Influence, so last thursday we held a conversation with former australian Prime MinisterMalcolm Turnbull that look at chinese influence in australia. Part of the report examined japan and australia and chinese influence works there. Todays conversation is to look at how russian influence works in the United Kingdom. As part of a broader work we also look at germany. The reason Malcolm Turnbull was so important is because we used his framing of influence activities. We looked at covert, coercive and corrupting influence factors. Many reports have examined the supply of influence activities, but very few look at the demandside, how democracies use and accept these influence activities. So our report focused much more on the demand come have democratic governments and ci activities. This report was made possible by the state Department GlobalEngagement Center to the Information Access fund, and administered by the were grateful of course for the support but these are the authors and not of the state department views. If i may, let me briefly go over some of the key findings from this report. Russia and china certainly have different objectives in how the user influence activities but they share one commonality. They both try to divide the United States from its most important allies,the united kins most essential, one of the most essential allies. They do this by using their influence activities to look at how democracies, how they divide society. We looked at the side of cohesion. We looked at the use of diaspora committee, will get the economic interconnectedness. That was a big key. How does money corrupt or captured elite . And then a closer look at the media, how social media was interacting and regulating the types of influence activities that russia was perpetuating within the United Kingdom. The scope of this report fell outside the coronavirus pandemic but, of course, it in the bar reporting we saw a more disturbing trend. That was china emulating russias tactics. Whereas russia tries to defy society and basically degrade democracy and deface democratic institution, china attempts to suppress any criticism of china but all of a sudden were starting to see china take on the appearances of a russian influence activities. Those are the overriding key findings of the report. We invite you to take a look at that final report. Now lets dive deep into the uk. We could not have put together a more fantastic group of colleagues to speak about russian influence activities in the United Kingdom. Let me first introduced dame karen pierce, British Ambassador to the United Kingdom and she arrived earlier in the spring and, of course, we went into lockdown but we welcome you to washington, ambassador pierce, formerly as ambassador to the United Nations and former uk special representative to afghanistan. We also have with us luke harding who is Senior International correspondent for the guardian and author of a new book entitled shadow state, murder, mayhem and russias remaking of the west. It is now out and we thank luke for joining us from london. And then of course we have our very own rachel ellehuus, Deputy Director of the Europe Program at csis and senior fellow, and lead author for the support and no one is better at helping moderate this conversation. They say timing is everything and i and i believe this conversation couldnt be more welltimed because we are told tomorrow the intelligence and security committee, committee of the uk parliament, will be releasing its muchanticipated report on russian interference in the uk, press we can use this conversation as a good framing for when that report is released tomorrow. So with that, thank you to our colleagues. Please read the report. Again, i am Heather Conley from csis, and were grateful you are here. Rachel, over to you. Thank you, heather. I will offer some brief remarks about what we saw in the uk case study and turned over to the bastard for go into discussion. When we looked at the uk case study we saw two russian objectives in particular. The first was to weaken uk and totally. So this was magnified in things like accentuating existing divisions between leave and remain, rural and urban divides, even those in scotland who preferred to separate from the transnine the United Kingdom. The second was the related objectives and that was to diminish the uks place in the world. The influence activities that fell in this bucket were related to nato, the European Union and the relationship with the United States. Clearly russia recognize the uk is made Even Stronger by its membership in nato and the to recite the European Union and its uniquely close relationship with the United States. Those were targets of influence activities as well. What we found a look in the study was it wasnt so much the objective or tactic in either the russia or china case that meet the real difference in terms of influence and impact. Rather, it was what happened on the receiving end. How resilient was the society or the country i was on the receiving end of these tactics and objectives. In many ways uk was very resilient. The government is accountable, its highly transparent. Theres a good balance among the different branches of government. Government. Your media landscape is very resilient. I was impressed to see that 50 of uk citizens are getting the majority of their news from the bbc. At the Diaspora Community which can often be a vulnerability was relatively well integrated and welloff, and did a present as a vulnerability in the uk case. However, we did find two vulnerability that were particular uk case by the help we can dive into that. The first was regulatory. In particular, the campaignfinance law created some the polls that possibly lead to more foreign money come into the campaign. Of