While Americans fight over 2016 election meddling, Russia gears up for the next one

Donald Trump spent much of this week trying to unmuddy the waters over his views on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

It all began on Monday in Helsinki, when he seemed to express doubts about whether Russia had interfered with U.S. elections.

The fact that he did that, while standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin, provoked howls of outrage from opponents — and even some supporters. After all, just last week the  U.S. Justice Department indicted 12 Russians for their interference with the 2016 election.

As a result of Russian interference, the question of what happens in November's Congressional midterm elections is becoming more and more urgent.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is among the officials raising the alarm.

From 2009 to 2013, foreign policy consultant Molly McKew was an adviser to President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. At the time, there was an intense crisis there which eventually led to Russia's invasion of Georgia.
  
Molly McKew spoke with Day 6 host Brent Bambury about safeguarding the November U.S. midterms from the threat of Russian interference.

Brent Bambury: The U.S. midterm elections are four months away. Is it too late to make sure they're not compromised?

Molly McKew: I think in terms of election security issues we're very behind where we should be. I think in terms of information defence issues we are impossibly behind and have a really big challenge looking ahead to 2020.

BB: That really doesn't sound very positive. You think that what Russia is doing, you define it as being warfare. Why is that?

MM: They define it as being warfare. And I think we should take them seriously about that, especially in the information domain. The types of psychological operations and deliberately subversive campaigns that we've seen run against the United States are, in fact, information warfare.

And if you layer in the cyber attacks, the hacking, money and other influence, the development of compatriot groups, the use of spies — both formal and informal — to try to infiltrate political groups and other movements in the United States, the use of media organizations to add information into our space, all of that together is an awful lot of what they define as full spectrum options in warfare.

BB: When we look at conventional warfare we can see the effects of it in terms of the damage to infrastructure, the number of casualties, the refugees that are created. If this is war, what is the impact of what Russians are doing to America?

MM: It's impacting how we see ourselves and how we see the environment around us, how we see our own nation and our politics. And it's very hard to see how these things are affecting us and how they shape the information environment around us.

On more hard security issues relating to cyber-security, election infrastructure security, things like that, there are more tangible signs of that. But our way of dealing with cyber issues tends to be not to talk about them very much. So we're still operating in a very smoky, not quite so transparent area, in terms of what we need to do to fix the problem going forward.

BB: You just said that the Russians call this warfare. If that's the case, what does victory look like to them? What is their objective?

MM: This is victory. It's this state of eroding confidence in the American system and the ideas of democracy, an inclusive society and human rights. Americans now believe our allies are no longer our allies at an increasing rate. This is what victory looks like.

BB: Earlier this week White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders stood at the podium — this was responding to the president's refusal or reluctance to be critical or to raise the issue with Vladimir Putin — but she spoke about the Russian threat in 2018. Here's part of what she said:

"In May of 2017. President Trump signed an executive order to strengthen and review the cyber security of our nation and its critical infrastructure. The Department of Homeland Security has taken the lead. DHS plans to provide on-site risk and vulnerability assessments to all states that request it. A new pilot program was launched to increase rapid response capabilities on Election Day. In March of 2018 Congress provided the Election Assistance Commission with 380 million dollars in funding for election assistance grants. These are steps that we've taken to prevent it from happening, because we see that there is a threat there."

So that sounds like there are concrete and tangible actions here. Do you believe, Molly, that the administration is doing what it needs to to stop Russian interference in the midterms?

MM: No. They partially hamstrung themselves on this right after they took office, because they were looking backward at 2016. Now we've all forgotten because we've moved so far from this point of total craziness. But the conspiracy theories they were spouting about millions of illegal votes and you'll recall the administration set up its own election commission to review these supposedly illegal votes which then fizzled after six months because it didn't exist. 

So, I mean, they were really focused on the wrong issues. And I think there is money available, there are things to be done. We have challenges in the U.S. because of the structure. Every state runs their own thing. In some cases every county runs their own thing. And that creates so many different security loopholes. It's not sort of one answer or one system to secure, it's like thousands. The point being, it's getting worse. The Russians are looking for different ways into our system. The money that is there is not filling the gaps that are the most vulnerable for these types of things.

BB: And the other difference in 2018 will be that this will likely be the first election in American history where voters going to the polls have this idea, have this mindset, that there's probably a foreign government trying to sway the vote. How will that manifest? What's going to happen in November with that feeling in people's minds?

MM: It's a really good question. I do think it will, on both sides, impact turnout — this idea that votes really matter in a midterm election more than usual. So I think they'll be some aspects there in terms of voter mobilization. I think there's been really good education campaigns that are happening in various places to remind people, you know, double-check that they know where to go to vote and that they know all the details.

And as much as this sounds like the advice we give transitional democracies when they're running their elections, there's new problems with this because the courts have been ruling that states can, in fact, purge huge numbers of people from their voter rolls. So there are sort of new inherent problems not just with technology, but with the manipulation of voters lists from political forces.

BB: During the French election last year authorities concluded that Russia was trying to influence that election. But they were able to convince French voters that the result was still good that their votes had counted. Do you think that U.S. authorities can do the same in November even if there is evidence of intrusion?

MM: All the [French] parties, the government, they came out collectively and said, 'the Russian government is trying to convince you to think something different about your election. Go out and vote. Vote for who you are going to vote for. Don't pay attention to stuff.' And I think in the U.S. case this is not happening. There are far fewer people who are seen as clear leadership voices on these types of issues. And now everybody has become so cynical about information: 'it's all fake you know, who knows what to believe.'

I think the challenge ... is the 'King conspiracy-theorist' is very much now the president himself- Molly McKew

BB: But with four months to the vote, who do you see standing up for American democracy right now? Who are the good guys and can they prevail?

I do think there's been some good voices from Congress talking about these issues. The problem being there is an equal number of voices from Congress that are eroding clarity on this stuff with their own conspiracy theories. I think the challenge with that is the 'King conspiracy-theorist' is very much now the president himself.

And when you have a force that is that engaged in 'dismaying' — as we would say in disinformation terms — the electorate and sort of creating this dynamic where nobody believes anything and trust in the system is eroded, it weakens our resilience as a society to withstand information attacks. And I think that leaves us very vulnerable and unraveling who is trying to tell you what and why, is going to get very challenging.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. To hear the full conversation with Molly McKew, download our podcast or click the 'Listen' button at the top of this page.