As we wrote this week, on January, 2025 Illiberalism Studies Program published the research of the Institute for Russia, European and Eurasian Studies of the George Washington University “Unmasking GONGOS as Agents of Illiberalism: A Case Study of the OSCE”, done by Professor Sebastien Peyrouse.
We wrote, that Dr. Peyrouse, Research Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs in George Washington University, did communicate, during preparation of that research with experts of our Association Dr. Borys Babin and Olesya Tsybulko on verifying data regarding Russia’s government-controlled “civil society” structures (GONGOs), that were noticed in last decade on OSCE events and, after that report was published, he thanked our Association for relevant cooperation.
As the issue of Dr. Peyrouse’s research is crucially important for our Association’s and other human rights defenders’ next activities in OSCE structures, upon our request he kindly agreed to give us brief comments on above-pointed issues.
Dr. Borys Babin (B.B.) Did your research of Russia’s GONGOs’ activities find their correlation with common Russian policy of countering OSCE development, including chairmanship transition issues, statutory challenges, and blocking HDIM?
Professor Sebastien Peyrouse (S.P.) The Kremlin’s deployment of GONGOs at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementations Meetings (HDIM) reflects its broader strategy of challenging OSCE’s functioning. Russia has consistently targeted the organization’s third dimension, which prioritizes human rights, free elections, and a vibrant civil society. However, GONGOs themselves have limited influence on internal OSCE processes such as chairmanship transitions or decisions regarding the HDIM. These matters are resolved through negotiations among member state delegations, where GONGOs play no direct role.
That said, GONGOs are instrumental in reinforcing Moscow’s narratives and undermining the participation of independent NGOs critical of the Kremlin. By labeling these NGOs as “terrorists, corrupt entities, or threats to both domestic and international security”, GONGOs work to “legitimize” restrictive policies and discredit dissent. They further aim to influence OSCE regulations by advocating for tighter controls over NGO participation in future meetings, amplifying authoritarian narratives under the guise of “representing civil society”.
B.B. Did your research establish facts of Russia’s GONGOs’ cooperation with other authoritarian states’GONGOs, and, if so, what subjects of those activities were noticed?
S.P. My research did not uncover explicit evidence of direct cooperation between Russian GONGOs and those from other authoritarian states. However, indirect alignment is evident as these organizations often pursue shared goals, such as undermining democratic principles central to the OSCE, including freedom of expression, association, and fair elections. This alignment typically emerges from parallel governmental directives rather than formal collaboration.
At HDIM and similar events, GONGOs from authoritarian regimes – Russia, and certain Asian states – converge in their tactics. They propagate disinformation, employ whataboutism, and manipulate historical narratives to bolster their governments’ reputations. Their goals include projecting adherence to OSCE norms, countering criticism from democratic delegations and independent NGOs, and discrediting political opponents.
By framing fundamental rights like freedom of expression as “security threats” – often invoking “terrorism” – these GONGOs seek to justify authoritarian control and export such models internationally. While not necessarily interconnected, their unified actions strengthen authoritarian regimes domestically and challenge democratic norms globally.
B.B. What characteristic disinformation statements or fakes were disseminated by Russia-controlled Crimea-related GONGOs at OSCE events?
S.P. Russia-controlled Crimea-related GONGOs have propagated numerous disinformation narratives to “legitimize” the attempted annexation and portray the region as “flourishing under Russian governance”. A central claim is that the 2014 Crimea “referendum” was “free and democratic”, despite being widely recognized as illegitimate under international law. Other narratives highlight supposed “improvements in minority rights” and “ethnic harmony” in Crimea, contradicting independent reports documenting systemic repression of Crimean Tatars and pro-Ukrainian activists.
Additionally, these GONGOs assert that Crimea has experienced “significant development” under Russian control, conveniently ignoring extensive evidence of human rights abuses, economic stagnation, and deteriorating living conditions. Such narratives aim to reshape international perceptions while suppressing the voices of those impacted by the occupation.
B.B. Do you plan to further promote your research, including at OSCE events, and will you continue analyzing the challenges posed by authoritarian-controlled GONGOs in international structures?
S.P. Absolutely. I plan to present my research at conferences, seminars, and informal discussions in both academic and policy-oriented settings. I am committed to expanding my analysis of GONGOs’ roles in undermining international institutions like the OSCE and exposing their contribution to the global spread of authoritarianism. These organizations have become vital tools for authoritarian regimes, posing a significant threat to democracy and the institutions that protect it.
Future efforts will include monitoring evolving GONGO strategies, particularly their use of disinformation and their increasing involvement in shaping international norms. Engaging policymakers, academics, think tanks, and civil society is essential to countering these trends effectively. I will continue my research on political authoritarianism in Central Asia – a region central to my expertise – focusing on how authoritarian regimes shape and adjust their strategies to consolidate domestic power and enhance their international legitimacy.

