In April we published the investigation of such tools of the Kremlin’s external influence as the “International Russophile Movement” and “Congress of the Future” (“Kongress Budushchego”), as well as the related persons, including Alexander Djurbavija, Mikis Filaniotis, and Nikolai Malinov.
Relevant activities of Russian intelligence under the umbrella of the “Russophiles,” as our investigation reaffirmed, were tied also with Ivan Abazher, the “head of regional Bulgarian national and cultural autonomy” in the Russia-occupied Crimea, who was used by his Kremlin’s puppeteers at the OSCE conferences as an alleged “civil society representative”.
Let us remind, that relevant frauds of Russia-controlled persons, including Abazher personally, were exposed in the research “Unmasking GONGOS as Agents of Illiberalism: A Case Study of the OSCE,” done by Dr. Sebastien Peyrouse from the George Washington University.
Now Professor Peyrouse stressed to us his enjoyment of reading our new investigation and confirmed that “the way it maps out the different actors and connections is really interesting”, as “it really helps make visible a network that’s usually quite opaque”, and “the focus on how these structures operate across countries was really compelling”, as “the Russians spare no effort in carrying out their propaganda and disinformation; it’s unfortunately an endless story”.
Let us add that Professor Peyrouse published his next research now, exactly “Reclaiming Civic Space in Authoritarian Central Asia: Why and How Western Donors Must Rethink Their Engagement”.
This study stresses that the progressive withdrawal of Western engagement in the Central Asian states has further weakened these already fragile civic ecosystems. The closure of Western aid programs, Professor Peyrouse points out, has therefore accelerated the isolation of civil society actors and left a vacuum increasingly being filled by Russia and China.
Both powers have used funding channels, partnership frameworks, and normative influence to promote models of “civic activity” that subordinate societal participation to state priorities and narratives, further constraining the prospects for independent civic activity, the researcher adds.
Contrary to Russian illicit efforts, involving the next generation in programs that reinforce democratic values and civic participation aligns with governments’ official youth policies and can contribute to long-term social and political modernization, Professor Peyrouse summarises.
He gives the example that, when in Kazakhstan, younger cohorts, more educated, globally connected, and outward-looking, increasingly support anti-corruption reforms, greater political openness, and diversification away from Russia.
So our research and cooperation on issues of exposing and countering the illicit Russian activities under the mask of the “civil society” will be continued.
