Vladimir Putin may be basking in his triumph in last weekend’s sham parliamentary elections, but it is arguably the local elections, which have largely flown under the radar, that say the most about the state of his regime.
Much of the real work of running the country on Putin’s behalf is done at the local level, by the 89 governors and leaders of the constituent regions of Russia. The system depends on them, from meeting their targets for volunteers in the war in Ukraine to keeping the people under control.
The results of the eight local races were in no way surprising, but illustrate the realities behind the Kremlin’s synthetic election wins.
AI hacks Australian government – what to know
The Australian government has revealed that an autonomous AI agent hacked a government website in what may be the first known incident of its kind.
A research task gone wrong
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters in New York yesterday that the AI agent, which was developed by OpenAI, was carrying out a research task on health and medical statistics when it accessed both public and non-public health data.
- Australia’s deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, said that as part of its research, it approached the Medicare portal for information, but when it was denied, it hacked the portal to get the information anyway.
OpenAI slow to inform Australian government
Albanese said the AI company had taken “way too long” to inform the Australian government about what had happened, with it only being made aware on 10 September. The incident occurred in June.
OpenAI says it is still investigating, but found no evidence that patient records had been accessed and remains “committed to transparency”.
2 min read
5 min read
Albanese calls for ‘urgent global guard-rails’
The announcement came less than a day after the Australian PM co-signed a joint statement with 21 other countries, including Germany, Spain and Canada, pressing for “urgent global guard-rails” on frontier AI models, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Channel migrants set to be processed in ex-Navy sea fort near Portsmouth
A former military sea fort could be converted into a processing site for small boat arrivals in Hampshire as migrants make more dangerous journeys across the English Channel to reach the UK.
What to know
The i Paper understands the Government has prepared contingency proposals to deal with arrivals further down the South Coast from Kent.
No final decision has been made by the Government on converting Fort Blockhouse in Gosport, near Portsmouth. It is also understood it would be a temporary facility.
4 min read
4 min read
Anti-asylum protests
An aborted attempt to use Fort Blockhouse to land 50 asylum seekers sparked protests in the town on Tuesday. Police were forced to protect coaches carrying asylum seekers after hundreds of anti-migrant protesters massed at the site.
- Six arrests were made. Police are also “conducting enquiries” after far-right activist Daniel Thomas filmed himself slashing the side of a dinghy with a rescue crew member still on board.
Criticism of the plans
- Zoe Huggins, Conservative leader of Gosport Borough Council, described the fort as unsafe and logistically not viable.
- She said that access on and off the peninsula by two narrow roads created an “easy target” for protesters to blockade coaches transporting migrants, as happened in the Portsmouth riots earlier this month.
- Huggins said that they had heard about the plans through “informal channels”, adding: “It is outrageous that Government can review arrangements like this without talking to the local council.”
The Government response
A public planning inquiry into the proposals is due to be held after Gosport Borough Council and Caroline Dinenage, Conservative MP for Gosport, called for greater transparency from ministers.
A Government spokesperson said: “The Border Security Command works around the clock to protect our border and will continue to detain, check and process every small boat arrival.”
The nine doomsday essentials you will be officially told to stockpile at home
People will be advised to stockpile a number of items to prepare for war or other emergencies as part of the UK government’s biggest public awareness campaign for decades.
Why you should make an emergency stockpile
While there is no new or imminent threat to Britain from war, the ongoing “grey-zone” activity by Russia, the biggest El Niño weather event for centuries and the risk of an AI-linked accidental power cut, have all raised concerns the British public should be better prepared.
Here are the nine items in the Government’s suggested emergency stockpile list.
2 min read
3 min read
Torches, power banks and radios
Battery or wind-up torch
It is recommended to get a torch as they are safer than candles.
Portable power bank
For charging your mobile phone in a power cut.
Battery or wind-up radio
To get updates during a power breakdown – a car radio can be used, but in severe weather it might be safer to stay inside.
Batteries, first aid kits and hand sanitiser
Spare batteries
For torches and radio and a backup battery for any medical equipment you rely on.
A first aid kit
This should contain items like waterproof plasters, bandages, a thermometer and antiseptic.
For hygiene purposes when the water is off.