course weve got no proof of that but that is essentially where some of the trails lead us. You can also is a very interesting structure with the crown dependencies and some of the overseas territories. But even when these regulatory gaps were fixed in the uk proper, they manifested themselves and the legislation was implemented later in those incidences. The second vulnerability were societal which i i lived in the beginning. A polarization, whether it is political or ideological that we see across the United States and europe but certainly those with the two that jumped at the uk case and smartly i think in the uk response they tried to address those vulnerabilities through changes in the campaignfinance law, for example. Through efforts to increase Media Literacy or the ability to identify disinformation and misinformation. While i think were very positive track, certainly the tactics continue to change and so the response has to evolve. And with that i think i would like to turn the floor over to ambassador pierce to give us your impressions of essentially went to the uk become a target of russia . Why did they become a target of russia . What do you generally see both with regard to influence activities in the uk as well as the uks experience watching influence activities overseas . Great. Thank you very much, heather. Thank you, rachel, and thank you for inviting me to join the study interesting discussion. I think the first thing to say is that uk and russian action of a very long history. Weve had very good relations. One goes back over 300 years, and that was a state of the relationship, that for those times was very productive. We admired the russian people and we recognize the enormous sacrifices that the russian people made in the Second World War. And we appreciate the fact that that Second World War was won with soviet assistance and the soviet union was an ally at that time. We have always made it clear that we want a productive, loadbearing relationship with the russian government, including the current russian government. And i went with the Boris Johnson when he was foreign secretary to moscow to deliver that last message, which seemed at the time to be appreciated by our russian however, three months after that saw the g. I. You poisoning and eventually led to more than 150 Russian Diplomats being expelled across europe and the United States by the uk and its partners. So i think the fundamental question has to be why does russia reject these overtures that countries like the uk, but there are others, make in terms of a loadbearing relationship . We are never going to always agree with russia. We are often not going to agree on a huge number of subjects, but we are both permanent members of the Security Council and we do have certain interests in global stability. And that ought to be a Good Foundation for some productive, even if difficult, conversations. What we dont see russia as a permanent member. We see russia doing all the things you just described, and more, and george and of the countries besides the uk. And we also see how can donate if not affecting the use of chemical weapons in syria. Chemical weapons are a universal comes universally precipitate weapon. So why does a permanent five the member want to allow one of its clients states to use such an awful weapon . And i think the russia of the cold war, if you like, the soviet union of the cold war, would it seen that as crossing a line in terms of stability. So i think this comes to your question of how long this has been going on, and im not a historian. I havent looked into it in detail but i think anecdotally, all these things were seeing is synonymous with the rise of president putin. And that something important, theres something about this mantra that the russians have of the end of the west. You know, they are out to show that western values dont count anymore, the russian approach to trade doesnt count anymore, the westin approach to International Treaties and International Norms and standards doesnt count anymore. Theyre putting a lot of effort into undermined all of that, if and as you say we come to the united United Kingdom and all the things that you described. We try in the United Kingdom resilience against those attacks. We set up a number of programs like suspending democracy and countering disinformation to make us more resilient. But as you also say, some of these arguments by the russians and we all know how they affect opinion polls. I come back to my first point, why does russia want to behave like this . Why not just have a more productive relationship with the west . The west is no threat to russia. So why not take a different euroatlantic view, as in the late 1990s it seemed possible that russia might do. I think thats an important question which we should keep confronting russian representatives with. I think the second point of russiachina, i think these are very interesting and intriguing. I doubt very much its the partnership of two equals. At the same time i do wonder if the russians more manipulative with the chinese and perhaps the chinese let on. I think the whole disinformation thing where as you say weve seen the chinese copying russian practices of disinformation, increasing visavis uk [inaudible] thats an interesting area to explore. I will stop there so you can ask questions or move on to luke, but very happy to elaborate on any of that. Thank you. I think thats very insightful about your analysis that russia feels it has more to gain from being disruptive than from engaging in trying to think about why that might be the case. Certainly there are certain rules and norms that are viable but i think god that there is scope for thinking about how we change that calculus. Rush is not alone in that. A