What Was Putin Up To in 2016?

 

My speculation is that he had a win-win strategy. Unless his folks were a lot better than most US pundits, I don’t think he was anticipating or planning for a Trump victory. Instead, his goal was to weaken the US as an adversary and whomever won I believe he thought he would come out stronger. [Note: I am not judging whether the strategy was effective in influencing the election outcome.]

The win-win in 2016

To start with, the Internet Research Agency, based in St. Petersburg, which gets top billing in the Mueller indictment, has been a known entity to the US government for several years, which was aware of its ongoing attempts to sow confusion and conflict in America. In fact, the IRA was the subject of a very long article in the New York Times Magazine on June 2, 2015 which recounts its activities and the arguments within the Obama administration on how to respond. One possible reason for the President’s reluctance to respond more forcibly is not raised in the article, but has been speculated on elsewhere: his belief that he needed Russian cooperation on closing the deal with Iran and, secondarily, on Syria, and was thus reluctant to alienate Putin.

In any event, it is only against this overall strategy of weakening America, and the belief that Hillary would win, that Putin’s approach to 2016 can be understood. It was never specifically about Trump or Clinton and, as the Mueller indictment clearly lays out, it would not end no matter who was elected.

So from Putin’s perspective how did things look at the beginning of the primary campaign?

To my recollection, all of the leading Republican contenders, with the exception of Trump, were quite hostile to Putin. So the references in the Mueller indictment to Russian propaganda being directed to denigrate Cruz and Rubio makes sense. Further, with the exception of Trump, they were all more hostile to Russia than Hillary, the likely Democratic nominee.

While Hillary had been played by Putin for a dupe in her Russian “reset” policy, since his controversial reelection she had been much more rhetorically hostile to Putin’s regime than Obama or anyone else in his administration. And certainly, whatever Hillary’s views on Russia, Bernie Sanders was going to be more friendly and accommodating so supporting Bernie and denigrating Hillary during the primary made sense.

How did things look to Putin during the general election campaign?

Hillary must have appeared to be the logical winner to Putin, as she did to most everyone else. I think that while Putin was willing to expend some of his ammo on her during the campaign, but didn’t play all his cards because he needed them for after her expected election. And during the course of the campaign she fell into another trap he laid for her. In other words, denigrating Hillary during the campaign made sense in terms of making her weaker, but don’t use everything you have because you’ll need it later.

For instance, it is reasonable to assume that Putin knows a lot more about the tens of millions of dollars funneled into the Clinton Foundation from Russia and the former Soviet Republics than is currently publicly known. Holding that over President Clinton’s head could be very effective.

It is also reasonable to assume the Putin has all of Hillary’s emails, including the deleted ones, which he could deploy on his own timing. And I’ve always assumed Hillary knows it. How convenient.

Finally, he would be able to show that the Clinton campaign had worked, through its cut-outs, directly with the Kremlin, in assembling the Steele dossier, a fact that would prove embarrassing to a Clinton administration if and when Putin chose to release the details. And why, if Putin was really confident Trump could win, would he authorize the release of such information to Clinton? It was not for the purpose of beating Trump; it was for giving him future leverage over Clinton.

As to Trump, while Putin assumed he would not win, he wouldn’t be upset if that happened. Trump was the most Russia friendly of the Republican candidates. He was extremely unschooled in international politics and very susceptible to flattery. Putin played him well, flattering him and getting flattering comments in return (Trump was even willing to demean America in the course of doing so). In his campaign were people sympathetic (Manafort) or at least not hostile (Page, Papadopolous) to Russia. And, just as with Hillary, Putin had run his own entrapment, the Trump Tower meeting with Fredo Trump Jr and Jared Kushner (at least Clinton had the sense to use cut-outs – Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Steele). Fredo and Jared weren’t “unwitting“, they were “witless“.

The Mueller indictment also confirms it didn’t really matter to Putin who won because it asserts that after the election Russian efforts were devoted to instigating more pro and anti-Trump rallies and continuing to stir up the American populace on divisive issues.

UPDATE: I just read Andrew McCarthy in NRO who puts it very well, as usual:

In reality, what happened here could not be more patent: The Kremlin hoped to sow discord in our society and thus paralyze our government’s capacity to pursue American interests. The Russian strategy was to stir up the resentments of sizable losing factions. It is not that Putin wanted Trump to win; it is that Putin figured Trump was going to lose. That is why the Kremlin tried to galvanize Trump supporters against Clinton, just as it tried to galvanize Sanders supporters against Clinton, and Trump supporters against Cruz and Rubio, during the primaries. It is why the Russians suddenly choreographed anti-Trump rallies after Trump won. The palpable goal was to promote dysfunction: Cripple a likely President Clinton before she could even get started, wound President Trump from the get-go when he unexpectedly won, and otherwise set American against American whenever possible.

Background: From the 1940s to 2016

Much of the media acts shocked like this has never happened before. A reminder:

The January 2017 intelligence assessment from the CIA/FBI/NSA asserts that Russia, and the Soviet Union before, have had a long history of trying to influence US elections, though the effort in 2016 was quite significant. The assessment does not reference any specific examples (with the exception of the first below) but we know of many (both for elections and major policy issues), including:

The January 2017 assessment references two other recent Kremlin efforts, (1) support of the anti-fracking movement in the US, and (2) support for Occupy Wall Street (support shared with Obama, Pelosi, and David Duke).

In 2012 we had Russian influence “hidden in plain sight“. The Kremlin openly supported Obama (in fact, though little noted, they did the same in 2008 because they hated McCain). Obama, in turn, attacked and mocked Romney for being too hard on the Russians, and was caught on an open mic assuring Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility after the election. It would be fascinating to know if the intelligence community has any information regarding covert support from Moscow during that campaign.

The hysterical anti-cruise missile movement in the US and Europe in the early 1980s was also supported covertly by the Soviets, along with propaganda regarding Reagan’s supposed warmonger tendencies, manipulation that received wide acceptance in the West. It would also be interesting to know what the Soviets did in connection with the 1984 presidential campaign.

The idea that the assassination of President Kennedy was due to a right-wing conspiracy originated with the KGB in 1964, the first article proposing it was from a secretly communist funded publication in Italy; an article soon picked up by conspiracy theorists in the US who ran with it. The result contributed to widespread conspiracy mania, particularly in the late 60s through mid-70s, but which has had a long life. Instead of believing that a communist who fervently supported Fidel Castro and who had just a few months earlier tried to assassinate a right-wing figure (Edwin Walker), then went on to kill an anti-communist president who himself was trying to kill Castro, most Americans to this day still believe there was a conspiracy in which the right wing killed JFK. It’s become part of popular culture, beloved of those obsessed with conspiracies as with Oliver Stone’s JFK, the Bruce Willis wisecrack in Armageddon, and Donald Trump speculating that Ted Cruz’s dad, an anti-Castro Cuban, was involved in the murder.

The unilateral nuclear disarmament movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s in both Britain and America was directed by communist front groups under Moscow’s direction.

The Progressive Party presidential campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948 which was essentially run by the Communist Party and which, early in the campaign, was seen as having a serious chance to undermine President Truman’s reelection. Several years later Wallace admitted he’d been duped by advisors he didn’t know were commies. In addition, during the 1930s and ’40s, it was common practice for the Communist Party to run front groups not openly identified as communist in order to attract people who would unwittingly support the party line. As we know now, the American Communist Party was financially supported and ideologically directed by Moscow.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Fine post.  Not exactly a news flash that Kremlin attempts to manipulate the votes of the American hoi polloi are far less effective than their facility at orchestrating the opinions, emotional reactions and protests of the east and west coast academic and media Eloi.

     

    • #1
  2. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I think they were basically trying to create political turmoil and running a few test runs to see how much they can disturb / influence things.  It seem is they have the Democrats all is good but if the GOP looks like they might be getting some assistance the MSM loses their collective  mind.

    • #2
  3. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    No mention of Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein?

    Are you saying that Putin wanted to sow discord in Trump’s administration? If so, I don’t believe he could have orchestrated the Comey firing nor Rosenstein’s traitorous action to appoint Mueller.

    Take away that business and Putin doesn’t sow much at all. Ahh, except through the dupes in the media. Those other traitors in our midst who give access to the most hard left imbeciles in the country and to any agent provocateurs who come to them with left wing memes and narratives. Putin can definitely play our left-wingers and make fools of them.

    • #3
  4. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    I still don’t understand the crime here.  Is it illegal for foreign nationals to post political opinions on Facebook?  Or is the crime to do so without disclosing that you are a foreign national?  Either way, we are going to need a lot of new prisons – that is, if we can get any foreign government to extradite anyone, which I doubt.  Oh, and whatever happened to that First Amendment thingy?  Isn’t it the open borders left that is always telling us that non-citizens have Constitutional rights?

