 |
Russian
involvement in US vote raises fears for European elections
CIA
investigation may have implications for upcoming French and German
polls, even raising doubts over integrity of Brexit vote
Simon Tisdall
Saturday 10 December
2016 13.35 GMT
The CIA’s
conclusion that Russia covertly intervened to swing last month’s
presidential election in favour of Donald Trump but its actions did
not place the overall credibility of the result in doubt will be hard
to swallow for some.
The classified CIA
investigation, which has not been published, may also have
implications for the integrity of Britain’s Brexit referendum last
June, and how upcoming elections in France and Germany could be
vulnerable to Russian manipulation. The latest revelations are not
entirely new. What is fresh is the bald assertion that Moscow was
working for Trump.
Democrats have been
agitating for months for more decisive action by the White House
following earlier reports of Russian-inspired hacking designed to
undermine their candidate, Hillary Clinton. Some of the thousands of
emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee and members of
Clinton’s campaign staff that were leaked, reportedly by Russian
proxies, were used to reinforce a key Trump campaign narrative, that
of “Lying Hillary”.
Pre-empting the
CIA’s disclosures, Barack Obama finally acceded on Friday to public
pressure to investigate the full extent of Russian meddling, ordering
a review reaching back to previous elections. “We have crossed a
new threshold,” said Lisa Monaco, a top security adviser.
The suggestion that
Russia’s interventions had limited or no impact on the outcome of
one of the most divisive US elections in modern history will sit
badly with ordinary voters, especially in closely-fought states such
as Michigan, where a legal battle has been in progress over a
possible recount.
Earlier in the year,
the US government officially accused Russia of directing efforts to
disrupt the election process, interfere with electronic voting
machinery, spread disinformation, and generally discredit and confuse
the democratic system.
In the event,
Clinton lost the election in the electoral college, but won the
popular vote. According to the Cook Political Report, a non-partisan
organisation, Clinton obtained at least 65,527,625 votes, over 2.6
million more than Trump.
Confidence that
Russian interference did not have a decisive impact will also be
strained by Trump’s reaction to the CIA revelations. He derided the
CIA as an organisation that had been wrong in the past about Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Trump is already at odds
with the CIA director, John Brennan, who recently stated publicly
that the president-elect’s pledge to tear up last year’s landmark
nuclear deal with Iran would be “disastrous”.
Washington insiders
say Trump is not even bothering to read the daily national
intelligence briefs prepared for the president, which are
traditionally shared with his incoming successor. That omission
suggests Trump does not want to know some inconvenient truths about
the election – and is heading for a tempestuous relationship with
the US intelligence community.
Trump’s previous,
favourable statements about Russia’s authoritarian president,
Vladimir Putin, and suggestions that the Trump administration, once
in office, will attempt to reach an accommodation with Moscow, have
intensified critics’ concerns about possible collusion between the
two self-styled strongmen.
Putin’s
precondition for any meaningful reset in bilateral relations would be
the lifting of US sanctions on Russia and de facto recognition of its
2014 annexation of Crimea. Achieving that goal would be seen as a
considerable bonus for Moscow.
Obama’s role in
this developing scandal is also coming under scrutiny. Members of
Congress and White House officials told the Washington Post that
Obama was worried that if he went public with evidence of Russian
meddling during the election, he would be accused of using national
intelligence resources to boost Clinton’s chances.
In the light of the
CIA findings, which are supported by other US agencies, Obama’s
approach now looks excessively cautious. Conversely, Republican
senators who privately opposed earlier release of the Russia-related
information because they feared it would harm Trump are now also open
to criticism.
The CIA revelations
shed new light on the timing and content of this week’s unusual
public speech by the head of Britain’s MI6, Alex Younger. In
remarks that were plainly directed at Russia, Younger said the UK and
other European democracies faced a “fundamental threat” from
hostile states employing cyber-attacks, propaganda and “subversion
of the democratic process”.
“The risks at
stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our
sovereignty. They should be a concern to all those who share
democratic values,” Younger warned.
Since MI6 is likely
to have known in advance about the CIA’s latest findings concerning
Moscow’s role in Trump’s election, there will be speculation that
Younger was basing his statements, in part, on suspicions of Russian
meddling in Britain’s Brexit referendum campaign.
Putin’s government
was widely seen as favouring Brexit, as a way of assisting its
long-term strategic aim of weakening and dividing Europe and Nato.
Any evidence of direct or indirect Russian interference in the
British referendum campaign would be politically explosive.
