Token measures against Russian propaganda

Offering a reward for information on Rybar is unlikely to achieve much

The US State Department, through its Reward for Justice program, is offering up to $10 million for information on Rybar, the company behind the eponymous pro-military Telegram channel. This is symbolic at best, irrelevant at worst.

What is Rybar?

Rybar is one of the most prominent Telegram channels providing news and analysis on Russian military affairs. It currently has more than 1.3 million subscribers, with most of its audience growth coming after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The channel was founded in 2018. Initially, it focused on conflict and politics in the Middle East, but switched to making Ukraine its primary focus. It aspires to balance and neutrality in its own way: It is undoubtedly pro-Russian, but it tries to present its analysis as even-handed and fact-based, and it has been critical of how the Russian Ministry of Defence has waged its war.

Coverage by Western media outlets and think tanks of its reporting have undoubtedly boosted its profile. An investigation by The Bell in November 2022 noted that it is frequently cited by outlets like CNN and is heavily relied on by the likes of the Institute for the Study of War.

Who is behind Rybar?

Two men played a key role in growing the channel. Mikhail Zvinchuk, an Arabic-speaking former translator with the Ministry of Defence who hails from Vladivostok, created it. He partnered with Denis Shchukin, another former translator who grew up in Donetsk, lived in Moscow, and has been implicated in cyber crime offences.

The Bell’s investigation found that, by November 2022, the channel had grown to 10 employees. The State Department’s statement identified nine employees, suggesting the size of the team is broadly similar today.

The State Department’s offer of a reward claims that the channel was previously funded by former Wagner owner Yevgeniy Prigozhin, who built up various media channels to promote his narratives. Now, according to the State Department, it is defence conglomerate Rostec that is picking up the tab.

Why the countermeasures are purely symbolic

The State Department alleges that the Rybar company that is behind the Telegram channel is seeking to interfere in US elections by sowing discord and promoting partisan narratives. It identifies several social media channels that Rybar supposedly manages for this purpose. It is offering its reward for any information on the company, its activities, or the people behind it.

This, however, is more symbolic than practical.

First, there has already been some research into who is behind Rybar — most notably the aforementioned Bell investigation. That the State Department has named nine employees and identified Rostec funding suggests they are already in possession of pretty decent contemporary intelligence.

Second, there are easier ways to put a stop to this type of activity. For example, one of the channels supposedly used by Rybar to promote its narratives is on X. This is a US company subject — despite its owner’s best efforts to act to the contrary — to US law. If the US Government seriously wanted to tackle disinformation, it would be better off investing its time and money into improving accountability and regulation of social media companies.

Third, and most fundamentally, it grabs for a comfort blanket loved by the US, and liberals in particular. Since at least 2016, there have been countless efforts to blame Russia for disinformation and discord in the United States. Yet, for the most part, these efforts grossly exaggerate Russia’s influence. Russia is not capable of creating narratives or discord, only of inflating them. But the primary sources of social division, partisan divides, and racial tensions in the US are domestic, not foreign (the same, of course, is true of other countries where Russia promotes disinformation). Donald Trump couldn’t be more a product of US society if he tried. That’s not to say that Russia’s disinformation efforts are not important or worth attention. But take them out of the equation and you will still be left with the underlying phenomena. Ten million dollars won’t fix that.

What the tendency to blame Russia for these problems instead creates is incredible value-for-money for Russia’s efforts. An image emerges of Russia as all-powerful, able to shape events around the world through its dastardly deeds. That benefits Russia in a variety of different ways — which is surely not the State Department’s goal.

One thing I wonder though: How often do these rewards programs actually lead to anything? Does anyone ever manage to claim a bounty? I’m not aware of any research on the topic (though I haven’t looked). If you’ve seen any, let me know.