Preface:

Starting in early 2022, around the time Elon Musk initiated his purchase of Twitter, a network of Twitter(Now X) accounts were created. Today, these accounts make up a massive politically motivated botnet. According to a Joint Cyber Security Advisory publication central to this was a tool called Meliorator utilized by Russia Today (now RT) to craft fake personas, encompassing diverse racial, political, and socio-economic identities, all aimed at manipulating public opinion. This paper delves into the intricate workings of Meliorator, examining its components and the broader implications of disinformation campaigns on social media platforms.

Meliorator:

On July 9th, 2024 the DOJ published a press release announcing that the FBI, working alongside Canadia, Netherlands, and US agencies seized 968 X accounts. These accounts were all a part of a Russian botnet used to propagate disinformation on X. In addition, they also seized 2 domains that were used to create email servers to verify these fake accounts en masse.

Credit: Joint Cyber Security Advisory

Meliator used an administration interface called Brigadir, which could be used to create bots as well as control the bot accounts. Meliorator runs through two tabs which can be controlled by the user through Brigadir called the Thoughts and Souls tab. Souls is the term used to refer to the fictitious identities of the bots. Souls replicate human identities and contain all the attributes that the bot’s persona has. Each soul had an account that would post as if the soul was a real person, additionally, each bot would have a specific archetype. “Bot archetypes are then created to group ideologically aligned bots using a specifically crafted algorithm to construct each bot’s persona, determining the location, political ideologies, and even biographical data of the persona.” Then, based on all of this information, the second tab, the Thoughts tab, would allow generated scenarios to occur for each of the souls, such as posting, commenting, or interacting with other bots or users based on their specific soul and archetype. This could even include interacting with other bots as if they knew each other in real life.

Outside of Brigadir, the “back end” of Meliorator is called Taras. Taras servers are a collection of servers containing .json files. They contain decentralized code, which, when multiple files’ code is executed together, allows Meliorator to aggregate and execute a series of tools to run the souls and thoughts in coordination with the accounts they are linked to.

These bots will typically post a mix of typical propaganda and disinformation, alongside indirect methods of influence. Typical propaganda might include things like conspiracy theories, politically oriented memes, or political content, such as videos of speeches or public figures. Alternate types of indirect influence will also occur; a common sign of disinformation bots would be accounts with “Anti-NWO” (New World Order) in their profile. Or the simple posting of positive and negative comments on posts that align or differ with the views of the soul, respectively. This especially can be effective because of how online comment sections typically operate. If a disinformation post (often posted by other bots) is positively replied to and liked by several other bots, this can function to further isolate sympathetic real readers by affirming their ideas and pushing away opposing views by making them seem less popular or reasonable. Allowing the bots to create artificial echo chambers around specific ideas.

Adversely, if bots negatively receive posts with views differing from the botnets, they can serve to negatively incentivize the expression of any ideas which negatively affect the agenda of the botnet. Meaning if the botnet were to target users who cared about backlash, they could prevent a degree of opposing ideas being expressed. Of course this wouldn’t be wholistic, but the goal isn’t to change the views of the readers in this case; the goal is instead to move the goalpost for acceptable rhetoric. By forcing quieter or more backlash-driven users and commenters, they can distort the view of what is commonly believed and what rhetoric is considered acceptable by the general masses.

A similar effect occurs with more direct propaganda; for example, when a large degree of anti-Ukraine speech occurs from Meliorator bots, the subconscious perception of how supported Ukraine is will inevitably be distorted. And when, for example, videos of Putin speaking on Ukraine are consistently posted in a positive light by the bots, real users with pre-existing positions against Ukraine will feel more comfortable posting similar content because the view of acceptable rhetoric in the eyes of said user has shifted to such a degree that they’re ideas seem more commonly accepted than they are.

Bots consistently engage with each other as well; however, the job of rooting out bots has become more inconvenient recently. Since Elon Musk bought X, the posts and account likes have been made private. meaning it’s harder to see when webs of accounts are all liking each other. This can still be exposed through manually tracking comments on specific posts and taking note of the users in each; however, it’s far harder to expose.

Conclusion:

The seizure of 968 accounts and two domains by the DOJ and its international partners underscores the relentless efforts to combat disinformation and safeguard the integrity of online discourse. Through sophisticated tools like Meliorator, bad actors have been able to manipulate public perception, to heighten political conflict and discourse. By understanding the mechanisms behind these botnets, such as the roles of Brigadir and Taras, we can better appreciate the complexity of modern disinformation campaigns. This knowledge is crucial for the public, as an informed audience is an ideal defense against the spread of disinformation.

A few warning signs for potentially fake accounts are: accounts which post the same image or videos repeatedly without context or in response to other similar accounts, Accounts which post old images, or profile pictures of other people, as if they are their own, accounts which reply to other similar accounts, accounts which speak in a strange or inhuman manner, and or accounts which use full names, face shot profile pictures, and which may use titles such as “Dr.”

Note that none of these are conclusive however, these are a few warning signs which are consistent in the accounts which are confirmed to be Meliorator run.

Credits:

Writers:

Roscoe Lannutti, Paradigm Board Member
Editors:

Roscoe Lannutti, Paradigm Board Member
Research:

Roscoe Lannutti, Paradigm Board Member

For inquiries, I can be contacted at roscoelannutti40@gmail.com.

Preface:

The Government Accountability Office(GAO) is a government agency with the task of auditing the United States Government at large on behalf of the US Congress.

Over the past several years the GAO has released a series of documents sounding alarms about various lapses in cyber security on behalf of the United States government.

Along with the GAO, various other government agencies and nongovernment agencies have come forward with information about flaws in the federal government’s cyber security. This information has revealed a high degree of security threats within the US government, although various agencies have also suggested measures to prevent security issues in the future.

Security Concerns:

Over the past several years several security concerns regarding the US federal government have been raised. For example, in an inspection run by the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior entitled: “P@s$w0rds at the U.S. Department of the Interior: Easily Cracked Passwords, Lack of Multifactor Authentication, and Other Failures Put Critical DOI Systems at Risk” this report showed a variety of evidence regarding the Department of Interiors’ lapses in security. The report states: “The Department’s Ineffective Password Complexity Requirements Allowed Easy-To-Crack Passwords The Department’s Security Control Standard: Identification and Authentication (Version 4.1, dated September 2016) requires that all passwords have a minimum length of 12 characters and contain at least 3 of 4 character types consisting of uppercase, lowercase, digits, and special characters. We found that these requirements were not sufficient to prevent us from successfully recovering the clear text passwords for 18,174 active user accounts (21 percent) using our hash-cracking system (see Figure 1). We recovered passwords for 13,924 of those accounts in the first 90 minutes of testing and recovered the passwords for the remaining 4,250 accounts over an additional 8 weeks of testing.”

