Saturday, April 16, 2022

Why Did Two Antarctic Ice Shelves Fail? Scientists Say They Now Know.

The collapse of the two ice shelves was most likely triggered by vast plumes of warm air from the Pacific, researchers have found.


Satellite images showed the Larsen B Ice Shelf splintering and collapsing from Jan. 31 to April 13, 2002.
CreditCredit...NASA Earth Observatory


By Henry Fountain
Published April 15, 2022

The rapid collapses of two ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula over the last quarter-century were most likely triggered by the arrival of huge plumes of warm, moisture-laden air that created extreme conditions and destabilized the ice, researchers said Thursday.

The disintegration of the Larsen A shelf in 1995 and of the Larsen B shelf in 2002 were preceded by landfall of these plumes, called atmospheric rivers, from the Pacific Ocean. They generated extremely warm temperatures over several days that caused surface melting of the ice that led to fracturing, and reduced sea ice cover, allowing ocean swells to flex the ice shelves and further weaken them.

“We identify atmospheric rivers as a mechanism that can create extreme conditions over the ice shelves of the Antarctic Peninsula and potentially lead to their destabilization,” said Jonathan Wille, a climatologist and meteorologist at the Université Grenoble Alpes in France and the lead author of a study describing the research in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.

While there have been no collapses on the peninsula since 2002, Dr. Wille and his colleagues found that atmospheric rivers also triggered 13 of 21 large iceberg-calving events from 2000 to 2020

Dr. Wille said the larger Larsen C shelf, which is still mostly intact and, at about 17,000 square miles, is the fourth-largest ice shelf in Antarctica, could eventually suffer the same fate as A and B.

“The only reason why melting has not been significant so far is because it’s just farther south compared to the others, therefore colder,” he said. But as the world continues to warm, atmospheric rivers are expected to become more intense. “The Larsen C will now be at risk from the same processes,” he said.



A rift in the Larsen C Ice Shelf in February 2017. Scientists say the C ice shelf could meet the same fate as A and B.
Credit...British Antarctic Survey, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


Kyle R. Clem, a researcher at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand who was not involved in the study, said the work also showed that other parts of Antarctica that are not warming as fast as the peninsula could eventually be susceptible as well, since the mechanism that the researchers documented is more dependent on warming where the atmospheric river originates.

“The amount of heat and moisture that atmospheric rivers transport is higher than it would be without global warming,” Dr. Clem said. “So the air mass that slams into Antarctica is much, much warmer. And it’s these episodes of extreme events that lead to ice shelf collapse.”

“You could get this anywhere in Antarctica,” he said.

Shelves are floating tongues of ice that serve to hold back most of the ice that covers Antarctica to depths up to nearly 3 miles. When a shelf collapses, the flow of this land ice to the ocean accelerates, increasing the rate of sea level rise.

While the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet is relatively small (if it all melted, seas would rise by less than a foot) the collapse of ice shelves elsewhere on the continent could lead to much greater sea level rise over centuries.

Last month, a small ice shelf collapsed in East Antarctica, which is considered the most stable part of the continent. In the days before, an intense atmospheric river arrived in the region. It led to record high temperatures, but researchers are not yet certain how much of a role it played, if any, in the shelf’s disintegration.

Atmospheric rivers occur when a large stationary zone of high-pressure air meets a low-pressure storm system. A narrow stream of moist air flows from the confluence of the two.

In a typical Southern Hemisphere summer, the peninsula gets from one to five of these events, the researchers said. They looked at only the ones that contained the highest volume of water vapor.

If a river is intense enough, it can lead to several days of surface melting of the ice shelf. As the meltwater flows into crevices it refreezes, expanding and widening the cracks. Eventually such repeated hydrofracturing, as the process is called, can cause the ice shelf to disintegrate.

The atmospheric river can also spur the process by melting sea ice, or if its associated winds push the sea ice away from the shelf. That allows ocean waves to rock the ice shelf, further stressing it.

Some large ice shelves in West Antarctica are thinning as a result of melting from underneath by warm ocean water. Catherine Walker, a glaciologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts who was not involved in the study, said that regardless of the long-term trends of warming and thinning, “this paper brings up the important point that very brief weather events can push an ice shelf past its tipping point.”

Rising From the Antarctic, a Climate Alarm
Wilder winds are altering crucial currents. The sea is releasing ancient carbon dioxide. Vast ice shelves are melting from below. See why the experts are increasingly alarmed.



Henry Fountain specializes in the science of climate change and its impacts. He has been writing about science for The Times for more than 20 years and has traveled to the Arctic and Antarctica. @henryfountainFacebook

A version of this article appears in print on April 15, 2022, Section A, Page 5 of the New York edition with the headline: Plumes of Warm Air Caused Collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelves in ’95 and ’02, Scientists Say. 

Climate activists block four of London's busiest bridges

ClimateActivists-Londonbridge

Demonstrators take part in an Extinction Rebellion protest on Westminster bridge in London on Friday. AP

UK climate activist group Extinction Rebellion on Friday shut down four of London's busiest bridges, snarling traffic on the first day of the Easter bank holiday.

The activists blocked Blackfriars, Waterloo, Westminster and Lambeth bridges, which cross over the River Thames, Extinction Rebellion tweeted.

"As long as our government fails to act now on the climate crisis disregarding expert advice, licensing more drilling for oil and gas, locking up scientists, we have no choice but to disrupt," it said. "We're on track for a catastrophic 3°C warming" above pre-industrial levels, the group warned.

ClimateActivists-London Police officers stand nearby as activists from Just Stop Oil sit in front and on top of a fuel tanker during a protest in Grays, Essex. Reuters

Such a figure would be much higher than the 2015 Paris climate agreement goal to limit temperature rises to between 1.5˚C and 2˚C.
Nine scientists were arrested after a protest targeting the energy ministry Wednesday and one of the individuals started a hunger strike the next day after she was not released from custody, the group said.

The Metropolitan Police said on Twitter it was aware of "pockets" of protests that were "causing delays and disruption across central London," adding that officers were "working to manage the impact."

Climateactivist-EndFossil Activists from the Extinction Rebellion hold a banner as they block Lambeth Bridge during the Just Stop Oil protest in London. Reuters

The group has carried out a series of protests in the past week, including shutting down the iconic Tower Bridge last Friday.
Members of the group also targeted the headquarters of British energy giant Shell Wednesday, and some glued their hands to the building as they called on employees to quit their jobs.

The British government last week presented a new energy security strategy after the war in Ukraine and soaring inflation, with a greater focus on nuclear power and renewable energy, but also oil from the North Sea.

Agence France-Presse


Climate activists bring London traffic to a standstill


By Joshua Askew with AP • Updated: 15/04/2022

Demonstrators take part in an Extinction Rebellion protest on Westminster Bridge in London, Friday, April 15, 2022. - Copyright Stefan Rousseau/live


Climate activists brought traffic in London to a standstill on Friday, after blocking off multiple bridges across the city.

Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion activists gathered on London's major bridges at Waterloo, Blackfriars, Lambeth and Westminster, causing cars and buses to snake along the surrounding roads and streets.

The movement organised the action to bring attention to the ongoing climate emergency, and call for an end to new fossil fuel investments.

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police force said "pockets of protest" were causing delays and disruption across central London.

Friday's protest is part of a broader uptick in environmental action in the UK, with groups such as Insulate Britain obstructing roads and motorways in a bid to get the government to invest in making homes more energy-efficient.

Environmental group Just Stop Oil has targeted the oil industry in recent weeks, with activists climbing on top of oil tankers, blocking access roads and chaining themselves to buildings across the UK.

More than 600 people in this campaign have been arrested over the past two weeks.

The UK's conservative government has introduced measures aimed at curtailing disruptive protests, yet this has drawn criticism for infringing on rights to assembly.

“While we value the right to peaceful protest, it is crucial that these do not cause disruption to people’s everyday lives,” said energy minister Greg Hands.

Speaking to the BBC this week, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas recognised that, while these bridge protests could be counterproductive, they were the only way campaigners could be heard.

"I am sorry that it has come to this," she added.

Extinction Rebellion blocks London bridges on second day of mass protest



Sophie Wingate and Luke O'Reilly, PA

Extinction Rebellion climate activists staged sit-down protests in central London for a second day, with dozens arrested after they blocked two bridges to demand an end to the fossil fuel economy.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered at Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park on Sunday morning before marching into the city centre and “occupying” both Lambeth and Vauxhall bridges, major traffic arteries across the Thames where they prevented vehicles from crossing.

However, they allowed ambulances and fire engines to pass, with organisers parting the crowd by shouting “blue light”.

Crowds sat in the middle of the road, waving multicoloured flags bearing the group’s “extinction” symbol and placards that read “there is no planet B” and “we want to live”, and listened to music and speakers in sunny weather.

After several hours, police cleared first Lambeth and then Vauxhall Bridge, saying 38 arrests were made in the process.

Officers told protesters there was evidence they were causing “serious disruption” to the public, warning them to leave or face arrest.

Police physically removed the last of the activists, a number of whom were taken away in police vans.




The Metropolitan Police tweeted on Sunday evening: “Both demonstrations within the Vauxhall Area have now concluded and the roads have reopened.

“As a result of today’s policing operation we have made 38 arrests.”

Doctors and nurses from a small group of medical workers who refused to leave Lambeth Bridge were among those arrested, Extinction Rebellion tweeted.

The Met said it had imposed conditions under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 on Extinction Rebellion to clear areas around Vauxhall Bridge.

A protestor in nurse’s scrubs is searched by police on Lambeth Bridge (Yui Mok/PA)

Activist and student Kiri Ley, 21, from Birmingham, said the group was occupying the capital peacefully in order to try and force the Government to make change when nothing else had worked.

She told the PA news agency: “I know that very often people will question our tactics about disruption for example, to ordinary people, stuff like roadblocks, like gluing on, locking on, and so on.

“What I would ask people, if you make that criticism, is what actually do you suggest that we do?

“We tried all the other methods – we’ve written letters, we’ve marched, we’ve spoken to our MPs, we’ve done literally everything we can and time and time again we see them doing completely the opposite of what the scientific evidence says and this is what is left to us, really, we do it because we know it works.”

Adam, in his 60s, from York, said: “This may seem disruptive, but it is chicken feed in comparison to climate change.”



Former Love Island contestant Amy Hart tweeted a photograph of herself with protesters while on her way to the Olivier Awards, with the caption: “Extinction Rebellion have closed Lambeth Bridge so we’re literally doing the Lambeth walk oi x”.

Earlier, campaigners spray painted red hands outside the London corporate offices of oilfield services company Schlumberger.

It came a day after some 8,000 protesters flooded the streets of London, according to Extinction Rebellion.

On the first day of mass action on Saturday, they blockaded roads around Oxford Circus and Trafalgar Square.

Extinction Rebellion has vowed to “block areas of the city for as long as possible” every day for at least a week, and on the next three weekends.

Extinction Rebellion demonstrators prevented vehicles from crossing Vauxhall Bridge on the second day of mass protest (Yui Mok/PA)

The environmental activist group plans to recruit new “rebels” and hold training in non-violent action and resistance tactics in Hyde Park in the mornings before marching into the city centre “en masse”, it said on its website.

“Our disruption will not stop until the fossil fuel economy comes to an end,” it said.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said that some Extinction Rebellion protests are counterproductive, but their disruptive actions are the “only way that people feel they can make their voices heard”.

She told Sunday Morning on BBC One: “I think that being on the streets of London has been shown to be a way of capturing people’s imaginations. People have joined those protests who have never protested before. They are doing it because they know we have to leave new fossil fuels in the ground.

Police talk to protestors taking part in a demonstration on Lambeth Bridge in central London (Yui Mok/PA)

“The International Energy Agency says that, the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report says that and yet this Government and this energy strategy .. is foreseeing getting out even more oil and gas from the North Sea, that is frankly immoral and said the UN general secretary said that is frankly both morally and economically mad.”

On Friday, two Extinction Rebellion protesters shut down Tower Bridge during the morning rush hour by abseiling off the sides of the landmark.

Activists from the group, also known as XR, and Just Stop Oil have also been blocking access to oil terminals for ten days, demanding that the Government stops new oil and gas projects.

They disrupted supplies from three oil terminals in Warwickshire, Hertfordshire and Essex on Sunday, Just Stop Oil said.

Ukraine’s Military Industry Should Not Be Underestimated


April 15, 2022
By Chan Kung


With the progress of the war in Ukraine, the non-advanced weapons of developed countries have become a worldwide focus. There are a few notable examples of this. For instance, the Ukrainian side had used Starlight anti-aircraft missile to take down Russian Ka-52 helicopters, or Stinger to blow up Russian aircrafts. In addition, the Ukrainians also utilized Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones to destroy Russian tanks. Those who pay attention to these developments often overlook one of the most critical roles, that the Ukrainian Stugna, which is the most commonly used anti-tank weapon in the Ukrainian army, may also be the missile that strikes down the most armored vehicles of the Russian army.

Many have in fact, greatly underestimated the Ukrainian’s military industry.

Before the war started, Ukraine’s overall defense and military production system had actually been decentralized, which was completely preserved in accordance with the supply chain system. For Ukraine to be able to fight a protracted war with the disproportionately stronger Russia, the second largest military power in the world, in addition to the three necessary conditions which are the people’s will to resist, the supports of weapons and intelligence, and the strategic use of environmental terrain, there is a fourth key condition which is rarely mentioned so far. This would be Ukraine’s own defense industry and military system, which can be effectively mobilized in wartime.

In fact, long before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian defense industry was the main pillar and the core of the Soviet military-industrial complex. At that time, more than 30% of the Soviet Empire’s arms production came from Ukraine. Under the arms race of the long-term global Cold War, 40% of the cutting-edge technology development in the Soviet Union came from Ukrainian scientific research institutions. Most of the Soviet Union’s long-range strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were produced at the Yuzhmash plant in Dnipro, Ukraine’s fourth largest city. It is not only China that obtained aircraft carrier technology from Ukraine, Russia’s aircraft carriers and many of its warships were produced there as well.

In 1991, after the independence of Ukraine, according to statistics, it had 1,840 military companies and armament scientific research institutions, with the total employment population of the military industry being as high as 2.7 million. During the current war, it is often seen in videos posted online that some elderly Ukrainian farmers and workers using tractors to drag armored vehicles left by the Russian army, and they even knew how to repair and alter such vehicles. It is clear these senior citizens were in the military industry before, though retired they retain experiences accumulated over many years which are only shown during the war.

According to incomplete statistics, during the first five years of Ukraine’s founding from 1992 to 1996, there were 113 military-civilian equipment companies in the country. Even then, these companies were underground arsenals for global conflicts. Military equipment manufactured in Ukraine could be found all over the world. In order to rectify such a chaotic situation, the Ukrainian government passed a law in 1996 to nationalize arms exports and established a large state-owned enterprise as a single window for arms and equipment exports, standardizing the export control system of the military industry.

Right until 2014, Ukraine’s military industry system was still export-oriented, where the country even became the fourth largest arms exporter in the world in 2012. In fact, all the countries that use Soviet-style weapons in the world rely on various key parts made in Ukraine. The military maintenance, repair and operation (MRO) alone provided its military industry an annual growth rate of nearly 60%. In addition, all countries, including Russia, are actually highly dependent on Ukraine’s military industrial chain. At its peak in 2012, Ukraine recorded a huge export scale of 117 billion hryvnia, of which 90% was exported to Russia as a reserve of equipment.

When the Crimean War broke out in 2014, Ukraine finally realized that the biggest threat to the country’s survival turned out to be Russia. The various armament parts produced in the past would eventually help Russia to invade and assault Ukraine itself. From then on, Ukraine began to adjust the orientation of its military industry to a domestic demand.

In the current war, it is quite a shock for the world to see the Ukrainian army could withstand the sudden attack of the Russian army, and even launch counterattacks. This can be credited to Ukraine’s military industrial enterprises, including those military-civilian integrated enterprises. They possess a strong reserve of technical talents, and can quickly repair a large number of captured Russian military equipment, thereby transferring them to the Ukrainian army. This is one of the key reasons why the Ukrainian army can fight a protracted war.

In fact, the Ukrainian army is not weak at all. According to GFP’s 2022 Global Military Strength Ranking, the Ukrainian army ranks 22nd in the world, and its combat power ranking is much higher than that of Vietnam and North Korea. Its achievement today is not accidental.
The hunt for ‘antimilitarism’

 Leaked documents indicate that Russia’s federal censor has been monitoring the Internet for peace activism since at least 2020


April 13, 2022
Source: Meduza



A rally in support of jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny on January 23, 2022
Elena Volzhankina / Kommersant

In early March, the nonprofit whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets) published hyperlinks to a large data leak from the office of Russia’s federal censor, Roskomnadzor (RKN), in the Republic of Bashkortostan. With help from colleagues at The Intercept, Meduza downloaded and indexed hundreds of gigabytes of these data and learned that RKN started monitoring protest sentiment back in 2020, sharing daily reports with various government agencies (including the national security apparatus) about “the destabilization of Russian society.”

The semi-secret information we found in the data leak

Meduza learned that RKN has a new automated monitoring system called the Office of Operational Interaction (AS KOV) that is missing from the agency’s official list of information systems. We managed to find just two public mentions of AS KOV: (1) in December 2020, RKN announced that it was planning to spend 7 million rubles (now about $85,000) to equip its Main Radio Frequency Center (which monitors the mass media and Internet) with the “AS KOV mobile app” as part of a “unified digital platform” program, and (2) in March 2021, an anti-extremism commission in Russia’s Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug ordered the development of an algorithm using the AS KOV system to facilitate interdepartmental work on monitoring the mass media and Internet for content “capable of destabilizing [Russia’s] sociopolitical situation.”

Meduza found evidence that RKN’s regional divisions are tasked with identifying supposed “hotbeds of tension” and compiling daily reports about spikes in popular dissent appearing on social media and “instances of the destabilization of Russian society.”

Using the Office of Operational Interaction automated monitoring system, RKN sends these reports to the central offices and local branches of the Federal Protective Service (FSB) and the Interior Ministry (Russia’s police force), as well as regional governments and federal inspectors working for the Kremlin.
What keeps RKN up at night

Roskomnadzor’s Bashkortostan office didn’t get access to AS KOV until December 2020, but RKN began testing the new system three months earlier in Novosibirsk. In October 2020, the agency’s branch there delivered a presentation “on the organization of monitoring the information space to identify hotbeds of tension based on the example of the Novosibirsk region.”


Based on the data Meduza analyzed, RKN’s monitoring work always begins with a review of the number of “negative publications” concerning President Putin. Officials use a predetermined list of “destabilizing topics” that appears in every report, even when monitors recorded no cases on a particular day. This was the list in March 2022:
Criticisms of Russia’s current state officials, comparisons involving living standards
Coverage of the non-systemic [anti-Kremlin] opposition’s activities
Sanctions pressure
Regionalization and violations of Russia’s territorial integrity
Religious and ethnic conflicts
Anti-militarism
Sexual and other “freedoms,” imposed tolerance [sic]
The legalization of recreational drugs
Foreign aggression, interference by foreign states in Russia’s domestic affairs
Distortions of WWII history, pro-Western interpretations of the results and course of the war
Cross-border influence by neighboring states

Notably, RKN was targeting “anti-militarism” as early as September 2020 — well more than a year before Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.



Pages from the October 2020 slideshow prepared by RKN’s Novosibirsk deputy director, Ksenia Kalashnikova

Meduza was unable to establish who decided which subjects RKN would monitor, but the list was likely determined in advance of the agency’s trials in Novosibirsk, given the fact that reports often left many of these sections blank. A year and a half later, the structure of this monitoring work has barely changed. The reports leaked in Bashkortostan, for example, feature just a single new “destabilizing subject” (and it appears to be the product of Russia’s struggles in Ukraine): “cross-border influence by neighboring states.”
How RKN searches for “hotbeds of tension”

The materials recovered from RKN’s Novosibirsk trials indicate that this monitoring work is designed to cover all mass media resources (the news media, blogs, and social networks), with the exception of what the agency calls “pro-state” outlets. The records Meduza reviewed, however, contain no explicit criteria for determining whether a resource is “pro-state.”

RKN divides all the information sources it monitors into two main categories: “propaganda” and “soft power.” Every report on “instances of social destabilization” takes these two groups into account separately. The agency considers “propaganda” to be resources that rely on the technique of “repeating the simplest and most understandable concepts.” In RKN’s reports, the resources that fall into this group are the “websites of large news agencies and sources founded back before the dissolution of the USSR.” Resources built on “soft power,” meanwhile, specialize in manufacturing “underlying shifts in individuals’ attitudes.” This typically means social networks, content from opinion leaders, and news outlets and websites that don’t directly violate Russia’s media regulations.

To hammer home this distinction, RKN’s slideshow represents “propaganda” with a radio set and “soft power” with a smartphone.


RKN labels every information resource as either “propaganda” or “soft power.” In their monitoring work, analysts summarize various displays of discontent: criticisms of “the local authorities,” “of the electoral process (amendments to the Constitution),” “of public health measures (coronavirus),” “daily news reports criticizing the current state authorities,” and so on.

Meduza was unable to find any official documents regulating this monitoring program. Roskomnadzor did not respond to our questions about the purpose of its Office of Operational Interaction, and representatives of other state agencies connected to this system did not return Meduza’s calls.

Story by Denis Dmitriev
Translation by Kevin Rothrock


How the European Far Right is Using Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine to Radicalise its Audience

By Claire Burchett and James Barth
14th April 2022
In Insights

Current events provide key opportunities for right-wing extremist (RWE) groups to attract new members and radicalise those already within their ranks. By using the publicity of ‘hot topics’, and then manipulating mainstream narratives to further their own ideological agendas, RWE groups both attract more attention and propel extremist ideas to an audience they may not have otherwise reached. Over the past year alone, this dynamic has been found during the COVID-19 pandemic, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and increased fighting between Israel and Palestine. Our research applies a similar lens to the ongoing war in Ukraine through a detailed analysis of 729 posts from 15 RWE Telegram channels across France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK) in the first 17 days of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Here we outline four key findings.

First, the predominant sentiment expressed in posts which referenced the war was criticism of the West, specifically blaming the conflict on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) or the administration of US President Joe Biden. Second, apart from two channels, there was far more support for Russia than there was for Ukraine. The pro-Russia support largely came from the New Right, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has courted political parties and groups aligned with this branch of the far right for many years. Pro-Ukraine support mostly came from groups endorsing National Socialist (Nazi) ideas, themselves more ideologically aligned with the Ukrainian far-right Azov movement. Third, and undoubtedly a welcome finding given the centrality of anti-Semitism within the far right historically, there were few anti-Semitic posts. This is made more surprising considering that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish. We hypothesise that this is because RWE groups have prioritised an anti-West message, portraying Zelenskyy as a ‘Western puppet’, a position in tension with, and in fact a reversal of, historic anti-Semitic tropes. Finally, despite very limited evidence of group transnationalisation, which we measured using a social network analysis of the ‘forwarded from’ content, many of the same conspiracies and narratives were shared by channels in all three countries.

Methodology

Based on news media, academic articles, and reports conducted by government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), we collated a sample of Telegram channels which represented the most important RWE actors and groups active in the UK, Germany, and France (five from each country). We extracted all posts made by these channels between 24 February and 13 March 2022, representing the first 17 days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which gave us a dataset of 2,744 posts.

We then cleaned the content and sifted all posts, using a keyword search to identify those that might reference the conflict. Each post was then analysed, and any false positives were excluded from the dataset, alongside those that referenced the war, but did not express any discernible view or sentiment. Of the 729 posts that remained, each one was given a tag to describe the primary sentiment behind the post. Where possible, we limited the number of tags for each post to one, the clearest sentiment it expressed. In a few cases, in which no single sentiment was predominant over another, we included several tags for a single post.

Findings


Anti-West

By far the most common tag in the dataset was anti-West, comprising 30% of all posts gathered and found in all 15 of the channels examined. This is the clearest evidence that RWE groups are using the publicity of the war to further pre-existing narratives about Western governments. The most prominent of these were claims that the war was primarily a result of the so-called aggression of NATO and Western governments, especially the US, over the past several years. For example, one UK channel claimed that “NATO is to Blame for the Conflict in the Ukraine. Whilst the mainstream media is demonising Russia and laying the blame for the current conflict at the feet of the Putin, the truth of the matter is very different.”



A second strand of criticism targeted the response of Western governments and societies since the invasion, criticising what the channels considered to be overly strong anti-Russian reactions. For example, one French channel criticised reports that “Russian restaurant owners have been… receiving death threats since the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine.”



RWE groups used, often simplified or revised, historical references to attempt to legitimise their criticism, typically of the West. For example, one UK channel justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by blaming NATO’s ‘expansionist policy’ and ‘refusal to de-escalate’, which the channel alleged also caused the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Historical comparison and revisionism is a well-worn narrative tactic of the far right, with channels attempting to intellectualise their discussion in order to appear more authoritative. The far right is also likely using this tactic to appear more patriotic by displaying, nevertheless pseudo-, knowledge of their country’s history.

Far-right groups have a variety of reasons to sow dissatisfaction with incumbent governments and the status quo, ranging from attracting potential voters to inspiring acts of violence to catalyse change. This desire to portray current politics as unacceptable and in need of an extreme shift is not only fundamental to RWE groups but helps explain why these groups are using the Russia-Ukraine war to criticise Western governments and societies.

Pro-Russia

Although some channels wrote that they “are neutral and pray for a swift resolution of the conflict,” our sentiment analysis showed that the vast majority actively promoted pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian messaging. Almost 22% of all posts were tagged as Russian Propaganda, anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia or pro-Putin whilst just over 7% expressed pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin or anti-Russia sentiment.

Interestingly, groups seemed aware of the potentially problematic nature of expressing support for a regime notorious for limiting freedom of speech, something so inherent to the RWE movement. Groups therefore attempted to frame their content as providing an alternative view to justify or excuse pro-Putin content. For instance, one UK channel wrote “Does the truth make me pro Putin???” Further evidence of this tension can be found in the type of pro-Russian content posted. Most of the posts criticising Ukraine or promoting Russia were tagged as Russian propaganda (43%) or anti-Ukraine (31%), whilst posts that expressed overt support for Russia or Putin himself were less prominent, at 20% and 5% respectively.



Many of the overtly pro-Putin or pro-Russia posts we identified expressed their support for Russia through contrasting Putin’s regime with those of the West. One German channel suggested that Putin presented a counter-model to the West, as a “patriot… [who] rejects multiculturalism and gender [liberalism], he does not torment the economy with politically correct regulations and climate levies.”



Again, we see that rather than expressing support for Putin’s invasion or his domestic policies since 24 February, RWE channels framed their discussion of Russia by critiquing Western domestic politics, clearly highlighting how these groups have used the conflict to spread pre-existing narratives (about multiculturalism and climate change).

In line with previous findings in the US, there was a difference between whether RWE groups supported Russia or Ukraine based on their ideology. Whilst those who fit within, what has been termed, the New Right expressed pro-Russian sympathies, two channels more aligned with neo-Nazism were far more pro-Ukraine. Interestingly, these two channels rationalised their support in different ways. One emphasised the “rights to self-determination of the people,” whilst the other made frequent references to, and backed, the Azov movement. Furthermore, whilst these groups sided with Ukraine, they also heavily criticised the West, stating that they were both against “Russian imperialism” as well as “US globalism… with its eastward expansion of NATO and its worldwide wars under the guise of human rights.” As a result, whilst there was divergence between neo-Nazis and the New Right over whether they predominantly supported Ukraine or Russia, these movements nevertheless both criticised perceived US and NATO influence.



Limited anti-Semitism

We expected to find widespread anti-Semitism across the dataset because, not only is anti-Semitism a historically central feature of the far right, but a key figure of the war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is Jewish. Furthermore, the balance of support across channels leant more in favour of Russia, making him an obvious target. In reality, just 1.5% of posts in our dataset were tagged as anti-Semitism. Of those that displayed anti-Semitism, however, posts typically did so through relativising Jewish suffering during WWII (known as secondary anti-Semitism) by comparing it to the “cancellation” of Russia. For example, one German channel equated an attack on a Russian supermarket in Essen to ‘pogroms’, blamed mainstream media for the attack, and appropriated the phrase of ‘never again’ (nie wieder), associated with the Holocaust and other genocides, to claim that ‘it’s happening again – defend yourselves!’



We have two suggestions for why there was less anti-Semitism than expected. Firstly, and most likely, RWE groups portrayed Zelenskyy primarily as a puppet of the aggressive and warmongering West, whilst depicting Ukraine itself as Russian territory. This was clear through explicit claims that “this conflict is the fault of NATO, America and their puppet regime in the Ukraine,” as well as more nuanced discourse, such as referring to Ukraine as The Ukraine. Other writers have demonstrated how such Soviet-era terminology eliminates Ukraine’s claim to sovereignty, as it casts Ukraine as a region of Russia rather than its own nation state. Prominent anti-Semitic tropes often portray Jewish leaders as wielding too much power. This trope then does not fit with the claims by RWE groups that the West are responsible for the war by manipulating Zelenskyy and provoking Russia, a belief that relinquishes agency from Zelenskyy.

A second possibility is that RWE groups are trying to portray the conflict as one in which there are bad people on both sides and they have co-opted, whether knowingly or not, Russian propaganda that the bad people in Ukraine are Nazis — one German post sees “Ukrainian Neo-Nazis as Fighting Troops for the Great Reset.” The presence of Nazis amongst the Ukrainian military has been addressed elsewhere, but it is clear that Nazis do not represent Ukrainian society. However, RWE groups in Europe have portrayed it as such to criticise Western support for Ukraine. Thus, portraying Ukrainians as Nazis would come into tension with emphasising the Jewish heritage of Zelenskyy, so the former discourse is favoured over the latter.

Limited Transnationalisation

We were also interested in whether there were similarities in narratives across countries, and whether these similarities could be explained by content shared between channels. By conducting social media network analysis, using the Forwarded From feature in Telegram to identify links between channels, we found no evidence of transnationalisation of war-related content, and limited transnationalisation of other content in the selected period. Graph 1 represents the 625 links between channels in the 17-day period. Through it, we can see that there was some overlap in the channels’ content that was forwarded from within the UK and Germany, although there was only one overlap between the two countries. There was no overlap amongst French channels. For the 217 forwarded posts related to the war, there was even less overlap of content shared. Despite this, we found minimal disparity in the distribution of tags between countries and many of the same narratives were used by groups in all three countries, including emphasising the purported presence of US-funded biolabs in Ukraine and perceived NATO aggression as the cause of conflict. This suggests that narratives are either being shared through other channels or on other platforms, including social media, blogs, and alternative news outlets.



Graph 1



Graph 2

Conclusion

Overall, RWE groups in France, Germany, and the UK have clearly used the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as with other headline news stories, to blame Western governments and spread extremist and conspiratorial narratives. We found a clear attempt by RWE groups to portray the conflict as the result of perceived Western aggression, and we identified widespread criticism of the response of both Western governments and societies. There was also far more support for Russia than for Ukraine, likely a result of Russia’s courting of the New Right over the past several years, as well as the desire by RWE groups to frame Russia as a desirable alternative to, what they perceive as, the ills of Western society. This focus on using the conflict to reiterate anti-West narratives was also clear through the minimal amount of anti-Semitism on display. Jewish politicians and businessmen are often subjected to historic anti-Semitic tropes of power and control but as RWE groups have portrayed Zelenskyy as a puppet of the West, they have instead reversed this relationship and opted to portray him as lacking agency, rather than wielding power.

As the conflict continues, we’ll likely see a shift away from blaming the origins of the war on the West towards one that portrays the conflict as continuing because of the West. The specific frames will change, but the overriding principle, to use the conflict to spread dissatisfaction with Western governments, will remain the same.

Claire Burchett
More by Claire Burchett

James Barth
More by James Barth


Why Some Far-Right Circles are Contributing to Vladimir Putin’s Disinformation Campaign


By Beatriz Buarque
21st March 2022
In Insights


A few weeks ago, one of the main Brazilian far-right platforms responsible for producing documentaries, promoting books, organising events, and hosting Internet shows with the intent to “rescue good values, ideas, and sentiments inherent to the Brazilian people” uploaded a video on its YouTube channel featuring a discussion on the war in Ukraine. One of the guest speakers criticised the behaviour of some conservatives who have praised Vladimir Putin for his supposed courage in announcing a military attack to de-Nazify Ukraine and “rescue” the country from the decay supposedly caused by Western influence. “It is bizarre,” he said. Well, a careful look at the messages released by Russia’s government will reveal that this trend is not really bizarre.

In his speech on 24 February, while explaining the reasons for a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin questioned the credibility of Western politicians, political scientists and journalists, affirming that what they write and say is an “empire of lies.” Later on, he attacked Western countries for their alleged continuous attempts to destroy Russia’s traditional values in an attitude that would eventually lead to Russia’s “degradation and degeneration.” And a few minutes after that, he explicitly established an antagonism between the globalist West and Russia by claiming that “those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy.” In these three passages, Vladimir Putin touched upon three themes often found in far-right circles: that Western mainstream media, the government, and academics are deceiving, producing content that serves a multicultural, progressist, and globalist agenda; that Western governments (also known as the ‘establishment’) are responsible for the erosion of traditional values; that Western governments are working towards global dominance as a means to have full control of its populations (bodily, ideological, and even spiritual – some might say). Three conspiracy theories that discursively delimitate who are them (the enemy) and who are us (the victims).

While examining Vladimir Putin’s speech, it is interesting to notice how this antagonism between us (Russia) and them (the West) is constructed in an absolute and apocalyptical way: the first is represented as the ‘pure good’, the second is shown as ‘pure evil’, echoing Richard Hofstadter’s paranoid style. The presence of ‘pure evil’ poses an existential threat to the ‘pure good’, motivating the appearance of ‘militant leaders’ who position themselves in a battle between good and evil in which only the elimination of ‘pure evil’ can be considered a satisfactory outcome. From a historical perspective, this exaggerated feeling of persecution is frequently associated with strong feelings of dispossession, a common feature observed in both Vladimir Putin’s discourse and contemporary far-right. In this sense, the answer to the question ‘why are some far-right circles praising Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine?’ seems to stem from their shared feeling of dispossession.

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend


In politics and pop culture products, Russia has historically been opposed to the United States. In many far-right circles, remnants of the red scare are still present as observed in the news produced by some of its media outlets, affirming that the war of Ukraine is solely the first move towards the revival of the Soviet Union or saying that the war is a distraction to enable the emergence of Russia and China as superpowers, which will consequently force Western countries to pay tribute to their authoritarian regimes, restricting even more the freedom of Western citizens. If Russia is still associated with the communist threat, how come some far-right actors have suddenly started referring to Vladimir Putin as a hero? The answer can be illustrated with an article recently published by an American publishing house known for its white nationalist content in which the writer says that Mr. Putin has never done any harm to him. Instead, he is opposed to the vulgarity, anti-White behaviour, and global promotion of homosexuality pushed by the World Economic Forum, NATO, European Union, and American globalists. In a nutshell, the enemies of Vladimir Putin are basically the same the enemies of many far-righters. It is like the popular saying ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. The origin of the feeling of dispossession in both of them is personified in the figure of Western liberal elites.

From this perspective, Vladimir Putin is no longer perceived as a representative of a former communist empire. Conversely, he is considered an inspiration insofar he had the ‘courage’ to ‘bring down the deep state’, to seek ‘independence from the Rothschild’, to send a powerful message against anti-white globalists. These are only a few demonstrations of sympathy towards Vladimir Putin’s military attack in Ukraine found in three far-right media outlets all based in the United States. In her analysis of far-right responses to the attack on Telegram, Sara Aniano identified a similar trend. Criticism towards Ukraine and its citizens was far more common than criticism towards Vladimir Putin. Some posts openly referred to Vladimir Putin as a hero who had the courage to ‘get rid of Soros’ or even ‘save mankind’.

Extra Hands in the Disinformation Campaign

Another point of convergence between Vladimir Putin’s discourse and the far-right concerns their views about Western mainstream media. At the very beginning of the war in Ukraine, the Russian president stated clear that Western media cannot be trusted, reinforcing the distrust sowed by far-right actors. At the same time that civilians were being killed and Ukrainian cities destroyed, the world was engulfed by an information war in which the use of digital media has blurred even more the boundaries between fantasy and reality. While dozens of Ukrainians were bravely exposing themselves in front of the camera to share their anxieties and suffering with the world, their pictures and testimonies were being manipulated by individuals from both Russia and Western countries with the intent to cast doubt on the veracity of the damage caused by the invasion.

Distortion is a form of deception characteristic of information wars. According to Matt Bishop and Emily Goldman, information is either fabricated or falsified as a means to induce the enemy to react in a particular way. The manipulation of information to perform strategic functions is not new. What seems particularly intriguing in the current war is the fact that a disinformation campaign developed by a particular state has found resonance in its enemy. As a result, in addition to having solely its own apparatus devoted to the production and dissemination of false information, it has also found some extra hands in the other side of the digital battlefield, especially when the messages openly attack Western elites.

Let’s take the conspiracy theory that the United Stated was funding and secretly producing infectious diseases in its alleged labs in Ukraine as an example. While speaking to journalists on 3 March, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov affirmed that his government had data indicating that the Pentagon was worried about its ‘biowarfare labs’ in Kyiv and Odessa. Even though the conspiracy theory was quickly debunked by US officials and mainstream media started referring to it as a conspiracy theory in an attempt to de-legitimise the narrative disseminated by official representatives, far-right media outlets kept reproducing Lavrov’s statement as a fact. Even those outlets that were not enthusiastic of Vladimir Putin’s approach embarked on the biolab conspiracy theory through headlines emphasising that the US government was ‘funding’ the production of biological weapons in Ukraine. This conspiracy theory not only spread like fire across far-right media outlets and QAnon channels but it also gained media exposure on Fox News through the show hosted by Tucker Carlson. Interestingly, Russian authorities are said to have make an exemption to the censorship imposed to content produced by Western media with the special intent to broadcast Carlson’s show.

Decades before the emergence of digital platforms, Hannah Arendt reflected on the potential impact of a ‘web of deceptions’ that is no longer in the hands of a few individuals and targeting well-defined enemies but, instead, ends up engulfing whole groups of people on both community and national levels. Fake news and conspiracy theories, two categories of false information that found on the Internet the perfect medium to proliferate, are now used as weapons of war by both sides, damaging the fabric of society and drowning the world once again in a mass of suspicion. Conspiracy theories are naturally appealing because they offer simplified explanations to complex events. In the case of the war in Ukraine, the main narrative pushed by Russian officials has reduced the complexities of this event to a battle between ‘pure good’ and ‘pure evil’ with the difference that, at this time, disinformation campaigns are no longer restricted to local and national communities. By targeting a common powerful enemy (the Western liberal elites) both Russian authorities and some far-right actors expand even more the ‘web of deception’. While their hands are focused on spreading lies, Ukrainian citizens mourn their friends and relatives killed in the war. With their hands, they pay respect to those who died fighting for their right to exist as Ukrainian citizens. With their hands, they express their resistance in both battlefields: the physical and the digital.

Beatriz Buarque is a Lecturer in Conspiracy Theories and Democracy at King’s College London and a PhD Candidate at The University of Manchester, UK. She is currently examining how and why conspiracy theories often found in alt-right circles (cultural Marxism, deep state, great replacement, white genocide) have been legitimised in online spaces. She is also the leading investigator of the international research group MAFTI (Mapping the Far-Right ‘Truth’ Industry). Her primary research interests include the alt-right, conspiracy theories, digital politics, and the politics of truth.