number of other countries, heather and i just looked closely at turkey and turkey is making the same calculation in its region that it has more to gain from acting unilaterally or pushing its agenda rather than engaging with eu and nato partners for a more collective instead. I think thats a very sharp observation. Before turn over to look, maybe one more question to keep the flow going. Russia really has doubled down on these efforts that fall below the threshold of armed conflict. We looked at the brexit referendum, the Scottish Independence referendum and possibly the uk elections. When you observe these in retrospect, do you think these efforts have that impact . We struggled with this in the study very much. We could see influence but we really couldnt necessarily say because there was this point of influence or involvement, and led to this outcome. In your experience maybe even looking at the uks engagement in Central Europe you think these efforts have impact . I think thats a really good question. I use it its quite may be we are all too close to it to know of its impact. If one wanted to look at impact, the east europeans have more experience of the russian government, if you like, then anyone else. They certainly worry about the cumulative effect as well as individual decisions. So there may be some things quite important in russian attempts to destabilize over time, that we cant quite discern yet. I do think it was well said of the russian government that they took the saber in until they hit steel. And always have spoken in the u. N. That the russians have good chess players, police two strategies for any given venture. At least. One, if you like incremental and the other is much more dynamic. Depending on circumstances. Theyre very adept at jumping through circumstance to circumstance, advancing their agenda as fast as the circumstances allow. The consequence of that or the implication of that is that to they have to hit that steel with the saber early on. I think thats where sometimes collectively the west is not always forceful with russia as we might be. And i do think a bigger conversation russian tactics in this regard would be helpful picky as i think it we are to learn from the russian strategy, we end up with that would let something happen that thin has expecting. That definitely was conversation in many ways i would like to these conversations because thats where collective security reside. But on the whole i think the british pretty resilient. Where as you say people get their news object of independent but well renowned outlets like the bbc and the national press. Theres a healthy skepticism i think in the british public, which is useful on these occasions. And i think the russian message is obviously undemocratic, that it goes against a lot of traditions, so people are skeptical. I think it interesting going back to the first point, the russians obviously cant get the message across by democratic means. They are irrational, clever people but in terms of actual impact influence i come back to the point i think were just a bit too close to it to know if that would be the case. Thank you. Luke, you look at a lot of these issues of impact and vulnerabilities of what makes an influence activity more or less successful, in quotes, if you will. What, in your experience, should we be studying . How can we reduce the likelihood that well see this influence activities occurring in the future works if they do, how do we go about making sure that the impact of influence is reduced . Thank you. Thank you, rachel. Congratulations on a terrific report. Its been a pleasure to read and pray timing. Just listening to the ambassador, i was put in might of the conversation i had with a british diplomat soon after i got kicked out of moscow for years in 2011. It was a pretty discouraging experience which followed breakins by the secret police in our apartment and series of harassment. The diplomat said the problems with the russians is they dont think the way we think they should think. And that money goes to the heart of it, to your question. Putin in my view ultimately unfortunately is not interested in mutually beneficial solutions. He is a classic zero some guy who rather have kind of lose, lose then winwin. In addition to that he really sees the world, he sees geopolitics, he sees International Alliances through a kgb prison. Even though the soviet union is gone and communism is gone, hes thinking almost genetically is very kgb. In this world of you which is paranoid conspiratorial, sees russia as a besieged fortress surrounded by nature and of the hostile enemies, the United States is the main adversary. The uk is a kind of lesser, kind of band together. With some success in recent years is to take this old soviet playbook of disruption, of undermining the enemy, of taking advantage of weaknesses in western society, ngas shined it up for our age of facebook and twitter and social media and he has shined it up its important we dont exaggerate how powerful Vladimir Putin is. He isnt. Hes not a villain sitting in a cave pushing buttons and making things happen in d. C. Or in london or in berlin or were ever hear that what i would argue is that he is a set of classic kgb adventurist opportunist. And he tries to have come sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt, the problem is his two most successful operations i would say took place in 2016 and they were both related. One was that push by russian spy agencies to assist medicus with the operations to help donald trump when the white house, and the other was to launch a comparable multifaceted operation to support the leave campaign in in the 2016 Eu Referendum and disintegrate the Scottish Independence referendum as well. Its very hard to say, i woul