There is no textbook on what to do. The US has a history of meddling in other countries’ politics during the cold war — and since. But Russia’s thinly-disguised intrusions into the 2016 election is the first time the US has clearly been the object of such attention. Moreover, the Russian bear is pushing at an open door. All Vladimir Putin needs to do to cause trouble is to sow doubt about the integrity of the US electoral process. Large numbers of Americans already suspect the November result will be rigged. So does Donald Trump, who is the first US presidential nominee to invite a foreign power to leak material that would damage his opponent. If ever US democracy was vulnerable to skulduggery that time would be now.
What chance does it have of succeeding? To some extent it already has. In a Bloomberg interview last week, Mr Putin offered a blatant non-denial denial that Russia carried out the recent hacking episodes. “To do that you need to have a finger on the pulse and understand the specifics of domestic political life in the US,” he said with a knowing smile. “I’m not sure that even our foreign ministry experts are sensitive enough.” The Russian president might as well have winked at the camera. Nobody, from the cyber security firms looking into the hacking of US political outfits, to the FBI, which is investigating them, doubts Russian intelligence agencies were behind the breaches.
Nor is there much question about motive. The email trove hacked from the Democratic headquarters showing insider bias for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, was leaked on the eve of Mrs Clinton’s convention in July. It inflamed Mr Sanders’ supporters, many of whom already thought Mrs Clinton had rigged the primaries. Last week Julian Assange, the holed up founder of WikiLeaks, which released that first batch of emails, promised there would be more to come before November. “It is not a question of whether Russia leaks more data but when,” says Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, one of the largest US cyber security companies. Mr Assange, who is Russia’s preferred data dump, promises “teasers” in the next few days.
It would be easy — but probably wrong — to assume Mr Trump is working directly with Mr Putin to build mistrust in the November outcome. The prima facie case looks strong. In his July acceptance speech, Mr Trump said: “Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place.” That same week Trump officials purged language from the Republican platform which had urged support for the Ukrainian government against Russia. It came four years after Mitt Romney, the then Republican nominee, had described Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe”.
Nothing better captures Mr Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican party than its 180-degree turn on Russia. Every hacking — most recently last week’s “exfiltration” of electoral rolls in Arizona and Illinois — appears to benefit Mr Trump. Anything that could implant doubt about Mrs Clinton’s likely victory in November is grist to his mill. Only he seems to question Russia’s role in the leaks. “I think it’s probably unlikely. Maybe the Democrats are putting that out,” Mr Trump last week told Russian television (yes, you read that correctly). He also told the state-owned broadcaster that Mr Putin was far more of a leader than President Barack Obama. As I say, the surface evidence for Trump-Putin connivance looks plain.
Yet Mr Putin is a far wilier operator than Mr Trump. In his early career he trained in the “active measures” wing of the KGB, which specialised in political warfare. Its goal was to generate disinformation that would disrupt other countries’ politics. Mr Trump has given the Russian leader a golden chance to tarnish the US democratic model with the far more sophisticated tools now available. Mr Trump’s victory would not necessarily be in Mr Putin’s interests. Damaging the world’s faith in the US system is. Mr Putin is also a savvier tactician than Mrs Clinton. When Mr Obama came to power in 2009, he and Mrs Clinton tried to create a split between Mr Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s then president. It failed. In 2011 Mrs Clinton backed Moscow demonstrators against Mr Putin’s allegedly rigged presidential election. This also backfired. Washington gave critical help to those supporting the 2014 overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Mr Putin responded by annexing Crimea. What sweeter revenge than to meddle in a US election?
The bar is not that high. No vote rigging need occur — assuming it was even possible. All Mr Putin needs to do is contaminate the results in people’s minds. Mr Trump and his media backers would do the rest. Sound improbable? It should not. Mr Putin is a past master at setting cats among democratic pigeons. He knows well that propaganda works best when there is a receptive audience. Forget America’s global reputation. Look at how it sees itself. With some justification, many Americans believe their political system has been captured by the rich and powerful. It explains why so many are taking a desperate gamble on Mr Trump. Their horse will probably be beaten. Mr Putin, on the other hand, is enjoying a lucrative day at the races.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited . All rights reserved. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.