Russian War Report: Competing narratives about the sinking of Russia’s Moskva warship

By Digital Forensic Research Lab

Security

Russia denies missile cruiser Moskva’s sinking was because of Ukrainian attack
Tracking narratives

Russian state media suggests Ukraine is using drones to spray poisonous chemicals

“Security service” of Russian-occupied Luhansk claims Ukraine and foreign intelligence services are planning a “terrorist act”
Media policy

TikTok inconsistently implemented upload ban in Russia, allowing pro-war content to proliferate, report finds
Russia denies missile cruiser Moskva’s sinking was because of Ukrainian attack

On the night of April 13, multiple Ukrainian officials announced that Neptune missiles had struck Russia’s Moskva warship anchored off the coast of Odessa. Reports soon emerged of fires and severe damage on the ship.

Within a few hours of Ukraine’s announcement, Russian media published their own version of events, provided by the Ministry of Defense, claiming that a fire on board had caused ammunition to detonate. The ministry said the ship was damaged, and the crew evacuated.

In the hours after the announcement, when it was still unclear what had happened, speculation and misinformation began to appear online, including videos that purportedly showed an explosion on the Moskva. One video, in particular, was shared hundreds of times on Twitter; the footage was from a 2013 Norwegian missile test. At the time of writing, there were no confirmed videos depicting the incident.
Tweet from Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins identifying a viral video allegedly of the Moskva explosion as actually that of a Norwegian Navy ship being hit with a missile as a part of a 2013 drill. (Source: @eliothiggins/archive)

On April 14, the Pentagon confirmed that the ship sustained significant damage after an explosion but could not provide definitive answers about the cause of the blast. Officials said that the ship was likely being brought to Sevastopol for repairs. They also noted that a number of Russian vessels, also located in the Black Sea, had begun moving south, away from Ukraine, after the Moskva explosion.

Roman Tsymbaliuk, a journalist with the Ukrainian Independent Information Agency, reported that fourteen crewmembers from the Moskva had arrived in Sevastopol in a speedboat and were picked up by ambulances. However, this report has yet to be confirmed by other sources.

Eventually, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the Moskva sank due to a storm while being towed to receive repairs. They said the explosion—caused by their own ammunition—had damaged the hull, and stormy seas caused the ship to lose stability and sink. Weather on the Black Sea on April 14 appears to have been rough, with winds up to 25 knots and waves ranging between five to seven feet from midnight to noon.

Screenshot of the weather over the Black Sea on April 14, 2022. (Source: Buoyweather)

The Moskva was involved in the viral “Russian warship, go fuck yourself” incident that became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance at the beginning of the war. (That incident was itself the subject of significant online noise, with initial reports indicating that the military personnel on the island had subsequently been killed by the warship. Later reports, along with statements from the Ukrainian government, indicated that the personnel were still alive.) According to Ukraine’s estimates, the sinking of the Moskva amounts to a $750 million loss for Russia.

—Ingrid Dickinson, Young Global Professional, Washington, DC
Russian state media suggests Ukraine is using drones to spray poisonous chemicals

On April 13, Russian state media outlet RT released a video suggesting that Ukraine was planning to use drones to spray toxic chemicals on Russian troops and Ukrainian civilians. In the video, a Russian soldier says drones equipped with 30-liter containers were found on an abandoned Ukrainian base. “These UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] could potentially be used for spraying poisonous chemicals that would be harmful to the Russian military, civilians, and farmland,” said the soldier.

The soldier claimed that the Russian forces also discovered coordinates of areas marked for spraying, which included Russian positions and residential Ukrainian neighborhoods.
Tweet by Russian state-owned outlet RT including a video with claims that the Ukrainian military intends to use drones for a chemical attack on Russian troops and Ukrainian civilians. (Source: @RT_com/archive)

The story was widely shared on Twitter by pro-Kremlin accounts, many of which were anonymous accounts with unusual Twitter handles and low numbers of followers.

On April 11, Ukrainian forces accused Russia of using poisonous substances against Ukrainian soldiers in Mariupol.

Lukas Andriukaitis, Associate Director, Brussels, Belgium
“Security service” of Russian-occupied Luhansk claims Ukraine and foreign intelligence services are planning a “terrorist act”

In a possible false flag accusation, the “State Security Service” of the so-called “Luhansk People’s Republic” (“LNR”) issued a statement claiming, without evidence, that the special services of Ukraine are recruiting public participation in a political rally in the center of the region’s capital city, Luhansk, which it would then supposedly attack as a “terrorist act.”

The statement alleges that the central government of Ukraine is conducting information and psychological operations on social networks in accordance with “instructions received from foreign intelligence services.” The statement additionally claimed that users on messenger apps are being contacted en masse by cell numbers of Ukraine’s “federal operator Vodafon Ukraine” – Vodafon Ukraine is a privately held company – with “provocative texts” calling on the recipients to join an “unsanctioned rally” on April 16 at Luhansk’s Theater Square. “We also received information regarding the intention of foreign intelligence services to carry out a terrorist act at the time of the alleged mass gathering in the center of the capital of the Luhansk People’s Republic,” the statement continued.

Eto Buziashvili, Research Associate, Washington DC
TikTok inconsistently implemented upload ban in Russia, allowing pro-war content to proliferate, report finds

On April 13, European nonprofit organization Tracking Exposed published a report that found that TikTok has inconsistently implemented its ban on users in Russia uploading content.

The report suggested that, despite TikTok announcing on March 6 that it would suspend livestreams and new uploads from Russia, the platform’s ban contained a loophole that allowed a coordinated network of accounts to continue posting new content promoting pro-war narratives. The loophole was reportedly available between March 6 to 23.

“One loophole allowed you to post content from a web browser, switching a VPN back and forth,” said the report. During this period, the number of pro-war hashtags posted from Russia increased significantly. “During the 17-day period that TikTok didn’t comprehensively implement the ban, new content uploads related to the war were overwhelmingly pro-war,” said the Tracking Exposed report.

In addition, TikTok removed the restriction on new uploads from March 23 to 25, allowing any user in Russia to upload new content. The report found that TikTok began implementing the ban again on March 26. The report’s authors believe that TikTok’s inconsistent implementation of the ban was most likely associated with a technical glitch rather than the deliberate creation of a backdoor.

The report also suggested that anti-war activists may not have known of the loophole in TikTok’s ban as significantly less anti-war content was uploaded while the bans were in effect. “Before the ban was announced, the balance of pro-war and anti-war content was roughly equal. After, 93.5 percent of war-related content was pro-war, while only 6.5 percent was anti-war.”

On April 12, TikTok released a statement that, between February 24 and March 31, the company had removed more than 320,000 fake accounts in Russia and 46,000 fake accounts in Ukraine, resulting in the removal of at least 343,000 videos. TikTok has not addressed the inconsistent implementation of its upload ban.