And although this study is limited to the DOI, the problem is not exclusive to it. The DOD, for example, is facing a lot of the same problems.

In a DoD report entitled “Summary of Reports Issued Regarding Department of Defense Cybersecurity From July 1, 2019, Through June 30, 2020” we see a similar trend. This report summarizes all reports and recommendations made to the DoD within the given time frame, and the results illustrate clear limitations in the DoD’s capacity to incorporate these recommendations. This report states that:

Source Note: The FY 2019 and FY 2020 recommendations were recently issued and, therefore, DoD management may not have had sufficient time to implement all necessary actions for closure.

According to this report: “The DoD OIG, GAO, and other DoD oversight organizations made 327 cybersecurity-related recommendations to the DoD in 44 reports — 33 unclassified and 11 classified — issued from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. Of the 327 DoD recommendations, 215 remained open as of August 2020, with the majority of open recommendations regarding the Identify and Protect functions. As of August 2020, DoD management had agreed with 150 of the 215 open cybersecurity-related recommendations, however, 65 recommendations still remained unresolved. The unresolved DoD recommendations consisted of:

• 28 recommendations to which management did not provide a response;

• 17 recommendations with which management partially agreed;

• 12 recommendations for which management provided actions that partially addressed the identified issues; and

• 8 recommendations with which management disagreed. “

This could be very problematic for a variety of reasons. In a GAO report, also regarding DOD, the GAO says they did their study because “DOD has become increasingly reliant on information technology (IT) and risks have increased as cybersecurity threats evolve. Cybersecurity experts estimate that 90 percent of cyberattacks could be defeated by implementing basic cyber hygiene and sharing best practices, according to DOD’s Principal Cyber Advisor.” This is why these recommendations must be implemented.

Curious about these recommendations Paradigm reached out to GAO to inquire about these issues. Chuck Young, who is the Managing Director of the Office of Public Affairs at the GAO replied: “Since 2010, GAO has made more than 1,600 recommendations in public reports related to four key cybersecurity challenges: developing a comprehensive national strategy, securing federal systems, protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure, and protecting privacy and sensitive data. To their credit, agencies have taken action on many of these recommendations. However, more than 500 remain unimplemented, including critical actions such as developing and executing a more comprehensive federal strategy and strengthening the federal role in protecting critical infrastructure. Because of the growing risks posed by cyberattacks, the federal government needs to take prompt and deliberate action to address our remaining recommendations. We plan to issue an update this summer on our cybersecurity high-risk area to highlight the critical actions that still need to be taken to protect the nation from cyber threats.“

Conclusion:

Government cybersecurity is a problem that is rarely considered in the public eye, however, it is crucially important that the government takes steps to solve these cybersecurity failings. Cyber attacks against government institutions could become critical concerns in the future, and minimizing Cyber threats should be a priority.

As more of the US infrastructure becomes reliant on technology, having technological security is going to be essential for maintaining infrastructure. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, many more reports and documents highlight the work the GAO and other agencies are doing to try to safeguard security.

Credits:

Writers:

Roscoe Lannutti, Paradigm Board Member
Editors:

Roscoe Lannutti, Paradigm Board Member
Research:

Roscoe Lannutti, Paradigm Board Member

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Paradigm Board Member

For inquiries, I can be contacted at roscoelannutti40@gmail.com.

Prologue

Discord is one of the most popular messaging and social media applications globally, with around 150 million monthly active users. Popular messaging and social media platforms have become an important part of many people’s lives; whether it’s a group of friends wanting to talk to each other while playing video games or it’s a company trying to increase their public outreach, Discord has a lot of opportunities. However, like many social media platforms, there are a lot of online safety issues and concerns.

Vladhog Security (VHS) is a Discord bot that was created to scan all links sent in Discord servers that it’s in to make sure the link is not malicious or corrupt. The bot is managed and maintained by a team of developers and programmers who operate under the same name as the bot. As VHS continued to improve itself and expand its public outreach, the owner of VHS, Vlad, started thinking about other groups and individuals that have developed Discord bots to improve the online safety of Discord users. After much thought and consideration, Vlad decided to create a united group, or network, of like-minded organizations and individuals to work together to make Discord a safer platform.

Discord Safety Cooperation

The Discord Safety Cooperation (DSC), which was founded by Vlad on April 18, 2024, was created to make a united effort towards making Discord a safer platform.

The founding members of the DSC are Vladhog Security, LinkShieldAI, and Rho-9. LinkShieldAI and Rho-9 are also teams of individuals who manage and maintain Discord bots that scan malicious and suspicious links, similar to VHS. Vlad contacted the owners of these other two groups to ask if they wanted to join the DSC and both owners agreed to join.

When we asked Vlad about why he decided to create the DSC and what his goals were, he said “Every security bot and people who were working on making Discord safer had their own discord server, so I was thinking, why not make one server for all of them? [My] final goal [is to] get Discord’s attention to the problem, Discord [is] currently not a very safe place, they’re trying to do something but that’s not enough”. Vlad acknowledges that Discord has taken some actions to improve its online safety, however, it admits that there are still many issues and concerns.

When we asked the owner of LinkShieldAI about the DSC, he said “Vlad proposed that we create a server that gathers all the people that are interested in making Discord safer and their communities into one place”. He goes on to say “My main goal is to bring together people who care about making Discord safer. I want us to work as a team, sharing what we know and helping each other out. Creating this kind of network is vital for making a real difference and encouraging a culture of support and responsibility on Discord.”

Conclusion

The DSC will begin working towards making Discord a safer platform by sharing information with its member organizations and raising awareness about online safety issues. As DSC begins working on different projects and initiatives, Paradigm Intel looks forward to what they can accomplish, and we will support them in any way we can.

CREDITS

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Board Member

For any questions or inquiries, please contact Paradigm Intel.

Paradigm Intel

Preface:

The National Security Agency (NSA) has the mammoth task of monitoring global intelligence on the US government’s behalf, all under the guise of national security. Due to this, the NSA pursues a variety of methods in the field of data collection and analysis. As a result, the NSA has found itself under scrutiny many times for a variety of these methods, specifically in the realm of domestic surveillance targeting US citizens. One of these methods was the strategic targeting of encryption. After the Snowden leaks in 2013, various methods utilized by the NSA were exposed. These methods were mainly used as a part of a program called “Bullrun” which worked to undermine and breach encryption technology in various ways. The GCHQ, the British counterpart to the NSA, had a sister program called Edgehill, which collaborated with the NSA on decryption.

