You know, I can't work out why we didn't think of this before. Did Vladimir Putin interfere with the U.S. election? We all want to know the answer to this question so badly, so . . . why not just ask him?
He'd know, after all! What could be simpler
When asked on Thursday if Russia meddled in the United States presidential eleciton, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by saying, "Read my lips: No."
Putin said he was "confident" that Russia did not interfere in last year's election, having quoted former President George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge to not raise taxes -- although Putin mistakenly cited former President Ronald Reagan in his statement.
"All those things are fictional, illusory and provocations, lies. All these are used for domestic American political agendas. The anti-Russian card is played by different political forces inside the United States to trade on that and consolidate their positions inside," Putin told a panel of world leaders, according to The Hill.
Putin's comments come on the heels of today's first hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian election interference in the form of disinformation, hacking and the like.
"[We know many Americans are] friendly towards the Russian Federation and I'd like to tell these people that we perceive and regard the United States as a great power with which we want to establish good partnership relations," said Putin, according to The Hill.
Satisfied? Didn't think so. The last thing you want to do if you suspect nefarious actions by Vladimir Putin is take Vladimir Putin's word for it that everything is hunky dory.
And yet, much of what Putin said is not only plausible but obviously true. That Democrats are playing an anti-Russian cards as a way of posturing politically is as plain as day. Four years earlier they scoffed at the idea that Russia was a geopolitical foe of the United States. Now they sound like pushers of the Red Scare screaming that the Russians are coming . . . the Russians are coming! Russia is no different today than it was in 2012. What's changed in the politics of shrieking about Russia in the U.S., which the Democrats now see as advantageous.
Putin's denial also depends in large part on how you define interference. Did the Russians engage in computer hacking to actually alter legitimate vote totals and give Trump a phony win? Not a chance in hell. Did the Russians collude with the Trump campaign in some way? Not according to any evidence that's been shown so far. Did Russia try to influence the outcome in some way? That I would just assume. Why wouldn't they, given that they would certainly have a stake in the outcome.
This is neither illegal nor particularly scandalous. News flash: Nations mess in the affairs of other nations - for good or for ill - if they believe it serves their interests to do so. The suggestions so far - that the Russians did this by prompting WikiLeaks to release John Podesta's e-mails, and maybe that they did it by promoting "fake news" sites - are more hilarious than they are disturbing. If this is what happened, I think we can safely say the Russians' influence on the election outcome was nil to nonexistent.
Support Canada Free Press
The only revelation that probably got anyone's attention was the one in which Podesta was caught running down people of faith and the Catholic Church in particularly, calling for a "Catholic spring" that I guess was supposed to replace traditional Catholic doctrine with left-wing politics. But if you really care which party respects people of faith, didn't you already know which party that was before Podesta got hacked?
The more interesting question is why the Russians wanted Trump to win, assuming they did. The liberal/Democrat/media presumption is that Putin preferred Trump either because he would be an easily manipulated bumpkin or because he somehow had him in his back pocket. I suppose it's possible Putin saw it that way. But I think it's just as likely the Russians were concerned about getting a totally dishonest counterpart in the White House if Hillary won.
Today's Russia is not the Soviet Union. They are a rival of the United States, but the rivalry is one of interest, not of ideology. Putin wants to expand Russia's economic and military influence globally, and he sees the influence of the United States as counter to that goal, so he tries to weaken us and minimize our influence wherever he can. That's why he protect Iran and North Korea from nuclear accountability, and that's why he tries to stop the instalment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. It's not that he wants the Iranians or the Norks to be nuclear, or that he intends to nuke the Czech Republic. But anything that weakens the U.S. strategic position, he sees as strengthening Russia's.
So what does this have to do with Putin preferring Trump to Hillary? Aren't I making a pro-Hillary argument here . . . that she would put the U.S. in a stronger strategic position than Trump, and thus would be the president who would bother Putin more?
If this were an ideological rivalry, that might make sense. But in a rivalry of interest, you deal with your strategic rival in a different way. Where it makes sense, you can work together. You can engage in trade. It helps to be able to trust (but verify!) the word of your counterpart because it helps you decide when to deal and when not to deal. And it helps to have some sense that your counterpart knows how to behave responsibly, and is not too compromised to be able to do so.
Putin had lots of experience dealing with Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State. He knew about her obligations vis-a-vis the Clinton Foundation. He knew who she owed favors to. He knew about her level of honesty, such that it was. Hillary in the White House could have been a disaster for Russia, not because she would make the U.S. too strong but because she was too compromised and untrustworthy to be able to deal with. Trump may be unpredictable and raw in his own way, and Putin may well see opportunities there. But a Hillary administration in which the president was owned by nefarious international actors could have been even more damaging to Russia's own ability to steer events.
I've believed all along that Russia did what it could like every other country with a stake in the matter to influence the outcome of the election, and in the end little matter besides what the voters ultimately believed about the two candidates. If that's interference, then I guess Putin's lying. It sure wouldn't be the first time.
As long as Trump has eyes wide open about that, we should be fine.