Givi Gigitashvili, DFRLab Research Associate, Warsaw, Poland

Related Experts: Givi Gigitashvili, Eto Buziashvili, and Lukas Andriukaitis

Image: FILE PHOTO: A sailor looks at the Russian missile cruiser Moskva moored in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol, Ukraine 10, 2013. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
COMMENTARY UNIONS & ORGANIZING
Worker-to-Worker Organizing May Finally Have Its Moment


APRIL 07, 2022
STEVEN GREENHOUSE
SENIOR FELLOW


For years, many worker advocates have said there’s a simple, straightforward answer for reversing organized labor’s decline: worker-to-worker organizing. Nonetheless, there was very little worker-to-worker organizing going on in the United States—what organizing there was, was overwhelmingly done by union staff organizers. Despite all the wishing, worker-to-worker organizing remained a far-away dream that just wasn’t happening.

But now with the historic union victory at Amazon in Staten Island and the string of union wins at Starbucks, we are finally seeing true worker-to-worker organizing in action—and how powerful and successful it can be. We are also, at least in Starbucks’ case, seeing how contagious worker-to-worker organizing can be, how it can spread like wildfire, with workers at more than 170 Starbucks in nearly thirty states petitioning for union elections.

Initially many labor leaders pooh-poohed the idea of worker-to-worker organizing at Amazon and Starbucks, saying that it’s forbidding enough to organize those anti-union behemoths, and that there’s no way amateur worker-to-worker organizers could pull off victories there. I should perhaps note that many union leaders have little love for worker-to-worker organizing because—unlike in typical organizing drives that rely on union staff—they don’t have close control over it.

In recent days, we have seen highly publicized successes in worker-to-worker organizing: the tremendous upset win at Amazon’s 8,000-employee Staten Island warehouse and victories at ten of the eleven Starbucks where workers have voted thus far whether to unionize. After years of talk about the need for worker-to-worker organizing and little of it happening, over the past year, many frontline workers are now plunging into it. They’re feeling angry and emboldened because of how poorly their employers treated them during the pandemic. They have gotten used to speaking out and standing up to authority because of the Black Lives Matter, MeToo, and immigrant rights movements. They are feeling less scared about sticking their necks out and perhaps being fired if they seek to unionize because they know it’s easy to find another job thanks to the very low jobless rate.

It is little understood that worker-to-worker organizing has several big advantages over traditional organizing with staff union organizers—who, I want to make clear, are often excellent and highly dedicated. One tremendous advantage is that worker-to-worker organizing overcomes one of the most important ways that America’s labor laws are tilted so heavily in favor of corporations and against unions. It is legal for corporations to prohibit outside (that is, non-employee) union organizers from setting foot on company property, even the parking lots, while companies are allowed to propagandize against the union 24/7, showing anti-union videos in breakrooms and lunchrooms and requiring all employees to attend meetings where union-busting consultants hold forth about the supposed evils of unions. But with worker-to-worker organizing, unlike with union staff organizers, the main organizers—rank-and-file workers like Amazon warehouse workers and Starbucks baristas—have regular access to company property, the shop floor, and their fellow employees.

Take Amazon’s JFK8 warehouse in Staten Island: a fired Amazon employee, Christian Smalls, and his best friend, Derrick Palmer, an Amazon worker in Staten Island, founded an independent union that had a shoestring budget and relied overwhelmingly on two dozen workers at the Staten Island warehouse to reach out to the 8,000 workers there. Those worker-organizers plunged into talking-up coworkers in breakrooms, talking to coworkers during lunch and at the entrance as people left work and at the nearby bus stop so many workers used.

Another huge advantage of worker-to-worker organizing is it emphatically puts the lie to what is perhaps corporate America’s most frequently used anti-union argument: that unions are a third party, a greedy group of outsiders who only want workers’ dues money. When workers hear this “third-party” refrain and then see their coworkers—often their friends, their lunchmates—bravely sticking their necks out and urging others to unionize, often taking time before work and after work and away from their families to explain the advantages of unionizing, many workers realize, “Hey, the union is us, it’s me and my coworkers,”; they realize the union is not some aloof third-party based in Washington.

Worker-to-worker organizing helps unions win in another way: by altering how workers frame what’s happening. With traditional organizing efforts, workers—when they are casting their ballots on whether to unionize—often ask, “Do I vote for my employer whom I don’t really like, or for this somewhat distant, big bureaucratic union I don’t really know and to which I’ll have to pay dues money (at least in non-right-to-work states)?” But in a worker-to-worker organizing effort, the calculus changes—when workers are voting, they ask, “Do I cast my vote for my employer whom I don’t really like, or do I cast my vote for my coworkers, whom I know and like and who have bravely challenged management and fought for a union in order to make this a better workplace so that all of us can get paid more and treated better?” For many workers, the answer is a no-brainer. You vote for your coworkers.

Another major advantage: worker-to-worker organizing is far less expensive than the traditional organizing model, which relies on paid staff organizers, who of course often also try to mobilize many rank-and-file workers to help organize. Smalls said the Staten Island campaign, relying overwhelmingly on twenty-four warehouse workers, spent just $120,000 to organize the more than 8,000 workers there. That comes to less than $15 per worker. But if a union dispatched twenty-four paid organizers for six months to organize those workers—to speak to them outside the warehouse, to knock on their doors at home, to phone them at home, to hold meetings at a local hotel—all that might easily cost the union $3 million: for staff salaries, staff benefits, hotel rooms, food, per diems, rental cars, gas, cell phone bills, airline flights from where the organizers live, not to mention the cost of T-shirts flyers, and renting an office.

A little-discussed reason for organized labor’s decline in membership is that many union leaders have balked at undertaking ambitious organizing drives because they don’t want to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on such campaigns when they know there’s a good chance they will lose. (They will rightly complain that the nation’s labor laws are stacked against unions and that’s why the PRO Act should be enacted.) Therefore, a big reason union leaders should embrace worker-to-worker organizing and agree to bankroll it is that it’s not just a frugal way to organize large numbers of workers, but a way to make the most out of this very promising moment for labor.

There’s a final reason that worker-to-worker organizing is such a good idea. Many workers, especially young workers, talk and think a lot about the importance of agency, of taking charge of one’s life. Self-organizing—that is, joining together with one’s coworkers, with one’s buddies at work, to unionize—is agency in action. Self-organizing can be an exciting, even exuberant exercise of agency, of self-help.

Worker-to-worker organizing can make workers feel good and feel proud that they’re not just fighting to improve pay and conditions at their own workplace. They’re also helping build worker power overall that could create a fairer U.S. economy with less income inequality and higher standards for all workers.


Steven Greenhouse, Senior Fellow
Steven Greenhouse is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, where he writes about wages and working conditions, labor organizing, and other workplace issues.