On Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller handed down the first indictments of foreign nationals from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Thirteen individuals were targeted in all. The indictment describes a sophisticated operation designed to use social media to promote their favored candidates (Trump in the Republican Party, Bernie Sanders in the Democratic), discredit candidates they opposed (Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz), and encourage partisan division as well as social unrest.
This moment, when the specifics of the Russian operation are being officially discussed for the first time, seems like a good one to take stock of what Russian interference means and what it does not mean, as well as evaluate how we've been talking about Russia for the last two years.
The reporting on the Russia investigation has frequently bordered on the hysterical. Such respected figures as Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe have referred to Russian campaign actitivities as an act of warfare. Repeated, unironic references to Trump or his associates as Russian agents, or to the president as taking marching orders from Putin appear across left-leaning media. This is important, because while there is an abundance of evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election and succeeded in at least some degree, there is no evidence at all that this was a masterminded plot by Putin to install a compromised puppet in the Presidency of the United States.
That distinction matters. Understanding precisely what Russia did and didn't do - and why they did what they did - matters. One could read eighteen months' worth of media coverage on this issue and emerge with no more sophisticated idea of Putin's motivations than a notion that he is an evil genius who spends his days and nights dreaming of world domination and how to destroy democracy. The reader may be unsurprised to learn that I, writing from the midwest, do not have privileged access to Vladimir Putin's internal monologue. That being said, it's not terribly difficult to imagine what calculations he is making.
During negotiations with the Soviet Union over a reunified Germany's membership in NATO in 1990, the NATO countries - led by the United States - made it clear that in return for the Soviets' cooperation on Germany they would renounce any intention of expanding NATO into eastern Europe. NATO, which began as a political association and became an explicitly anti-Soviet military alliance in the course of the Cold War, was reasonably regarded by the Soviets as a hostile organization. NATO expansion into eastern Europe began only a few years later and has continued to the present.
Moreover, Russia's brief experiment in liberal democracy during the 1990s was not successful, to put it mildly. Mismanagement, corruption, and economic collapse are what most Russians associate with that decade. Putin may be a natural autocrat, but the Russian people generally agree with him that the influence of the United States in Russia after the Cold War was the cause of a great deal of misery. His popularity is by no means as universal as he would like us to think, but it is nonetheless genuine. The vehement hostility of the US toward Putin personally only serves to reinforce his image.
So, when Russian operatives attempt to use social media to exacerbate social tensions, it is because Putin's experience of socially tense democracy leads him to believe that doing so will keep the US from projecting significant power in what he regards as the Russian sphere. When Russian operatives lend support to the Sanders and Trump campaigns, it is because those two candidates were the only ones in either of the major parties in 2016 who openly supported calming tensions with Russia.
None of which, of course, is to say that the Russian campaign was justified. Far from it. I would say that in general this kind of blatant manipulation of any country's political process by another government is indefensible. It is morally wrong. What I mean to emphasize is that while we may be justifiably outraged at the act and want to bring those responsible to account, we should also realize that the structural problems with our relationship with Russia are not going away. A serious conversation to address them is long overdue.
The Mueller investigation has already exposed that the Trump campaign was aware of and enthusiastic about Russian efforts on their behalf. That is deeply disturbing, although not illegal. Whether there was a formal or tacit connection between them has not yet been revealed, but if convincing evidence of it exists I have yet to see it. Donald Trump has and will continue to provide us with frequent occasion to note the negative effects he has on the country, but the overwhelming likelihood is that he is no more a puppet than Vladimir Putin is a Bond villain.
The Democrats, for their part, have encouraged the Trump-As-Russian-Puppet narrative because it provides an explanation for their 2016 loss that does not require them to critically examine their own performance. Admittedly, it is a fine line to walk in their case between legitimate outrage at what did occur and politically motivated grandstanding about what may not have. Yet not only does their singular focus on Russia risk an overreach if the investigation finds no evidence of illegality, it also validates the fearful, xenophobic, America-against-the-world mentality that Trump embodies. They would do better to stick to what is known and use this moment to develop a sensible and coherent policy toward Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment