It has now been 18 months since the November 2016 presidential election, during which the U.S. intelligence community believes Russia acted not only to interfere with U.S. elections, but with clear preference for one of the candidates. However, Washington and many of America’s leaders are still not on the same page regarding both the facts and what to do in response.
On January 7, 2017, the U.S. intelligence community assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign…aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
Earlier this month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded it agreed with the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community—including its assertion that Russia intervened in favor of President Trump.
However, there are members of the U.S. government who continue to publicly disagree with, or downplay, these intelligence assessments, most recently Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who told reporters earlier this week she was “not aware” of intelligence suggesting Russia intervened with the intention of helping Donald Trump win the election, though she added she “generally [has] no reason to doubt any intelligence assessment.”
With Special Counsel Robert Mueller III entering the second year of his investigation into Russian influence operations and potential connections with the Trump campaign, The Cipher Brief revisits some of the most poignant comments made by its experts on the subjects of Russian election interference, the special counsel investigation, and how the U.S. should proceed to protect the integrity of its elections as well as push back on ongoing Russian information operations.
Michael Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA, and Sam Vinograd, former Senior Advisor to the National Security Advisor:
“Let us be very clear to both the supporters and opponents of President Donald Trump: We are not saying that the Russians are responsible for his election. There is no evidence that the Russians had any success changing the vote count, and we will simply never know whether Russia’s influence operations swayed even a single vote in 2016.
“But, the very idea that Moscow was trying to do just that, which is the considered judgment of the U.S. intelligence community, and that they have successfully done so in some of the countries on their periphery should worry us all. In 2016, the target of Russian propaganda in the U.S. was the Democratic candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In 2020, it could well be President Trump or some other Republican.”
Daniel Hoffman, former CIA Chief of Station:
“For President Vladimir Putin, espionage against what he and his Soviet predecessors call their “Main Enemy” is no laughing matter. Relentlessly focused on degrading U.S. institutions, Putin is deadly serious about the cyber warfare he is so effectively waging against us.
“Putin’s strategy is ruthlessly focused on shaping our political discourse by simultaneously supporting extreme, antithetical positions. There was no better example of this strategy than the Kremlin bots staging simultaneous post-election rallies in favor of Trump and protesting Trump’s election.”
Steven Hall, former member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service:
“In the latter part of the 18th century, not too long after an earlier annexation of Crimea by Russia, a Russian governor by the name of Grigory Potemkin hoped to impress Russian empress Catherine II by building fake villages along the banks of the Dnieper River. As Catherine’s vessel floated downstream, she saw village after village of waving townspeople, not knowing that after her entourage passed, the village was disassembled and set up all over again further downstream. To Catherine, all was well in Russia.
“Comparing the March 18 Russian presidential elections to Potemkin villages is not a perfect analogy, but with a few adjustments, there are lessons to be learned by those of us watching the elections in the West. In the new iteration of this old and perhaps apocryphal story, Russian President – and presidential candidate – Vladimir Putin plays the role of Potemkin, and the rest of the world plays the role of Catherine II.”
Amb. Richard Boucher, former Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia:
“Russia today is less than the Soviet Union. Modern Russia has no ideological attraction. Its economy, which rests on hydrocarbons and natural resources, offers no economic model. Its nuclear weapons constitute a factor to be considered, but not one that offers influence or coercion. Russia’s military suffices to intimidate smaller neighbors and to intervene in favor of dictator friends, but not to carry out major campaigns around the world. Russia’s military sales earn hard currency but don’t fuel insurrections. Gone are the days when Russia, as the Soviet Union, was able to intervene militarily by flying Cuban soldiers to Angola to counter U.S.-backed forces or to foment revolutions against Western domination through the Communist International.
“Russia now largely exerts influence using the tools of espionage. Its Little Green Men surreptitiously fight in Ukraine on the side of rebels. Russia carries out poison gas and other attacks in England against those who have betrayed the boss – much like the Mafia. Russia’s disinformation campaigns influence elections through cyberspace, and its hackers, working offshore from the safety of Moscow or St. Petersburg, can disrupt power grids in Georgia, cripple computer systems in Ukraine and undermine democracies. In the modern age, Russia’s chief, almost singular, dimension of power projection is rooted in its spy craft, the tool that former-KGB operative and now President Vladimir Putin knows best how to wield.”
Rob Dannenberg, former Chief of the Central Eurasia Division, CIA:
“There is no appropriate military solution to addressing Putinism. The risks of a general war or escalation that leads to a nuclear confrontation are unthinkable. In today’s interconnected world, containment is no longer a viable option.
“There are other measures which should be considered to deal with Putinism. First, go after the money. Various reports suggest Putin has accumulated enormous personal wealth. Unquestionably, many of the most senior members of his government have done the same. Many of the oligarchs who support Putin are among the wealthiest people on the planet. Their assets should be identified, publicized, and sanctioned, to incentivize them to distance themselves from Putin.
“The March sanctions on Russian oligarchs are a good start, but there are more ways available to unnerve them. Many of these oligarchs enjoy the freedom to travel in the West and have considerable assets there. Even more importantly, they want their children to enjoy the same access and privilege in the West. This should be denied.
“Economic sanctions also should be reexamined to target the industries that provide the most revenue for Putin’s government, specifically the energy and arms industries.
“In addition to imposing meaningful sanctions, the United States should lead a diplomatic and cultural effort to treat Putin’s government as the pariah state proportionate to the disruption and damage Putin has caused in recent years. Why stop at barring them from the G-8? Why not kick them out of the G-20?
“And after Russia’s disgraceful doping scandal in the 2014 Sochi Olympics, should Russia really enjoy the prestige of hosting the 2018 World Cup Soccer tournament?
“Go after Putin’s personal image. He likes to portray himself as incorruptible, but there are certainly aspects of the real Putin—divorce from his wife, alleged affair with an Olympic athlete, the fantastic accumulation of wealth —which should be systematically exploited to undermine his stature in Russia.”
