Some things look a lot clearer in hindsight. That’s especially true for russian disinformation. Its peddlers have to keep up with ever changing narratives so they hope you’re too distracted by new lies to hold them to account for the old lies. But let’s, for a moment, step away from current bullshit & rewind exactly 2 years. Settle in. This is gonna be a LONG one, but I think there are key lessons to learn.

It’s November 2021. This was the period in which the continued build up of russia’s invasion force became so impossible to ignore that many people internationally first heard concerns predicting the impending invasion. There was lots of good journalism and analysis back then going into detail about why it appeared russia was planning an invasion and what the world could urgently do to deter it. Russia ridiculed the warnings. As Business Insider reported: ‘Russia says it’s not planning an invasion as US and others raise concerns about troop buildup near Ukraine’. A kremlin spokesperson said that “the movement of troops on our territory shouldn’t be a cause for anyone’s concern” and any suggestion it was planning to invade Ukraine [further] was a “hollow and unfounded attempt to incite tensions”, adding “russia doesn’t threaten anyone”. These denials were crucial, not just for the element of surprise against Ukraine, but also to bypass both global and domestic outrage building in advance to stop the war and so that russia could later attempt to craft its propaganda narrative about how it had been provoked once its invasion force was in place. As you can probably guess, ‘others’ from the headline included the Baltic countries. Our leaders were urgently warning the world to deter russian aggression by standing with Ukraine and making clear the cost to russia of a wider war. But, despite the massive invasion force being built up around Ukraine by an aggressor state that had already partially invaded Ukraine, there was also fairly widespread doubt building internationally too about whether the invasion force was an invasion force and so whether any attempt at deterrence was needed. I spent some time looking through articles and tweets that summarise public perceptions and how it was being influenced from November into December 2021. A number of “russia experts” - mostly former moscow correspondents who boosted each other online and have some curious connections offline - had quite a significant influence while ridiculing anyone concerned about russia’s threat. Their behaviour worked out exactly in the interests of the kremlin, which was desperate to deceive the world about its invasion plans. In retrospect, their writings clearly have very close similarities with that of Walter Duranty back in the 1930s. They ridicule reports about russia we now know were accurate, they smear the authors of those reports as propagandists, and they minimise Eastern European perspectives that warned about russia in ways that, again, we now know were accurate. Only fellow “russia experts” from russia and westerners who have spent time as moscow correspondents should be listened to, they heavily implied (even though they proved to be 100% wrong). Oh, and this was also the height of the human trafficking operation organised through Belarus as part of hybrid warfare against Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. These same “russia experts” were also busy pouring doubt on suggestions russia was fuelling it, which of course we know today is as absurd as them saying russia wouldn’t invade. Next tweet, some key observations.

Here’s a few key things I’d forgotten were considered normal two years ago in public discourse from these “russia experts” but is much more notable in hindsight: - The people with the worst takes were a lot more friendly with each other then than now. You see, the widespread revulsion towards russia’s full scale war forced russia’s assets and useful idiots to pick whether they’d publicly condemn the invasion (while more subtly promoting kremlin narratives) or go all in and start justifying it. So these two types of propaganda pushers now have to act like they are on opposing sides. Yet, 2 years ago, many of these same people were friendly with each other and boosting each other by retweeting, engaging, and sharing each other’s articles. That’s how they gained disproportionate influence. By acting as one network, quite openly until the full scale war. Ok, maybe they genuinely fell out over opposing beliefs but then it’s not like we’ve seen any reflection among the ‘moderates’ about why they were previously being amplified by genocide-supporting extremists. - I forgot how vitriolic they all used to be, even then. Anyone expressing concern about russian aggression was being called “grifters”, the “russia-bashing industry”, and “war mongers” - and, according to them, should pay the price for getting it wrong when russia doesn’t invade (presumably with more ridicule and demonisation simply for deterring russian aggression). Yet now they think it’s really unfair when, for example, some bad takes account shows how bad their takes were and asks them some long overdue awkward questions about their kremlin connections. - The “russia experts” engaged in bizarrely nonsensical theorising, the logic of which they very quickly abandoned when the full scale war began. You see, they needed a way to explain why people were warning about russia if there was no threat so they indulged in conspiracy theories and bizarre logic that concerns about russia were being expressed in order to… er, provoke a war. So, if they were consistent, they would now believe russia’s full scale war was provoked by western predictions of its full scale war. (Although I have no clue how that makes sense). But they didn’t follow through on that logic. As soon as the full scale war began, they had to quickly ditch those conspiracy theories if they wanted to maintain their image as independent journalists opposed to the war. They knew they couldn’t get away with that nonsense in the face of widespread revulsion to russia’s invasion. It’s like they never actually believed the bullshit they were saying two years ago. - I need to reiterate that there was LOTS of good analysis at the time warning about the very real impending risk of a russian invasion. I found all kinds of journalists, politicians, and think tank analysts who feared what was coming and offered good solutions, such as in discussion around sanctions. That’s in addition to millions of ordinary people concerned about the invasion force. The “russia experts” were ridiculing them. This is important to remember because these same “russia experts” now like to say “no one could have predicted putin would do this [full scale war]”. That’s gaslighting. They are just trying to cover their tracks for their own consistently bad takes. - Finally, at the heart of all this is the marginalisation of Eastern European voices. They talked of invasion concerns as if it was a purely American elite thing and then talked about how it was debunked by “Russian and Western experts on Russia”. The people most affected by russian aggression, among whom millions of ordinary people could clearly see it coming, were largely erased from the discourse. Just as this war is about erasing them too. I’m glad that looks so bizarre and horribly outdated now. But we didn’t need a full scale war to know that the people most experienced and impacted by something (like russian aggression) also know the most about it.