Concerns will also
now be heightened over forthcoming presidential elections in France,
where Marine Le Pen’s pro-Moscow Front National has sought Russian
election funding, and in Germany, where Europe’s most influential
leader and a long-time Putin adversary, Angela Merkel, faces a
re-election battle against far-right groups in September.
|
Russian
involvement in US vote raises fears for European elections
CIA
investigation may have implications for upcoming French and German
polls, even raising doubts over integrity of Brexit vote
Simon Tisdall
Saturday 10 December
2016 13.35 GMT
The CIA’s
conclusion that Russia covertly intervened to swing last month’s
presidential election in favour of Donald Trump but its actions did
not place the overall credibility of the result in doubt will be hard
to swallow for some.
The classified CIA
investigation, which has not been published, may also have
implications for the integrity of Britain’s Brexit referendum last
June, and how upcoming elections in France and Germany could be
vulnerable to Russian manipulation. The latest revelations are not
entirely new. What is fresh is the bald assertion that Moscow was
working for Trump.
Democrats have been
agitating for months for more decisive action by the White House
following earlier reports of Russian-inspired hacking designed to
undermine their candidate, Hillary Clinton. Some of the thousands of
emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee and members of
Clinton’s campaign staff that were leaked, reportedly by Russian
proxies, were used to reinforce a key Trump campaign narrative, that
of “Lying Hillary”.
Pre-empting the
CIA’s disclosures, Barack Obama finally acceded on Friday to public
pressure to investigate the full extent of Russian meddling, ordering
a review reaching back to previous elections. “We have crossed a
new threshold,” said Lisa Monaco, a top security adviser.
The suggestion that
Russia’s interventions had limited or no impact on the outcome of
one of the most divisive US elections in modern history will sit
badly with ordinary voters, especially in closely-fought states such
as Michigan, where a legal battle has been in progress over a
possible recount.
Earlier in the year,
the US government officially accused Russia of directing efforts to
disrupt the election process, interfere with electronic voting
machinery, spread disinformation, and generally discredit and confuse
the democratic system.
In the event,
Clinton lost the election in the electoral college, but won the
popular vote. According to the Cook Political Report, a non-partisan
organisation, Clinton obtained at least 65,527,625 votes, over 2.6
million more than Trump.
Confidence that
Russian interference did not have a decisive impact will also be
strained by Trump’s reaction to the CIA revelations. He derided the
CIA as an organisation that had been wrong in the past about Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Trump is already at odds
with the CIA director, John Brennan, who recently stated publicly
that the president-elect’s pledge to tear up last year’s landmark
nuclear deal with Iran would be “disastrous”.
Washington insiders
say Trump is not even bothering to read the daily national
intelligence briefs prepared for the president, which are
traditionally shared with his incoming successor. That omission
suggests Trump does not want to know some inconvenient truths about
the election – and is heading for a tempestuous relationship with
the US intelligence community.
Trump’s previous,
favourable statements about Russia’s authoritarian president,
Vladimir Putin, and suggestions that the Trump administration, once
in office, will attempt to reach an accommodation with Moscow, have
intensified critics’ concerns about possible collusion between the
two self-styled strongmen.
Putin’s
precondition for any meaningful reset in bilateral relations would be
the lifting of US sanctions on Russia and de facto recognition of its
2014 annexation of Crimea. Achieving that goal would be seen as a
considerable bonus for Moscow.
Obama’s role in
this developing scandal is also coming under scrutiny. Members of
Congress and White House officials told the Washington Post that
Obama was worried that if he went public with evidence of Russian
meddling during the election, he would be accused of using national
intelligence resources to boost Clinton’s chances.
In the light of the
CIA findings, which are supported by other US agencies, Obama’s
approach now looks excessively cautious. Conversely, Republican
senators who privately opposed earlier release of the Russia-related
information because they feared it would harm Trump are now also open
to criticism.
The CIA revelations
shed new light on the timing and content of this week’s unusual
public speech by the head of Britain’s MI6, Alex Younger. In
remarks that were plainly directed at Russia, Younger said the UK and
other European democracies faced a “fundamental threat” from
hostile states employing cyber-attacks, propaganda and “subversion
of the democratic process”.
“The risks at
stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our
sovereignty. They should be a concern to all those who share
democratic values,” Younger warned.
Since MI6 is likely
to have known in advance about the CIA’s latest findings concerning
Moscow’s role in Trump’s election, there will be speculation that
Younger was basing his statements, in part, on suspicions of Russian
meddling in Britain’s Brexit referendum campaign.
Putin’s government
was widely seen as favouring Brexit, as a way of assisting its
long-term strategic aim of weakening and dividing Europe and Nato.
Any evidence of direct or indirect Russian interference in the
British referendum campaign would be politically explosive.
Concerns will also
now be heightened over forthcoming presidential elections in France,
where Marine Le Pen’s pro-Moscow Front National has sought Russian
election funding, and in Germany, where Europe’s most influential
leader and a long-time Putin adversary, Angela Merkel, faces a
re-election battle against far-right groups in September.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário