This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/26/russia-meddling-us-election-dnc-email-leak
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Russia may well be meddling in the US election. Why wouldn't it? | Russia may well be meddling in the US election. Why wouldn't it? |
| (30 days later) | |
| Altogether now, let’s blame Putin. That has become the favourite refrain of what we used to call the western world in the face of anything unwelcome. And so it was on the eve of the Democratic convention, after leaked emails proved that the DNC had set out to discredit Bernie Sanders in his challenge to Hillary Clinton. For Sanders supporters, the emails only confirmed their long-held suspicions. For the Clinton team, it was all about Russian dirty tricks and Kremlin meddling in US politics on the side of Donald Trump. | Altogether now, let’s blame Putin. That has become the favourite refrain of what we used to call the western world in the face of anything unwelcome. And so it was on the eve of the Democratic convention, after leaked emails proved that the DNC had set out to discredit Bernie Sanders in his challenge to Hillary Clinton. For Sanders supporters, the emails only confirmed their long-held suspicions. For the Clinton team, it was all about Russian dirty tricks and Kremlin meddling in US politics on the side of Donald Trump. |
| Now, I have an inbuilt resistance to blaming Putin for everything. But, as Joseph Heller so rightly said, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” And there are reasons why a Russian hand, if not actually Putin’s, might reasonably be discerned behind the DNC leaks. | Now, I have an inbuilt resistance to blaming Putin for everything. But, as Joseph Heller so rightly said, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” And there are reasons why a Russian hand, if not actually Putin’s, might reasonably be discerned behind the DNC leaks. |
| Russians are good at hacking – which derives perhaps from the clandestine nature of all things computer in late Soviet times and the continuing need to get around restrictions. Russian hackers don’t have to be state-sponsored – plenty in today’s Russia happens outside the umbrella of the state – but the powers that be doubtless take an interest and capitalise on the curiosity of amateurs for the purposes of mischief-making, as they surely do elsewhere. | Russians are good at hacking – which derives perhaps from the clandestine nature of all things computer in late Soviet times and the continuing need to get around restrictions. Russian hackers don’t have to be state-sponsored – plenty in today’s Russia happens outside the umbrella of the state – but the powers that be doubtless take an interest and capitalise on the curiosity of amateurs for the purposes of mischief-making, as they surely do elsewhere. |
| One way or another, Russia certainly could make mischief in US politics – though the evidence for direct Kremlin responsibility still seems far from conclusive. The bigger question is would it? For all the talk in the UK of Russia rooting for Brexit during the referendum campaign, there was no evidence whatsoever: official Russia said absolutely nothing, insisting that this was the UK’s internal affair. The closest Putin came to saying anything was that there were positives and negatives for Russia either way. | One way or another, Russia certainly could make mischief in US politics – though the evidence for direct Kremlin responsibility still seems far from conclusive. The bigger question is would it? For all the talk in the UK of Russia rooting for Brexit during the referendum campaign, there was no evidence whatsoever: official Russia said absolutely nothing, insisting that this was the UK’s internal affair. The closest Putin came to saying anything was that there were positives and negatives for Russia either way. |
| That is not quite true in the US presidential campaign. It would appear, as of now, that Russia sees an interest in the election of Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump has expressed a certain respect for Putin and suggested he is a man he could do business with; isolated internationally over Ukraine, Putin does not hear this sort of thing every day. Also, because Hillary Clinton comes with the same liabilities for an influential section of Russian opinion as she does for many Americans: she is seen as an establishment figure who would mean more of the same, if not an even harsher, US policy towards Russia. Trump seems to represent a break with the past, the possibility of bringing fresh air to a stale relationship, one “strong man” dealing with another. | That is not quite true in the US presidential campaign. It would appear, as of now, that Russia sees an interest in the election of Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump has expressed a certain respect for Putin and suggested he is a man he could do business with; isolated internationally over Ukraine, Putin does not hear this sort of thing every day. Also, because Hillary Clinton comes with the same liabilities for an influential section of Russian opinion as she does for many Americans: she is seen as an establishment figure who would mean more of the same, if not an even harsher, US policy towards Russia. Trump seems to represent a break with the past, the possibility of bringing fresh air to a stale relationship, one “strong man” dealing with another. |
| And while it pays lip service to the principle of non-interference in other people’s politics, the Kremlin also believes that the US and other countries conspire to influence, if not dictate, other people’s politics. The hand of the US was discerned behind the ascent of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and the small war of 2008 with Russia. The US and the EU are blamed for fomenting first the Orange revolution in Ukraine , and then the Euromaidan that toppled Viktor Yanukovych. It is taken for granted in Russia that the same western interests are also plotting a “colour revolution” to effect regime-change in Russia. This fear lies behind legislation designed to track foreign money in Russian NGOs. | And while it pays lip service to the principle of non-interference in other people’s politics, the Kremlin also believes that the US and other countries conspire to influence, if not dictate, other people’s politics. The hand of the US was discerned behind the ascent of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and the small war of 2008 with Russia. The US and the EU are blamed for fomenting first the Orange revolution in Ukraine , and then the Euromaidan that toppled Viktor Yanukovych. It is taken for granted in Russia that the same western interests are also plotting a “colour revolution” to effect regime-change in Russia. This fear lies behind legislation designed to track foreign money in Russian NGOs. |
| If the entrenched belief in the Kremlin is that western interests are meddling in Russia’s domestic politics, then it is barely a hop, skip and a jump to the assumption that Russia has similar designs of its own. Regime-change would be to exaggerate what Russia might be about – though Barack Obama to Donald Trump might well warrant the term. Fishing in troubled waters – the old Soviet expression – would be a more suitable description; just stirring things around a little to create a sense of unpredictability and unease, in the hope of gaining some advantage. | If the entrenched belief in the Kremlin is that western interests are meddling in Russia’s domestic politics, then it is barely a hop, skip and a jump to the assumption that Russia has similar designs of its own. Regime-change would be to exaggerate what Russia might be about – though Barack Obama to Donald Trump might well warrant the term. Fishing in troubled waters – the old Soviet expression – would be a more suitable description; just stirring things around a little to create a sense of unpredictability and unease, in the hope of gaining some advantage. |
| It is true that the evidence – so far – for direct Kremlin involvement in the DNC leak leaves a lot to be desired. And it is convenient, at a time of east-west tension, to blame Russia for every embarrassment. That Russia’s intelligence services may have exploited the probing of amateur sleuths, however, is entirely plausible, as is Russia’s preference, at this stage, for a President Trump. | It is true that the evidence – so far – for direct Kremlin involvement in the DNC leak leaves a lot to be desired. And it is convenient, at a time of east-west tension, to blame Russia for every embarrassment. That Russia’s intelligence services may have exploited the probing of amateur sleuths, however, is entirely plausible, as is Russia’s preference, at this stage, for a President Trump. |
| What is more, even if Russia played no role at all, it might rather suit its interests to let the speculation run. Rather like Saddam Hussein with his non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Russian intelligence might quite like to perpetuate the idea that it is capable of hacking internal American party communications and could influence a US election – even if it can’t. | What is more, even if Russia played no role at all, it might rather suit its interests to let the speculation run. Rather like Saddam Hussein with his non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Russian intelligence might quite like to perpetuate the idea that it is capable of hacking internal American party communications and could influence a US election – even if it can’t. |