    I also haven’t seen anything done by Russia that even approaches the level of meddling in foreign elections done by Obama.  Obama expressly told British voters to vote “No” on Brexit, and threatened Britain with adverse trade consequences if they did not.  Obama sent his political advisers to Israel to work against Netanyahu’s reelection.  Obama very overtly sought to swing elections and replace regimes all over the world.  Has anyone got an example of Putin doing anything like that?  No, I didn’t think so.

    • #4
  5. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    My question: why hasn’t Mueller closed his investigation? What is left for him to do, other than continue the prosecution of Manafort, which could easily be handed off to Justice. So far in producing evidence and indictments on Russia’s manipulation of our election, he has 13 Russian citizens and two or three faux companies set up by the Russians which probably don’t even exist anymore. The Russians will never go to trial, so Mueller could say anything about them and it will never be proven. As is shown here by @markgrumby this type of spy craft is common amongst nations friend and foe, including ourselves. So unless Mueller is going to turn his team around and go after the Clinton campaign and the FBI (ha,ha,ha) there is nothing left for him to do

    • #5
  6. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    cdor (View Comment):
    My question: why hasn’t Mueller closed his investigation? What is left for him to do, other than continue the prosecution of Manafort, which could easily be handed off to Justice. So far in producing evidence and indictments on Russia’s manipulation of our election, he has 13 Russian citizens and two or three faux companies set up by the Russians which probably don’t even exist anymore. The Russians will never go to trial, so Mueller could say anything about them and it will never be proven. As is shown here by @markgrumby this type of spy craft is common amongst nations friend and foe, including ourselves. So unless Mueller is going to turn his team around and go after the Clinton campaign and the FBI (ha,ha,ha) there is nothing left for him to do.

    Some of us hold out the hope that Mueller and Rosenstein are in cahoots with Trump and will go after the deep state. It’s unlikely but possible. Scott Adams has been mulling this over.

    • #6
  7. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

     

    • #7
  8. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Good analysis, with the minor quibble that while Carter Page was certainly an enthusiast about doing business in Russia, that brought him to the FBI’s attention in 2013 and they got him to work for them to take down a Russian spy operation. The FBI paid him to, among other things, plant bugged binders in the Russians’ offices.

    • #8
  9. Gumby Mark Coolidge
    Gumby Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    No mention of Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein?

    Are you saying that Putin wanted to sow discord in Trump’s administration? If so, I don’t believe he could have orchestrated the Comey firing nor Rosenstein’s traitorous action to appoint Mueller.

    Take away that business and Putin doesn’t sow much at all. Ahh, except through the dupes in the media. Those other traitors in our midst who give access to the most hard left imbeciles in the country and to any agent provocateurs who come to them with left wing memes and narratives. Putin can definitely play our left-wingers and make fools of them.

    Comey, Mueller, and Rosenstein have their own agendas.  For this post, I wanted to focus solely on how Putin might have seen things.  I think this has played out even better than he could have hoped in part due to those three.

    • #9
  10. Gumby Mark Coolidge
    Gumby Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I still don’t understand the crime here. Is it illegal for foreign nationals to post political opinions on Facebook? Or is the crime to do so without disclosing that you are a foreign national? Either way, we are going to need a lot of new prisons – that is, if we can get any foreign government to extradite anyone, which I doubt. Oh, and whatever happened to that First Amendment thingy? Isn’t it the open borders left that is always telling us that non-citizens have Constitutional rights?

    I also haven’t seen anything done by Russia that even approaches the level of meddling in foreign elections done by Obama. Obama expressly told British voters to vote “No” on Brexit, and threatened Britain with adverse trade consequences if they did not. Obama sent his political advisers to Israel to work against Netanyahu’s reelection. Obama very overtly sought to swing elections and replace regimes all over the world. Has anyone got an example of Putin doing anything like that? No, I didn’t think so.

    The Russians were indicted for wire and bank fraud, along with identity theft.  They were using cut-outs and not posting under their own names.  They were actually not indicted for, as foreigners, illegally meddling in the election even though there is a statute covering this offense.  It is possible Mueller avoided doing so, since it would raise obvious questions about why Christopher Steele should also not be indicted for the same offense.

    • #10
  11. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):
    It is possible Mueller avoided doing so, since it would raise obvious questions about why Christopher Steele should also not be indicted for the same offense.

    And Felonia von Pantsuit, too.

    • #11
  12. Matt Balzer Member
    Matt Balzer
    @MattBalzer

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    Are you saying that Putin wanted to sow discord in Trump’s administration?

    No, because he didn’t think Trump would win, so there was no need to plan for it. Also that suspicion of Russian involvement would cause trouble without any investment of resources.

    • #12
  13. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Matt Balzer (View Comment):

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    Are you saying that Putin wanted to sow discord in Trump’s administration?

    No, because he didn’t think Trump would win, so there was no need to plan for it. Also that suspicion of Russian involvement would cause trouble without any investment of resources.

    Yes, true. I think @gumbymark answered this well in #9 above, too.

    • #13
  14. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Matt Balzer (View Comment):

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    Are you saying that Putin wanted to sow discord in Trump’s administration?

    No, because he didn’t think Trump would win, so there was no need to plan for it. Also that suspicion of Russian involvement would cause trouble without any investment of resources.

    Hillary once elected was going to use an increasingly ideologically consolidated federal government to promote discord in society in order to crush opposition. (Note that Black Lives Matter benefited from the Russian effort.) In that, her aims were congruent with Putin’s. In any (D) administration the Russian investment in the anti-fracking and anti-nuclear power movements would have really paid off, too.

    Trump, on the other hand, wants to disrupt that ideological consolidation and has already done so in ways adverse to Russia’s interests; energy policy is a big one; Putin rightly sees that as disruptive to Russia’s economy and will continue to respond.

     

     

    • #14
  15. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer (View Comment):

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    Are you saying that Putin wanted to sow discord in Trump’s administration?

    No, because he didn’t think Trump would win, so there was no need to plan for it. Also that suspicion of Russian involvement would cause trouble without any investment of resources.

    Hillary once elected was going to use an increasingly ideologically consolidated federal government to promote discord in society in order to crush opposition. (Note that Black Lives Matter benefited from the Russian effort.) In that, her aims were congruent with Putin’s. In any (D) administration the Russian investment in the anti-fracking and anti-nuclear power movements would have really paid off, too.

    Trump, on the other hand, wants to disrupt that ideological consolidation and has already done so in ways adverse to Russia’s interests; energy policy is a big one; Putin rightly sees that as disruptive to Russia’s economy and will continue to respond.

    Well said. Agree completely.

    • #15
  16. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I still don’t understand the crime here. Is it illegal for foreign nationals to post political opinions on Facebook? Or is the crime to do so without disclosing that you are a foreign national? Either way, we are going to need a lot of new prisons – that is, if we can get any foreign government to extradite anyone, which I doubt. Oh, and whatever happened to that First Amendment thingy? Isn’t it the open borders left that is always telling us that non-citizens have Constitutional rights?

    I also haven’t seen anything done by Russia that even approaches the level of meddling in foreign elections done by Obama. Obama expressly told British voters to vote “No” on Brexit, and threatened Britain with adverse trade consequences if they did not. Obama sent his political advisers to Israel to work against Netanyahu’s reelection. Obama very overtly sought to swing elections and replace regimes all over the world. Has anyone got an example of Putin doing anything like that? No, I didn’t think so.

    The Russians were indicted for wire and bank fraud, along with identity theft. They were using cut-outs and not posting under their own names. They were actually not indicted for, as foreigners, illegally meddling in the election even though there is a statute covering this offense. It is possible Mueller avoided doing so, since it would raise obvious questions about why Christopher Steele should also not be indicted for the same offense.

    Not to mention the editorial page of The Guardian or Le Monde.  But if not posting under your own name is a crime, then maybe you and I should be taking another look at our Ricochet screen names.

    I am curious though.  You say there is a statute about foreigners “meddling” in our elections.  I am aware that foreigners are not allowed to donate to political campaigns.  Do you have something else in mind?  Do you have a cite to that statute?

    • #16
  17. Gumby Mark Coolidge
    Gumby Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

     

    I am curious though. You say there is a statute about foreigners “meddling” in our elections. I am aware that foreigners are not allowed to donate to political campaigns. Do you have something else in mind? Do you have a cite to that statute?

    No, that is the statute.  However, not posting under your own name is not a crime – at least on Ricochet!

    • #17
  18. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Gumby Mark: It is not that Putin wanted Trump to win; it is that Putin figured Trump was going to lose

     

    The Russians must listen to Rush Limbaugh, this is just a copy of operation Chaos

     

     

    • #18
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.