Let’s take a look at a “russia expert”who best typifies the previous points. As “the third longest serving foreign correspondent in Russia”, Ben Aris is an award-winning journalist. And I use the word ‘journalist’… well, incorrectly. Because he built his career while also working for the russian state and its them who gave him his awards. He was ‘Business Journalist of the Year’ multiple times, although he accepted that from russia’s state news agency. Two years ago, Aris was furiously tweeting and writing articles about how “There. Is. No. Danger. Of. Invasion.” He said the idea russia would invade Ukraine [further] was just being gleefully hyped so the West can sell more weapons. “But analysts – both Russian and international – are almost unanimous in the belief that the chances of an actual invasion are almost zero.” It’s a particularly odd thing to say as he was also busy mocking analysts for saying the thing they apparently weren’t saying. And, of course, there are no Eastern European voices referenced in this coverage. Aris reasoned russia wouldn’t invade because “the only thing of value Ukraine has is agriculture, which would collapse in the event of an all-out war”. The more you think about that sentence, the worse it gets. A “russia expert” confidently claiming Ukraine has nothing of value for imperial conquest. It has layers of absurdity. Aris also claimed that putin always signalled exactly what he was going to do and could be trusted to follow through on it (somehow missing the genocidal signalling of his ‘Russians are Ukrainians as one people’ garbage). Aris continued: “But as it is Putin and as he has been so demonised in the last two decades a lot of what he says is ignored, or twisted to suit the various narratives used to describe Russia.” The parallels with Walter Duranty’s work as a moscow correspondent are quite uncanny. Duranty also dismissed concerns about russia by attributing it to western propagandists, while claiming russian and western analysts were in agreement there was nothing to worry about (when obviously not the case). In addition to being a contributor to RT, Aris established a complex web of companies - including in Cyprus, which acted as a key supplier of propaganda content to the russian state. They mostly call themselves BNE. If I get anything wrong about them, I will happily correct it, although I never got clear answers in the past. Aris’s cofounder is Liam Halligan - not a “russia expert” per se, but an influential finance journalist in the UK who currently presents on GB News …and has consistently argued against sanctions on russia since 2014, never missing an opportunity to argue that it harms the West financially to stand up to russia. Their company has employed/contracted quite a few other notable “russia experts”, some of which have been featured a lot on this account for their bad takes dismissing concerns about russia. That includes, for example, Leonid Ragozin, the independent journalist “made in the BBC” who also used this period to ridicule and smear people concerned about russia’s invasion as “grifters”. Their influence was not insignificant. For example, I’d say the most influential voice downplaying the possibility of an invasion was Time’s Simon Shuster who references the expertise of this group when stating that a russian invasion would go against everything he knows about russia. The hill I’m prepared to die on is that no one would really have had any doubt that russia’s giant invasion force was a giant invasion force were it not for russia’s influence operation, which definitely included more than just Hubert Seipel. Sure, 1984 and Animal Farm are great for understanding russia, but a lot of people just need to start with “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, the children’s folk tale about how social pressure convinces people not to see the obvious reality before them. Ok, just one more concluding tweet.

The “russia experts” are still doing what they did before the full scale war they insisted would never happen. They are still often promoting kremlin-aligned narratives, and still smearing alternative perspectives from those most affected by russian aggression as “info warriors” and “troll farms” or whatever. Their reputations have been quite diminished and they now have to grudgingly share attention with Eastern European voices who actually know more about russia. However, they do still have a fair amount of influence. They have not reflected in any meaningful way, nor even just apologised to people they called evil warmongering grifters for being concerned about russia’s war. Notably, they have also been entirely uninterested in examining russian influence operations where it might have influenced people like… er, russia experts. There was a deafening silence among them when Hubert Seipel was exposed. None of the main players commented anything. Is it really believable that they were entirely uninterested in corruption within their own industry of expertise? Especially when some of them also happen to have expertise opening companies in Cyprus. We saw something similar with Seymour Hersh. They promoted his easily debunkable Nord Stream tale but then as the story got more interesting and it became obvious Hersh was being fed stories from a Russian speaker often just using autotranslate, the “russia experts” just entirely stopped talking about Hersh. Now, obviously, not all “russia experts” are russian assets. Some certainly are, as we saw with Hubert Seipel. And with people like Aris, it’s not even a case of looking for secret payments. Even though he brushes it off his CV now, he did openly work for the russian state. People like him try to normalise the idea that it’s ok to work for russia as long as you stopped after the full scale invasion. But, no. We all knew what russia was back then and it was very often pointed out to RT employees by actual journalists that they would be forever stained. They enabled what russia is now. They must own it. But many other “russia experts” are just naive and too often susceptible to russian influence, while reflecting the russian chauvinist perspective and being too keen to ignore the voices of those who can best see reality. This is part of a structural problem with studying and becoming an expert on russia. Some of the notable names working for BNE would be in this category. This account will always be far more interested in them and their bad takes than the vatniks. The latter are just boring attention seekers with no shame. The former have more influence and more interesting questions to answer. The russia expert industry definitely needs some self-reflection. And, of course, there are also many real russia experts - not in quote marks - but people with a genuinely good track record understanding and explaining russia who deserve even more attention. Even then though, I’d argue that we need to hear more UKRAINE EXPERTS and experts on other countries facing russian aggression - with as many voices from those countries as possible. This is the ultimate lesson. If, for some reason, you want someone to recommend a restaurant in Moscow then, sure, ask a “russia expert”. But if you want to understand russian aggression then listen to the people most affected by it on the receiving end. “Russia experts” helped get us into this mess. The age of Walter Duranty is not yet over, although their dominance over discourse is waning. Ukraine experts can help get us out of this mess. Ok, tweet thread over.