Vladimir Putin, Election Security, and a Great PBS Documentary

As expected, Vladimir Putin secured a new 6-year term as president in Russia’s national election on Sunday. Also as expected, the circumstances of his victory fell short of basic democratic standards. In December the Russian government barred Alexei Navalny, Putin’s chief political opponent, from running for president. On election day, several episodes of blatant ballot stuffing were caught on camera and independent observers reported 1,500 cases of election violations across the country. 

But Putin may not even need to bother with elections in the future. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a prominent Putin ally, declared that Sunday’s elections were “the last ones” Russia will ever hold. The Kremlin itself has signaled that Putin will henceforth assume a role beyond that of a mere elected official. This week the Russian television network RT—which the United States intelligence community describes as “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine”—began calling Putin “our leader,” the same title that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin went by.  On election night, Putin would only promise that he would not be president when he turns 100, which is 35 years from now.

Putin’s long tenure in power affects far more than Russia. His profound animosity toward the West in general, and the United States in particular, means that he is going to be a part of our lives for a long time to come.

Three weeks ago in a speech to the Russian Parliament, Putin declared that the Russian military has developed new, “invincible” nuclear weapons capable of reaching “anywhere in the world.” He further warned that western leaders need to “take account of a new reality” and accept the fact that Russia’s enhanced nuclear arsenal was “not a bluff.” To underscore his threats, he showed a video of Russian nuclear warheads heading toward the state of Florida.

But the most immediate threat Putin poses to the United States is in the form of cyberhacking and election meddling. Russia’s intervention in the 2016 US presidential election demonstrated how the internet enables hostile foreign powers to undermine American democracy like never before. As an unprecedented joint intelligence report by the CIA, FBI, and NSA explained in January 2017:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

Without question, Russia’s role in the 2016 election will fascinate historians for decades to come. But for now the key point is that the Russian threat to American elections is far from over. As former FBI director James Comey warned during his May 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Russians “will be back.”  Just last month, before he was fired by President Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went even further, specifically warning that Russia would attempt to interfere with the 2018 midterm elections. 

Unfortunately, the state government agencies that administer federal and state elections in the United States are still not prepared to fend off Putin’s cyber hackers. A February 2018 study by the Center for American Progress concluded that state election systems remain dangerously vulnerable.  In grading the security and reliability of each state’s voting systems, the report’s authors gave 5 states a grade of F, 12 states a grade of D, and 23 states a grade of C. No states received an A grade. Accordingly, as Putin basks in the glow of his reelection, Congress and state election authorities must make the security of the 2018 U.S. midterm elections a national priority.

To that end, there was some good news today on the election security front. Reuters reported that the Omnibus Bill will include $380 million for election cybersecurity. To be sure, $380 million is not enough to safeguard midterm elections that will involve tens of millions of voters and thousands of jurisdictions spread across all 50 states. It's not even clear how much of the money will even reach the states by November 6th, the date of the midterms. But at least it’s a belated step in the right direction, especially as the 2020 election comes rapidly into view.

In the meantime, it is important to fully understand Putin’s role in the 2016 U.S. election. In October PBS Frontline aired a two-part documentary, “Putin’s Revenge,” that is truly must-see tv. In gripping fashion, the documentary analyzes how Putin’s forces intervened in the presidential election. Equally important, the documentary also examines Putin’s unusual biography, explaining how his life experiences shaped his profoundly hostile view of the United States, an animosity that became focused with laser-like intensity on Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

You can find “Putin’s Revenge” on the PBS website. Part one is available here and part two is available here. I highly recommend it.

Comments

[anymouse]

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” - B. Obama

[anon]

Typically, the skewed rewrite of history today involves statements like this: "As an unprecedented joint intelligence report by the CIA, FBI, and NSA explained in January 2017. ..."

Unprecedented? As Isikoff and Corn, hardly Trump supporters, explain in their new book (as reported by CBS News):

"The book also delves into whether the Obama administration did enough to counter Russian interference in the election. They report that while there were people inside the Obama White House who were worried about Russia's influence tactics, ultimately, national security adviser Susan Rice asked everyone to "stand down" over fears of inciting a cyberwar with Russia. ... The problem is that the people on the White House staff were saying, 'No, if you don't respond in real time. If you don't punch back when you've been hit, it's sending a signal to the other side.'"

So, the report referenced above was not "unprecedented" by any stretch of the imagination. The prior administration was well aware of the issue and chose to do nearly nothing about it.

Imagine the reports on CNN/MSNBC if, when so informed, this administration "stood down." As reported above, steps are being taken, in response to the McCarthy like hysteria that the Russians are brain washing the American voter (there is no evidence actual votes were altered).

The ridiculousness of this hysteria truly is risible. The NYT, 538, everybody, gave Clinton a nearly sure victory, right up until election day. But, "the Russians," that ethnic slur that is now so fashionable, were so brilliant they were able to turn it all around with some Facebook ads (that nobody paid any attention to, and that were run in states where the ads could not have possibly swung the election one way or other. That is what the mindless followers of this McCarthy scare are swallowing.

The "Russians" hated Clinton, they all say. Ok, that might explain the reason they helped Sanders. Sanders, after all is a "democratic" socialist. If we are to believe a Red Scare, how can we ignore that fact?

So, how did that work out for Bernie?

Of course, were we to tell the objective truth, we would need to mention, as is never mentioned in posts like the one above here in the FL, the way that primary election was conducted. Why did the DNC Chair resign on the eve of the convention? How did Clinton operate? Read Donna Brazile's book.

We could ask: whose tactics were more effective in the Democratic primary in 2016? "the Russians" or those just mentioned? But, of course, that might interrupt the false narrative that the "Russians" brainwashed the American voters to vote for Trump. My my. What a load of bunk the Democrats are willing to shovel to explain Clinton's loss.

This country has plenty of corruption, folks. The notion that we are now engaged in a new McCarthy Red Scare, and have been for the past year is, in a word, disgusting, and just more evidence of that corruption. Those who dwell on the dangers of free speech by "Russians" are just basically Democrat partisans, ethnically bigoted and will be noted in history right alongside Joe McCarthy for the poison they are introducing and the harm they are doing to this society. The majority of the American public, it is quite clear, isn't going along with this hysteria, and finds it annoying.

The "Russians" can't brainwash us now any more than they could during the first Red Scare, and the second Red Scare.

PBS notwithstanding.

[anon]

President ?: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President ?: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

Rachel, Rachel! Collusion!!!