This article was researched with AK Media, a partner organization of Paradigm Intel. AKM originally conceived the research project and performed the sourcing for the Snowden Files and explanations of technical concepts and calculations. AKM will be releasing a production on broader issues related to US government surveillance. Thank you to AK Media for working on this project.

Body:

The Bullrun program contained multiple decryption projects. These projects targeted multiple technologies, and due to a leaked presentation from the GCHQ, some of these targets have been exposed. These targets include Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security (SSL/TLS), which is a cryptographic protocol used in Email, Voice Over IP messaging (VoIP), and instant messaging services to maintain user privacy and security. Secure Shell (SSH), another cryptographic protocol to operate secure network services. SSH has the purpose of giving administrators the capacity to securely access a computer over an unsecured network, in practice this provides authentication for passwords, as well as public cryptographic keys. SSH also provides secure and encrypted communications between computers on an open network. Bullrun also targets Encrypted chat technology, and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). As well as directly targeting Encrypted VoIP technology.

Bullrun had a variety of methods to gather information like this. Included in the leaked GCHQ presentation was a slide titled: “Response to improving security” In which Bullrun as a concept is outlined. Stating “For the past decade, NSA has lead an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies” the slide goes on to say that “Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable • Major new processing systems, SIGDEV efforts and tasking must be put in place to capitalize on this opportunity “ However Bullrun was considered to be a highly fragile project, in another slide from the same presentation titled “Sensitivities” various issues with Bullrun are outlined.

Source: EFF.org
These reasons caused the program to be labeled as having “Ground breaking capabilities” as well as being “Extremely fragile” despite its rewards.

RSA Security LLC has been considered a trusted security company due to its commercial encryption tools. In 1996 RSA Security released BSAFE, a cryptography library commercially sold as a secure encryption Tool. However, consumers were unaware that the NSA had specially developed and backdoored the encryption used by BSAFE.

Using information from the Snowden files Reuters published, an article exposing information regarding the agreement “Undisclosed until now was that RSA received $10 million in a deal that set the NSA formula as the preferred, or default, method for number generation in the BSafe software, according to two sources familiar with the contract. Although that sum might seem paltry, it represented more than a third of the revenue that the relevant division at RSA had taken in during the entire previous year, securities filings show.”

The encryption used was called the Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator, otherwise known as Dual_EC_DRBG. 2 numbers which were represented by a P, and a Q, were used along with a Seed, a random number generated by a user’s computer, which created an encryption key. However, if the P and Q have a known mathematical relation it is possible to reverse engineer the encryption to duplicate a user’s key. Because the formula for the P and Q was known by the NSA this would allow the NSA to decrypt any information which was encrypted using the default BSAFE encryption formula. When Reuters reached out to both RSA Security and the NSA both declined to comment.

However, this was not the NSA’s first attempt at planting faulty encryption technology. Also in 1993, the NSA created a chipset, a specialized computer chip created for phones, this was called Clipper Chip. Clipper Chip was supposed to provide secure encryption using the Skipjack cipher, which was also developed by the NSA. The Skipjack cipher had a backdoor using a concept called “Key escrow” The idea was to have the government act as a fair third party. For every encryption and decryption key made with Skipjack, the keys would be kept to be turned over to law enforcement by a trusted third party. With this, the goal was to give the government a backdoor into encrypted communications. Unlike the backdoor in BSAFE, this project was not secret, the idea of Key escrow was public and advertised as a way to combat advancements in privacy technology for law enforcement purposes. However, how Skipjack functioned itself was classified so its functions could not be peer-viewed by the security community until its declassification in 1998. Clipper chip was never employed as the NSA intended and the project was discontinued.

The NSA continued similar projects against encryption. The New York Times published a document showing the NSA’s 2013 budget request. This document shows a breakdown of the “SIGINT Enabling Project” SIGINT refers to Signals Intelligence a type of foreign data collection. The project description for SIGINT Enabling states: “Base Resources in this project are used to: … Insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks, and endpoint communications devices used by targets.” As well as to “Influence policies, standards, and specification for commercial public key technologies” And “Reach full Operating Capability for SIGINT access to major internet Peer-to-Peer voice and text communications system.” The New York Times provided a clarification on the meaning of this excerpt saying: “The agency defines capability as “the NSA/CSS ability to exploit a specific technology,” according to a 2010 document outlining the Bullrun program. Here, the agency is claiming that it can gain access to the text and audio of an Internet chat service. It is unclear from the documents that The New York Times and ProPublica have access to which service this document refers to.”

All of this shows the clear intentions to undermine public security for intelligence purposes.

Conclusion:

In the decade since the Snowden leaks less is known about how the NSA goes about surveillance on encrypted materials. Due to a lack of public audits on these projects and technology, little is known about how modern projects akin to the ones above operate. Even in the wake of the Snowden leaks many unanswered questions about Bullrun and government surveillance as a whole still circulated, and with little information on modern surveillance projects these questions will only grow.

Legislation around government surveillance is still controversial. As of writing this FISA section 702 is up for renewal, and set to expire in 7 days on April 19th, 2024. FISA is the act that has supported a large degree of surveillance in the US. The House has passed the FISA bill which means that over the next week, the Senate will be deciding to renew or sunset 702. The renewed bill reforms FISA and shortens the bill’s timeframe to two years as opposed to the previous five. Due to this, the topic of government surveillance is of immense importance to the current US political landscape as the decision this week will have long-standing repercussions on US surveillance policy.

Credits:

Writers:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member
Editors:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member
Research:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member

For inquiries, I can be contacted at laurenceedwards40@gmail.com.

Preface

Paradigm Intel has previously made publications about FISA and government surveillance as a whole. However, the debate over Section 702 continues. Near the end of 2023, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was set to expire. In response, the U.S. Congress passed a temporary extension of Section 702 that will last until April 19, 2024.

What is Section 702 & FISA

In 1978, FISA was enacted to provide judicial oversight into matters of foreign surveillance, largely in secret. The pages of FISA contain procedures for surveillance and evidence gathering as well as the outline of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC. FISC was established to provide much-needed checks and balances on government surveillance via a court system, however, FISC has been seen to have serious flaws.

In 2008, informed by the 9/11 terror attacks, a FISA amendment bill was enacted containing FISA Section 702. Although Section 702 explicitly outlines restrictions for targeting Americans, it is often used as legal justification for mass domestic surveillance programs.

(Text from Paradigm Intel’s A Brief History of Section 702)

Near the end of 2023, the U.S. Congress had a long list of responsibilities and issues that needed to be addressed such as government funding, border security, and financial aid to foreign allies. So when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), they allowed a temporary extension of Section 702 until further debate could take place.

Debate, Reactions & Opinions

There have been mixed reactions and opinions when it comes to the extension of Section 702 and the issue of government surveillance as a whole. This drew the interest of several non-profit organizations such as The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), both of which have been very critical of Section 702.

For example in an article, the EFF states “FBI agents have been using the Section 702 databases to conduct millions of invasive searches for Americans’ communications.” Also publicizing information about the FISA courts’ conduct. Additionally, the ACLU has referred to Section 702 as “an invasive and unconstitutional law that the government uses to justify its mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ online communications with people abroad.” Edward Snowden, a former NSA subcontractor and whistleblower, responsible for leaking a majority of the Government Surveillance projects under FISA and 702, criticized the U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson in response to the extension: “If Mike Johnson abuses the NDAA to smuggle into law an extension of the warrantless surveillance regime….he should be dumped just like McCarthy”, about Johnson’s predecessor who was ousted from his role as Speaker of the House.

However, concern around 702 does not end there. The issues surrounding FISA specifically are not that the system condones surveillance, but that the system has been created in such a way as to give a vastly unfair advantage to individuals who wish to unfairly survey the population. The issue with Section 702 lies in the fact that it is written in such a way as to allow near-bottomless surveillance measures. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has supported this idea by circulating data surrounding the FISA courts. This data has shown FISA has a 0.727% rejection rate for all monitoring requests. This means that only 322 applications were denied between the years 2022 and 1979, and within that time, 42,938 applications were accepted and 2,068 were modified.

FISA has also secured the state’s ability to run numerous vast domestic surveillance projects despite being written to directly forbid this. It does this by utilizing a loophole; essentially, the law is written to directly allow surveillance of people who are reasonably believed to be outside of the United States.
However, the definition of reasonable belief is not universal. The general way reasonable belief is applied in this context is when information exists in or about areas geographically outside of the US. The issue with this is that online data does not always take a geographically logical route. Data is optimized to be transferred in the cheapest possible manner, which can include internationally. Data is also often gathered using upstream surveillance, which targets the source of information on the internet backbone. Doing this, especially under other legal authorities, will allow monitoring systems to selectively apply multiple laws to different surveillance projects with a collective goal, with the intention of bypassing checks on any given legal authority by compartmentalizing legal oversight to specific programs.

When government surveillance systems are seen as being built on flawed foundations, they will inevitably fall under scrutiny. The applications of US government surveillance under 702 and FISA directly violate the law as intended; the dragnet surveillance of the entire population’s data without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it is for these reasons that FISA is heavily criticized.

However, the opinions on 702 are far from one side, for example, the U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer, referred to Section 702 as a critical intelligence tool stating that: “Thanks to intelligence obtained under this authority, the United States has been able to understand threats posed by the People’s Republic of China, rally the world against Russian atrocities in Ukraine, eliminate terrorists intent on causing harm, enable the disruption of fentanyl trafficking, and much more.”

Furthermore in October 2023, in a U.S. Senate committee hearing, FBI Director Christopher Wray spoke in support of Section 702: “Loss of this vital provision, or its reauthorization in a narrowed form, would raise profound risks. For the FBI, either outcome could mean substantially impairing, or in some cases eliminating, our ability to find and disrupt many…. serious security threats” illustrating a trend of national security officials wishing to maintain Section 702.

Section 702 and reforms

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) published an article on the history and details of Section 702, as well as addressing recent proposals made by members of Congress to reform 702. In that same article, CSIS also proposes the following possible policy reforms:

• Narrow the scope of surveillance of non-U.S. targets
• Strengthen guardrails on FBI queries related to U.S. individuals
• Codify FBI compliance procedures into law
• Strengthen the role of amicus curiae (external advice/knowledge) in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court proceedings
• Improve public transparency into Section 702 outcomes
• Align Section 702 protections with other surveillance laws
• Limit commercial acquisitions of data outside the FISA framework.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. House Intelligence Committee advanced two competing bills that are designed to reform Section 702; the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act and the FISA Reform and Reauthorization Act.

Both bills have been approved by the committees mentioned above and have been introduced to the House, but no further action has been taken as of January 22, 2024.

Conclusion

The debate over Section 702 and the issue of government surveillance as a whole seems to revolve around two key issues; liberty and security. The organizations and groups mentioned earlier cite liberty as the reason for their opposition. Meanwhile, government agencies and officials have cited national security concerns as the reason for their support.

The U.S. Congress has until April 19, 2024, to decide on Section 702. In this situation, Congress only has three options; pass a reform bill, pass another temporary extension, or let Section 702 expire.

CREDITS

Writing:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold

Paradigm Board Member

Editing:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold

Paradigm Board Member

Laurence Edwards

Paradigm Board Member

Research:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold

Paradigm Board Member

For any questions or inquiries, please contact Paradigm Intel.

Preface:

The app TikTok has seen a fair share of controversy since its initial 2016 release. TikTok boasts over one billion users and millions of videos uploaded by creators daily. As a result of this, misinformation and conspiracy theories have spread with immense speed over the app.

Misinformation tends to be problematic on most platforms that promote user-generated content. Because of TikTok’s algorithm, which promotes short-form content with high audience engagement, it has become a breeding ground for misinformation. When short, often shocking, or controversial content is expressly propagated, it leads to a lack of necessary context being shared, oversimplifications, and media designed to manipulate information to be seen as inflammatory or shocking. Due to this, false information and intentional deception are incredibly common across TikTok.

TikTok and Misinformation:

Misinformation can come in many forms; this mainly includes claims without evidence, misleading evidence presentation, and falsely interpreted evidence. Due to its algorithm and structure, TikTok has been a host to this type of content on a massive scale. For example, when COVID-19 was first rising to public view in early 2020, TikTok’s algorithm promoted a mass of content spreading misinformation about the illness. Later, when a vaccine for COVID-19 had been developed, similar videos were published and pushed across TikTok, spreading misinformation about the vaccine as well.

In 2021, Newsguard published a report regarding COVID-19 misinformation getting pushed on TikTok. After having nine children aged 9–17 use TikTok for 45 minutes, they gathered several videos spreading baseless conspiracy theories. Here are just a few of the claims TikTok’s algorithm pushed to children:

• COVID-19 vaccines kill people.
• COVID-19 vaccines are “fake.”
• Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
• 80 to 90 percent of COVID-19 patients in Israeli hospitals are fully vaccinated.
• Natural immunity to COVID-19 is better than getting the vaccine.
• COVID-19 is “the name of the international plan for the control and reduction of populations.”

Additionally, in 2016, the now-infamous “Pizzagate’’ incident occurred, where an armed vigilante stormed a pizza restaurant, believing that politician Hillary Clinton had been running a child sex-trafficking ring in the establishment’s basement. However, since TikTok’s massive rise in popularity, a second round of conspiracies has occurred. The second rise of Pizzagate took place in 2020, along with the QAnon conspiracy theories propagated during the 2020 US presidential election, which were both heavily featured on TikTok.

The fallout of this type of misinformation can be drastic. These types of misinformation tend to cause misplaced fear and concern about public issues, undermine trust in modern medicine and technology, and undermine the basis for the populous to come to conclusions on important issues by giving the populace flawed logical standards and false preconceived notions about various topics.

Essentially, when people are taught and believe specific negative ideas about specific groups, people, and things, the underlying logic requires said person to reject evidence to the contrary, often under the guise that the evidence is fabricated or otherwise untruthful. As a result of this, once people internalize these beliefs, their standards of logic are lowered if new information supports their previous beliefs, causing them to require a less and less logical foundation to support their preconceived ideas about said groups, people, and things.

As an example, take the Flat Earth conspiracy, the base idea is that the earth is not a sphere but, in fact, a thin cylinder, however, to affirm this belief it requires the explanation that world governments are working in tandem to hide the earth’s shape, gravity is a fabrication coordinated by the world’s scientists which have been upheld for centuries, and ice wallscontaining the earth’s oceans exist at the earth’s edge. What started as a simple, illogical idea must then be expanded to multiple, increasingly absurd concepts to explain issues with the base concept. This is how virtually all conspiracy theories function.

This is problematic because of its capacity to be used in a predatory manner. Conspiracy theories can be used to convince someone of absurd claims by posing them as justifications for an individual’s preexisting beliefs. This tactic has been used by the QAnon group. Founded on core beliefs of Pizzagate, in an attempt to amass support for President Trump, Qanon targeted popular pre-existing conspiracy theories regarding influential figures, adding that President Donald Trump was waging a hidden war against a Democrat pedophilic elite. All of this while having no factual evidence to support their claims.

Another key issue with conspiracy content is that it often undermines trust in modern science and medicine. Because a large quantity of conspiracies require the believer to disregard the sciences. Due to this science, and especially modern medicine, is often discarded by extreme conspiracy theorists due to their underlying distrust in medical and scientific institutions. When you apply this concept to conspiracy theories relating to vaccinations or cures for various ailments, the expectation to disregard modern science becomes overtly harmful. Conspiracy content will often posit that serious illnesses can be easily cured with home remedies, medication, and vaccinations that are ineffective/harmful, and doctors or other medical professionals are actively misleading you. These ideas can and do result in real-world harm, such as numerous cases of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists dying from diseases they had avoided vaccination for.

Finally, conspiracies tend to generate fear and division. For example, a large number of conspiracy theories contain overtly anti-Semitic ideas. Recently, largely due to the Israel-Palestine conflict, TikTok users have begun circulating a letter sent to the American people by Osama Bin Laden. As a result, a large portion of Gen-Z has adopted a positive opinion of Bin Laden. According to a poll by the Daily Mail, roughly 30% of people aged 18–29 say they agree with Osama bin Laden’s views.

However, due to the short-form nature of most content regarding this letter it has been stripped of context. The Guardian removed the document from their site stating, “The transcript published on our website had been widely shared on social media without the full context. Therefore, we decided to take it down and direct readers instead to the news article that originally contextualized it.” This seems to be largely the case with the content sharing it. A large part of Bin Laden’s letter was motivated by anti-semitism, even stating, “The Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life, making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense.” This is a prime example of anti-semitism being pushed via contorting presented information. This and many other examples of misinformation serve to divide the public and reinforce harmful and discriminatory ideas. It is worth noting that TikTok has since banned videos relating to the Bin Laden letter in an attempt to mitigate this type of content; however, many similar types of content continue to circulate freely.

TikTok has taken several steps to prevent the spread of harmful misinformation; however, TikTok’s algorithm continues to push misinformation due to its heavy emphasis on engagement. TikTok uses a system where user reports largely determine problematic videos. If a video is flagged enough, it will be put under review and evaluated manually. Due to this, videos tend to only be taken down once they spread to a noticeable degree. In cases of misinformation, a lot of the damage may have already been done by the time a video is removed, which means reporting harmful material is necessary to contain misinformation under the current system.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, TikTok has become a breeding ground for misinformation due to its algorithmic recommendation system and moderation strategy. The platform’s nature and ease of sharing make it a fertile ground for the rapid spread of false information, leading to potential harm to individuals and wider societal consequences.

It’s important to realize the flaws in TikTok’s system which allow misinformation to spread so easily. It will always be a difficult balancing act to fight misinformation and harmful conspiracy theories while allowing free speech and avoiding the suppression of specific controversial ideas, especially on a service as vast as TikTok. Fundamentally, users themselves bear a responsibility. It is of utmost importance to promote proper research, fact-check ideas, question the credibility of sources, and avoid sharing content blindly, as these steps can do a lot to ensure their personal beliefs are informed by fact.

Credits:

Writers:

Laurence Edwards,

Paradigm Board Member
Editors:

Laurence Edwards,

Paradigm Board Member

Aaron C.Z. Arnold,

Paradigm Board Member

Research:

Laurence Edwards,

Paradigm Board Member

Saxum Hale,

Paradigm Research Team

For any questions or inquiries, please contact Paradigm Intel.

Introduction:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, more simply known as FISA, was established in 1978 with the intention of expanding foreign surveillance under federal oversight. In 2008 FISA underwent a series of amendments; within these amendments lies FISA Section 702. Spanning nearly 11 pages, Section 702 seeks to expand foreign surveillance and outlines procedures for intelligence gathering. However, in recent years, large quantities of evidence have emerged alleging that federal agencies have used Section 702 as legal justification for indiscriminate surveillance of United States Citizens.

Throughout this article, the term dragnet surveillance is used. Dragnet surveillance is a term defined as a coordinated surveillance effort with the intention of stopping criminal activity. Although dragnet surveillance can be extremely beneficial, and arguably necessary, under specific circumstances, such as search party events or roadblocks, many have argued that this style of surveillance becomes problematic when applied en masse through the unchecked means of modern technology. In the case of national counterterrorism, the agencies’ dragnets expand to such a degree that US citizens are often being monitored with the purpose of preventing terrorism.

This article was researched in conjunction with AK Media, a partner organization to Paradigm Intel. AKM originally conceived the project, and performed the sourcing for the Snowden Files, explanations of technical concepts and calculations, and visuals on statistics of the FISA courts. AKM will be releasing a production on broader issues related to FISA and government surveillance. Thank you to AK Media for working on this project.

History of Section 702:

In 1978, FISA was enacted to provide judicial oversight into matters of foreign surveillance, largely in secret. The pages of FISA contain procedures for surveillance and evidence gathering as well as the outline of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC. FISC was established to provide much-needed checks and balances on government surveillance via a court system, however, FISC has been seen to have serious flaws.

In 2008, informed by the 9/11 terror attacks, a FISA amendment bill was enacted containing FISA Section 702. Although Section 702 explicitly outlines restrictions for targeting Americans, it is often used as legal justification for mass domestic surveillance programs.

Evidence of Dragnet Surveillance:

In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked hundreds of NSA documents to various journalists. These documents detailed several NSA surveillance programs, authorized under FISA and similar acts, that practiced “upstream” and “downstream” surveillance, with downstream being an unofficial term referring to dragnet surveillance via sourcing large quantities of information from corporate entities. Upstream is an NSA term that refers to the direct tapping of the internet and telecommunication systems.

An example of an Downstream project authorized by Section 702 is PRISM. PRISM is a project that collected mass amounts of user data willingly provided by a series of Internet and telecommunication corporations. PRISM used “The Unified Targeting Tool” to sort and query this information en masse.

Credit: The Washington Post

Alternatively an example of an Upstream project is Fairview. Fairview was a project that operated under a variety of legal authorities, mainly Section 215 of the Patriot Act and FISA Section 702. Fairview operated by copying metadata collected by machines installed by AT&T. According to the New York Times, by 2011, AT&T had begun handing over 1.1 billion domestic cell phone records daily without the knowledge of consumers.

As detailed in FISA Section 103, the FISC operated on a system where three separate courts must all reject any monitoring request in succession, whereas any of the three courts can grant approval to any FISA monitoring application. Utilizing raw data from Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), stating that from 1979 to 2022, 42,938 applications were accepted, 2,068 applications were modified, and only 322 applications were denied AKM was able to calculate a 0.727% rejection rate.

Credit: AK Media

In July 2023, PIAB, the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, and IOB, the Intelligence Oversight Board, released an official review of FISA Section 702. This review states the following: “The fact that the FBI is involved in the Section 702 program ensures that there is no “gap” between foreign-focused collection and domestic disruption efforts and that there is no “wall” between its law enforcement and intelligence functions.” This is a clear illustration of the issue the public took with Section 702 and its uses. The law is written in such a way that it can be used to give authority to domestic projects, even though it is explicitly written within Section 702 that it cannot be used to target persons reasonably believed to be located within the United States.

Conclusion:

There is an extensive history of FISA Section 702 and its various uses. However, despite this, the topic has gained minimal public attention. Since the initial Snowden leaks, little public change has been made. Although the Patriot Act expired in 2020, dragnet surveillance is still widespread, and reliable information on it is far from in the mainstream.

Two bills have been proposed as modifications to Section 702, which, until April 2024, is still in full effect. Although the consensus seems clear that change is needed, conflict as to what those changes are is still ongoing. The unfortunate truth is if Congress does not have a clear understanding of what changes need to occur, the change needed to protect the people’s right to privacy may not happen at all.

Due to a consistent lack of discussion about this topic, public information on Section 702 and laws like it is not in the public eye. Until there is an informed population, there cannot be an expectation of the public getting the change they want and deserve.

Credits:

Writers:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member

Editors:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member

AK, CEO of AK Media

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Paradigm Board Member

Olivia Mott, Paradigm Board Member

Research:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member

AK, CEO of AK Media

For any questions or inquiries, please contact Paradigm Intel.

Preface

On January 1, 2024, the countries of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates joined an intergovernmental organization known as BRICS, which was founded by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining the organization later. Some have raised questions about this economic-focused alliance being a possible competitor to the U.S. economy, while others have pointed out that Russia and other member nations could be using the alliance as a way to increase their political influence and power.

In this publication, we’ll explore the history of BRICS, analyze the relations between its members, and determine how valid the concerns about them are.

What is BRICS

BRICS is an intergovernmental organization that was founded in 2009. The main focus of BRICS is economic growth and development.

The acronym “BRIC” was coined in 2001 by then Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O’Neill in a research paper on the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The “S” was added after South Africa became an official member in 2010.

Economic, Financial & Political Plans

Most of the alliance see themselves as a rising “new world order” that will be an alternative to current international institutions and systems. In a statement, Russian President Vladimir Putin said “BRICS is not competing with anyone. But it’s also obvious that this process of the emerging of a new world order still has fierce opponents.”

The members of the alliance have made statements about international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and have called for them to be reformed.

Brazil has previously called for a common form of currency to be established between the members of BRICS in order to create an alternative to the U.S. Dollar. However, this proposal has not been accepted nor implemented.

Internal Divisions

Despite the alliance fostering economic cooperation between its members, there are many divisions and points of contention between the members of BRICS.

For example, throughout the years, China and India have participated in a series of border clashes due to a border dispute. Despite peace talks and increasing cooperation efforts taking place, tensions over this border dispute continue to occur.

There have also been many conversations and talks about India playing a vital role in efforts to counter China’s power and influence, regionally and internationally. In 2023, the United States made efforts to increase cooperation and strengthen diplomatic ties with India as tensions with China continue to increase. In the 2024 Republican Presidential Primary, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley stated that in order to counter Chinese influence, the U.S. needed to “forge stronger bonds” with a number of countries, including India.

The current war between Russia and Ukraine has also caused some division between the members of BRICS. In April 2023, Brazil condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but also called for peace negotiations to take place. Meanwhile, South Africa has remained mostly neutral regarding the war in Ukraine despite their largest opposition political party, the Democratic Alliance, trying to convince the President of South Africa to arrest Putin if he attended the BRICS summit that was going to take place in the country.