Bottled water, non-perishable food and baby supplies
Bottled water
A minimum of 2.5-3 litres of drinking water per person per day is recommended by the World Health Organisation for survival.
Non-perishable food
This shouldn’t need to be cooked. Remember food for your pets and a tin opener.
Baby supplies
Make sure you have nappies and baby formula.
Judge overturns Trump’s White House media ban
A court has issued a temporary restraining order against Donald Trump’s banning of three news organisations from the White House press pool.
The context
CNN, MS Now and must have their access restored for 14 days after a District of Columbia court ruled the move “likely violated their constitutional due process rights”.
- The three media outlets began a legal challenge after their journalists had their White House passes withdrawn. The Trump administration justified the move in court, claiming the organisations published false information and threatened national security.
Why the court overruled Trump
Judge Timothy Kelly ruled the outlets were “likely to succeed” in proving the White House had not exercised “adequate due process” in enforcing the ban.
- Kelly cast doubt on the administration’s arguments that the bans were for national security as Trump did not mention this in his original announcement.
- He also pointed out that “in most cases,” the stories that the Trump administration had taken issue with were written by journalists who “did not even hold card passes”.
- In its original filing, the White House cited statements from officials of the Department of War supporting the ban, but Kelly said they had “no direct knowledge of how reporters operate in the White House, or about any of the facts at issue here”.
The Trump exodus is growing. His allies are running scared
US commentator
With midterm elections a few weeks away, some Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the US President and his unpopular war.
In the main, incumbents in local races held their seats. Facing growing dissatisfaction from elites and the masses alike, Putin is ever more averse to churn, and although his political managers are trying to get him to contemplate a wider reshuffle of the elite – maybe even a new prime minister – he is reluctant.
He doesn’t know the next generation of aspiring leaders, doesn’t trust whom he doesn’t know, and in general the septuagenarian tsar would rather not even think about any generational transitions.
But his increasingly fossilised allies are looking desperately for a new basis of support, even as they grow old in office. One approach to this in the State Duma elections was getting veterans to stand as candidates, reflecting Putin’s apparent belief that the veterans of his “special military operation” in Ukraine can become his “new elite”.
Similarly, in the election for leader of the Belgorod region, on the Ukrainian border, Major-General Alexander Shuvaev was confirmed in place, having been acting governor since May.
An ex-paratrooper and Hero of Russia, Shuvaev nonetheless ended up downplaying his military background. He ditched his camouflage jacket and soldier’s demeanour for civilian suits, glasses that would not look out of place on Andy Burnham and technocratic rhetoric about attracting inward investment and empowering local communities.
Opinion polling had decisively warned him that playing the “veteran card” would work against him, alienating a public that is tired of the war.
In Chechnya, a virtual state within a state, ailing warlord Ramzan Kadyrov awarded himself re-election with a North Korean-style 99.85 per cent of the vote – up from his modest 99.73 per cent in 2021.
Fearful of another Chechen rebellion, the Kremlin has long given Kadyrov a free hand, but his overt fakery turned the whole exercise into an obvious farce.
All these leaders stood as candidates for Putin’s party, United Russia.
The only exception was in Ulyanovsk region, where incumbent Alexei Russkikh held on for the communists. Rather than some kind of blow for the opposition, it demonstrates the cosy backroom deals which keep this fake pluralism working. United Russia chose not to run a candidate against him, to keep the communists happy as they swept the rest of the board.
Mathematical modelling supports the notion that the national election, which purportedly saw United Russia win an absolute majority in the State Duma, the parliament, was heavily manipulated.
The irony is that the Duma has become all but irrelevant. The communists, the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democrats, and the other major “opposition” parties are all there to maintain a façade of pluralism. When push comes to shove, they vote the Kremlin’s way.
Meanwhile, local leaders who do well can become regional kingpins or make the jump to ministerial positions in Moscow. If not, they face the sack or investigations into their corrupt dealings. Everyone at that rank, after all, is involved in embezzlement and clientelism – the only question is whose shenanigans the government investigates.
Ultimately, these elections appear to show a leadership that is unassailable, but expose the cracks. The Kremlin is still engaged in corruption spin, and still has to make behind the scenes deals to hang on to power.