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately, when you check the ESFT database for evidence of Russian disinformation, proof either doesn’t exist or is spuriously contrived from entirely subjective interpretations of mainly MSM content. Hard evidence, proving the scale of this fabled Russian disinformation operation, doesn’t exist.

East StratCom Task Force website

The work of EUvsDisinfo is central to the EU Action Plan. It provides the evidence which informs the EU’s assessment of the Russian disinformation threat. The influential U.S. think tank and policy advisors, the German Marshall Fund, wrote a policy paper in August 2019. They observed:

“EU vs Disinfo’s research and documentation efforts were instrumental in changing the debate about Russian disinformation and hybrid threats within the European Parliament and EU institutions.”

The full record of the 4,500 examples of disinformation, rather than emanating from academic or intelligence based assessments, are the sum of EUvsDisinfo’s Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) informed ‘weekly reviews.’

What we are left with is little more than speculation, allegation and innuendo. In March 2018 the ESFT were forced to issue a retraction after three Dutch media outlets threatened to sue them for falsely labeling them as ‘disinformation.’ The ESFT acknowledged the Dutch were right and claimed they were “taking steps to further improve.”



In truth, the ESFT don’t seem to have much faith in their own investigations. Carefully adding a disclaimer to every ‘Disproof’ stating:

“This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform.”

Posing the question, if it implies the story is neither linked to the Kremlin nor that it is pro-Kremlin and it doesn’t intentionally seek to ‘disinform’, how can it possibly be ‘Kremlin disinformation’?

Just like Mueller and DFRLab it seems the EU’s assertion, regarding the scale of Russian disinformation and the level of threat it presents, is fallacious. The evidence just isn’t there. However, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to point the finger directly at the EU. Its appears the East Stratcom Task Force may not be quite as we have been told.

EXPOSE Network Provide the Evidence

We know that one of the EXPOSE Networks recommended ‘fact checkers’ is the Ukrainian based StopFake. They report:

“Britain is thought to be leading [the] EU in building a grassroots campaign against Russia’s attempts [disinformation]. The campaign is lead by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and executed by a communications agency called Zinc Network.”

[Note: Bracketed information added]

EXPOSE Network ‘actor’ the European Values Center

When we look at the ‘network of actors’ who form the EXPOSE Network, that appears to be the case. Of these, perhaps one of the most influential is the European Values Center for Security Policy. Through them we can see how the EXPOSE actors are the driving force behind the EU allegations of Kremlin disinformation. Their two biggest funders are the Dutch government and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

One of European Values’ projects is Kremlin Watch, which claims to tell you “everything you need to know about about Russian influence operations in Europe.” They also tell us quite a bit about the role of the EXPOSE Network in Europe. They state:

“Our team is the most active contributor to the EEAS East STRATCOM network (ESFT), which produces the Disinformation Review.”

[Note: Bracketed information added]

It seems the EXPOSE Network is providing the Kremlin disinformation analysis, via the East StratCom Task Force, which the European Union are using to justify draconian Internet regulations and planned tax expenditure of €123 billion over five years. The quality of that analysis is so poor we might consider if it is itself ‘disinformation.’ The Action Plan builds upon the work of the ESTF, which is the work of the EXPOSE Network. A Project of the UK Government.

To date, no evidence has been presented to substantiate the claim that the Kremlin is masterminding some sort of massive, transcontinental disinformation and propaganda campaign. Without evidence why should any of us believe it?