Conclusion

According to statements made by national and international leaders, BRICS is seeking to be an alternative to current international institutions such as the United Nations and other related organizations and change the current economic and international power dynamic that western countries have dominated for years.

However, both the United Nations and the United States have not expressed concern about BRICS. In response to the expansion of BRICS, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that the calls for reform were valid: “Redesigning today’s outdated, dysfunctional and unfair global financial architecture is necessary, but it won’t happen overnight,”

During a press briefing, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that the U.S. does not see BRICS becoming a geopolitical rival: “This is a very diverse collection of countries….with differences of view on critical issues.”

CREDITS

Writing:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold

Editing:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold

Research:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold

For any questions or inquiries, please contact Paradigm Intel.

Preface:

Over the past week, Paradigm has been covering a series of topics related to United States National Security Agency (NSA) Surveillance programs exposed by the 2013 documents leaked by Edward Snowden. These leaks revealed a series of NSA and Government Communications Headquarters (GHQ) operations to breach The Onion Router’s security. This article will examine the relationships between intelligence agencies and the Onion Router, colloquially known as Tor. We will be delving into the history of Tor, what it is, how security agencies tried to undermine it, and why.

This article was researched in conjunction with AK Media, which is a partner organization of Paradigm Intel. AKM originally conceived the research project and performed the sourcing for the Snowden Files and explanations of technical concepts and calculations. AKM will be releasing a production on broader issues related to US government surveillance. Thank you to AK Media for working on this project.

What is TOR?

The Onion Router is a security-focused web browser that is best known as the browser that allows you to access the Deep Web. In 1995 due to concerns about internet privacy Tor was conceived by David Goldschlag, Mike Reed, and Paul Syverson, Two students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an employee at the US Naval Research Lab. Throughout the early 2000s, the trio developed Tor in several forms. After several public releases, and after the project grew, Tor became an official non-profit called The Tor Project. Due to this, Tor is a public volunteer service, allowing anyone to open Tor servers provided they have the capacity.

Tor functions by employing a three-layered node system. The first node is a server, which connects your IP to Tor. The second node transmits information, such as search queries, to the third node. The third node connects directly to receiving servers, such as a website. Because each node can only access the node directly preceding or succeeding it, Tor creates a wall, preventing the user’s personal information from being exposed. Nodes are randomized; anyone can operate one, and each node exists in a different country to minimize the chances of someone owning the same node.

Due to the anonymous nature of Tor, despite the strides it made in internet privacy technology, Tor was also utilized as a place to house illegal content on the developing internet. Due to cases of Tor being used as a tool to hide information from law enforcement and the public, Tor gained the notice of several government agencies. Specifically the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ.

Government Surveillance efforts:

After the NSA took an interest in Tor, intelligence analysts began looking for methods to breach its privacy services. According to The Guardian, the NSA launched a proof-of-concept attack against Tor. Because anyone can make nodes, the NSA began operating nodes of their own. Their goal, in theory, was to operate enough nodes that they could reasonably gather information on Tor users passively. However, there is no evidence that the NSA ever continued this project. Despite that, rumors still spread among the internet that up to 90% of Tor servers could be run by the NSA.

Because the Tor browser is based on Firefox, the NSA initially used a vulnerability in a browser bundle that affected Firefox. This method allowed the NSA to track Tor users by tracking E4X, an extension that provides native support for the Extensible Markup Language, or XML scripts. However, this method was unintentionally patched by Mozilla after they updated Firefox and removed E4X.

The NSA then created a project called EGOTISTICALGIRAFFE. This project uses partnerships with US telecommunication corporations under four main programs: Stormbrew, Fairview, Oakstar, and Blarney, to fingerprint HTTP requests from the Tor network. These fingerprints were then sorted into Xkeyscore, an NSA data query tool used to fingerprint and query information en masse. With this information, the NSA used a secondary program called “FoxAcid” to remotely infect Tor users when they visited specific sites.

A system known as Quantum used the aforementioned partnerships with telecommunication agencies to place NSA servers throughout the NSA backbone. This way, whenever someone using Tor attempted to access a website that had been running an NSA server, the Tor user would be redirected to their original destination through an NSA server “infecting” the Tor user. Once these users were infected, the NSA could match their HTTP searches with their virtual fingerprint. This type of attack is known as a man-in-the-middle attack, or MTM. Regarding this situation, The Onion Project posted on their blog, “What we do know is that if someone can watch the entire Internet all at once, they can watch traffic enter and exit. This likely de-anonymizes the Tor user.” This is precisely the method the NSA attempted to employ.

In addition to this, the NSA and GCHQ created a joint project dubbed REMATION II. This project had the intent of setting up NSA servers to conduct MTM attacks on Tor users over commonly used sites such as Amazon. By doing this, the NSA and GCHQ intended to cast a wide net. across the internet, attempting to monitor some TOR users.

Credit: The Guardian

During this time, GCHQ created its own anti-tor project. NEWTONSCRADLE being a codeword for GCHQ Tor nodes. GCHQ sought to establish Tor nodes as well, and to fulfill this desire, GCHQ created a system called QuickAnt authorized under Flying Pig. This is another MTM using a similar method to EGOTISTICALGIRAFFE.

Perhaps the most shocking part of this information is the fact that MTM attacks were intended to be directly on services such as Google, Amazon. Although the projects to break Tor were likely never employed en masse, attempts at targeting Tor users were made on massive public sites. This clearly shows the intent of this infrastructure was towards mass indiscriminate surveillance, specifically targeting a service that sought to provide the populace shelter from that very monitoring.

Conclusion:

The NSA and GCHQ have, despite their efforts, seemingly not broken Tor’s security. Both organizations have undoubtedly invested significant resources into attempts to breach Tor’s privacy. The NSA and GCHQ worked in unison to monitor the use of Tor using a variety of methods, just on a minimal scale of targets. However, it is important to note that projects such as NEWTONSCRADLE are still very much a possibility.

The public has, even through these leaks, no idea how many people the Tor projects actually monitored, as no information was included in any of the leaked Snowden files. Public uncertainty is a recurring theme in this case and due to this lack of public knowledge on the topic, the public also has no concept of the operations being run now.

Despite the fact that there is little evidence to suggest Tor is compromised on a large scale, it’s important to realize that if you can effectively monitor the entire internet, Tor won’t matter. If any given entity can gather data on everyone, and if both the point where someone connects to Tor and the requests Tor makes are logged by the same entity, there will no longer be anonymity online. Which is a much larger threat than Tor itself being compromised.

