Mark Galeotti

The revival of the “Putindunnit” Brexit narrative demonstrates how politicians continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the scale, impact but above all goals of Russian political interference. The Russian trolls, bots and commentators can gleefully exploit this target-rich environment Andy Burnham, perhaps as ever wanting to please his interlocutors of the moment, told Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart on their The Rest is Politics podcast that when he looked into whether there had been Russian interference in the 2016 vote, “I’ve had the clear answer that, yes, there was.

Not dead, only resting. Of all the country's fake parliamentary opposition parties, it is Russia's Communists who are still showing signs – very, very limited signs – of still remembering that their job is sometimes to oppose. On Sunday, Communists and others gathered in Moscow to mark the 1993 'October Coup', when Boris Yeltsin settled a constitutional face-off with an unruly legislature by shelling it into surrender. They were also protesting last month's comprehensively rigged elections. When some began chanting 'down with the Tsar!', 'we want fair elections' and 'down with the party of crooks and thieves', the police moved in.  The latter slogan may well have been the most alarming for the authorities.

Hoaxers, trolls and disinformation merchants beware, Andy Burnham is on your case. In his speech at the UN General Assembly, the PM damned Russia for its 'poisonous tide' of disinformation and committed the government to establishing a National Centre for Information Defence. Quite what this will be and when it will actually emerge remains to be seen, but the existing track record of such centres does raise some cautionary notes. It is perfectly true that Russia has, as Burnham said, 'used bots and fake websites, falsified newspaper articles, forged the branding of 28 British organisations, including universities and the BBC' in the name of spreading false narratives and division. Burnham's claim, however, that 'the Kremlin spends around £1.

It was one of those lines that probably felt like a zinger at the time, but may come back to haunt him. In response to a question from Kemi Badenoch on defence at Wednesday’s PMQs, Andy Burnham declared that “we do everything to support our national security, but it can’t come at the expense of social security.” The irony of twenty-first-century conflict is that he was both terribly wrong to draw this dichotomy and also quite right. In a few years’ time, Russia will be rearmed, with all the lessons it has learned from Ukraine On the one hand, the defence of Britain – like most of Europe’s – is in pretty threadbare shape.

The latest statement from Maria Zakharova, the reliably acerbic spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has generated considerable interest and concern amongst the British chattering classes. And that was no doubt the idea. In the course of one of her regular press briefings, she delivered a characteristically robust warning: We call on all residents of the United Kingdom to consider the inevitable catastrophic consequences of their own government’s hostile actions.

Thank heavens that everything in the UK is going so well, that more than 50 MPs have so little to do that they can spend their time lobbying against a children’s cartoon about an unruly four-year-old and a put-upon bear because it is allegedly supporting Vladimir Putin’s war effort in Ukraine. Masha and the Bear, one of the most popular children’s cartoon series around, recounts the misadventures of the mischievous Masha, and former circus bear Misha. Most of the seven-minute episodes revolve around her playing pranks or trying to do a good deed, only for it to go uproariously wrong. Are we really to believe that a cartoon character’s wardrobe choices will brainwash a generation of British toddlers?

Everyone who is everyone – within a certain political and social fragment – has been in Russia this past week. Conservative American conspiracy theorist Candace Owens; Errol Musk, father of Elon; toxic “manosphere” influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate; and Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist. Robinson told the Guardian that he had travelled to Moscow “to see how this country got itself so well on to the straight and narrow and see the beauty of a civilised society here.” In the process, he was walking a well-trodden path of westerners heading to Russia to see exactly what they want to see. Once it was socialists like Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who found Stalin’s regime “the very opposite of a dictatorship.

However much Western leaders inveigh against Russian disinformation (which, yes, is a real issue), we should never pretend this is not a two-way street. The sudden spate of news stories reporting that a conveniently anonymous ‘European intelligence agency’ claims that the Kremlin fears a coup looks suspiciously more like a psyop meant to generate paranoia in the Russian elite than a serious assessment. The claim is that Putin’s personal security has been dramatically stepped up, not simply to protect him from increasingly frequent and far-ranging Ukrainian drone strikes but, in particular, because since the beginning of March, the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin himself have been concerned about the risk of a plot or coup attempt targeting the Russian president.

Moscow's Manezh exhibition hall is playing host to a celebration of the life and politics of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the outspoken, unfiltered and unrepentantly toxic founder of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), who died in 2022. What is meant to memorialise Zhirinovsky's career, though, also highlights the degree to which the Kremlin is losing control of the nationalist right. The neatly-choreographed simulation of party politics that has worked for so long is getting harder to sustain The LDPR – which was neither liberal nor democratic – was established in 1992 and from the first was a populist force that was more a vehicle for the bombastic Zhirinovsky than the expression of a coherent ideology.

What are the odds that Vladimir Putin is going to be cowed when British Defence Secretary John Healey warns him 'we see you. We see your activity over our cables and our pipelines, and you should know that any attempt to damage them will not be tolerated and will have serious consequences'? Pretty poor, it is safe to say. Yet what might seem like a harmless piece of political grandstanding actually carries serious risks for the UK. Healey was briefing on a recent operation to monitor two submarines from GUGI, the Russian Navy’s Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, which spent a month surveying undersea cables in and near Britain's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

From the modern metropolises of Moscow and St Petersburg to Arkhangelsk on the permafrosted northern coast and Khabarovsk on the Chinese border, for over a week now, Russian cities have been experiencing unprecedented interruptions to mobile internet coverage. Ostensibly for security reasons, the rumour mill has inevitably cranked out all kinds of alternative explanations, from fear of a coup to preparations for a comprehensive imposition of state control on the 'runet', Russia's online world. Notions that Vladimir Putin fears some imminent coup can most quickly be laid to rest. There is dissatisfaction with the continuing war and its economic consequences, but nothing to suggest anything more serious.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky says that World War Three has already started. Speaking to the BBC on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion, it’s understandable why he would want to take this line, but he's wrong. What is striking about Putin is the lack of a messianic ideology On an emotional level, Zelensky has seen millions of his citizens flee within and out of his country, its cities and infrastructure shattered, and Vladimir Putin's propagandists denounce him variously as a Nazi apologist, drug addict and western puppet. Of course he will frame this in the most apocalyptic of terms. More to the point, Ukraine is now dependent on European aid. It is European money that keeps the government solvent, and arms the troops.

Another round of trilateral Ukraine peace talks has wrapped up in Geneva with the ritual claims that they were 'businesslike' and 'productive'. Meanwhile, Ukraine's president Zelensky took to social media to announce that he doesn't 'need historical shit to end this war' and accused the Russians of doing nothing but engaging in delaying tactics. So is there any point to the talks? Central to this question is quite what Vladimir Putin really wants. If granted the remaining, unconquered portion of the Donetsk region that he is demanding – itself potentially a concession too far for Kyiv – will he be willing to call it quits and allow the rest of Ukraine to go its own way, subject to constraints on Nato membership and the presence of foreign troops in peacetime?

When leading Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny died two years ago, the only real question was not whodunnit, but howdunnit?  His widow, Yulia Navalnaya, quickly blamed poison and said that his partisans had taken tissue samples from his corpse for examination. Yesterday, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands announced that a combined intelligence operation had demonstrated that he was killed with epibatidine, a nerve toxin only found on the skin of Ecuadorian dart frogs. The announcement was followed by the inevitable stream of (not always unjustified) scepticism, trollish derision, and official denial.