Credits:

Writers:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member
Editors:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Paradigm Board Member

AK, CEO of AK Media
Research:

Laurence Edwards, Paradigm Board Member

AK, CEO of AK Media

For inquiries, I can be contacted at laurenceedwards40@gmail.com.

Introduction

Vladimir Putin was first elected as the President of the Russian Federation in 2012 and was reelected in 2018. Over the years, he has become an influential figure in both Russian and international politics.

This article intends to analyze the relations and dynamics between President Putin and the political parties of Russia. This article will answer the following questions: How do the other political parties in Russia view Putin? Do they support him or do they oppose him? If they support him, how do they show their support? If they oppose him, how do they show their opposition?

All-Russian Political Party United Russia

The United Russia Party (UR) is the largest political party in Russia and holds the majority in almost every branch of government in the country. In 2012 Putin ran for President as a member of UR, however, in 2018, Putin elected to run as an independent candidate.

On March 23, 2023, in response to the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing a warrant on President Putin, the Chairman of UR, Dmitry Medvedev, threatened the ICC in a Telegram post by stating “It is quite possible to imagine a hypersonic missile being fired from the North Sea from a Russian ship at The Hague courthouse.”

After Putin announced he would run as an independent candidate for the 2024 Russian Presidential Election, Andrei Turchak, a senior UR party official, stated “More than 3.5 million party members and supporters will actively take part in the election campaign”, referring to Putin’s election campaign. Despite no longer being a member of UR, It would appear that UR remains very supportive of Putin and his policies.

Communist Party of the Russian Federation

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) is the second-largest political party in Russia. After reading and analyzing letters and articles from the party’s official website, it would appear that CPRF fosters mixed feelings towards Putin and his policies.

In September 2021, in an article titled “CRPF on the election results: Uncontested Elections”, CRPF suggested that Putin and the UR were meddling in Russian elections: “five CPRF candidates…..were excluded from the voting list under false pretext and one of them, presidential ex-candidate Pavel Grudinin who was running against V. Putin, with about 9 million supporters, was groundlessly brought to trial.” In that same article, CPRF added that “After radical amendments to the Russian Constitution last July, the ruling regime has launched continuous attacks aimed at elimination of strong competitors from the ranks of the opposition”, criticizing the changes made to the Russian Constitution that were supported by Putin and UR.

However, in contrast to their previous remarks in an article titled “Sanctions Against Russia…Will Strengthen Russia?” CPRF appeared to show confidence in Putin’s handling of foreign affairs: “Will Putin himself make concessions under pressure from the West? No, he won’t! Russia has too sad an experience of concessions.” CPRF went on to say “the real goal of the United States and its allies is not to stop Russia’s military operation against the Nazi regime in Ukraine, but to overthrow President Putin.” From these quotes and other articles on the party’s official website, it would appear that the CPRF heavily opposes Putin, however, they support his foreign actions and policies; the war in Ukraine and their views on Western nations.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) is another major political party in Russia, however, they are far behind UR and CPRF in terms of membership and support.

In February 2023, LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky met with President Putin to discuss general political affairs. In this meeting, Putin suggested that he and Slutsky speak often and work closely together stating: “We are in touch in general — we meet regularly at different events……I know that your proposals are always specific, practical.”

After being chosen as his party’s nominee for the 2024 Russian Presidential Election, LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky said “I won’t call to vote against Putin. A vote for Slutsky and LDPR is absolutely not a vote against Putin.” due to this it would appear that LDPR views Putin in a positive light.

A Just Russia — For Truth

The A Just Russia — For Truth party (SRZP), also known as Fair Russia, however, they are also quite small compared to the UR and CPRF in terms of membership and support. After reading and analyzing articles from the party’s official website and other news sites, it would appear that SRZP is very supportive of Putin’s policies and actions.

In an article on their official website titled “2024 could mark the beginning of serious changes in Russia’s national and migration policies’’, SRZP expressed their support for Putin by stating: “The A JUST RUSSIA — FOR TRUTH party supports the course of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the field of migration and nationality policy and is ready to propose measures for its implementation”.

In another article titled “The basis of the new Russia will be sovereignty and justice”, SRZP stated, “Head of the party faction in the State Duma Sergei Mironov said that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his speech at the plenary session of the World Russian People’s Council, formulated the key principles for the development of the Russian state and Russian civilization.”

Furthermore, SRZP is a member of a political alliance in Russia called the All-Russia People’s Front (ONF). This alliance was created by then-Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin with the intention of creating formal relations between UR and other political organizations in Russia.

Other Political Parties

The political parties which were mentioned above are the largest political parties in Russia. Among other political parties existing in Russia, views and stances on Putin differ between individual parties.

For example, the All-Russian Political Party Rodina, led by former UR member Alexei Zhuravelv, is a small political party that is a member of Putin’s alliance, All-Russia People’s Front. In the 2018 Russian Presidential Election, Rodina endorsed Putin.

Another example of a minor party is the Russian United Democratic Party Yabloko (RUDP Yabloko, or Yabloko). Their power and influence is mostly found at the regional and local level. They openly oppose Putin and the war in Ukraine. After UR party member Andrey Gurulyov stated that those who don’t support Putin are “rot” and should be “destroyed”, Yabloko Party Member Boris Vishnevsky filed an investigation request to the Prosecutor General of Russia in order to review the statements made by Gurulyov.

Conclusion

After conducting research on these parties and their political views, it would appear that most of the political parties in Russia support Putin and his policies, with only a select few offering public opposition. The biggest opposition to Putin and the ruling party, UR, is CPRF and Yabloko. However, these parties do not wield enough influence in order to effectively challenge Putin and UR nor do they have enough support.

Many individuals and organizations such as CPRF and other countries have accused the Russian government of meddling in Russian elections. In 2023, A spokesperson for Putin stated “[Presidential elections] don’t even have to be held…..our presidential election is not really democracy. Mr. Putin will be re-elected next year.” The European Parliament has referred to these other parties as “political parties in a managed democracy”, referring to the stronghold of influence and power Putin and his old party, UR, seem to maintain in Russia.

Credits

Writing:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Board Member

Editing:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Board Member

Laurence Edwards, Board Member

Research:

Aaron C.Z. Arnold, Board Member

January 6, 2023 (1/6/2023)

For any questions or inquiries, please contact Paradigm Intel.