-3

There's a frequently expressed sentiment that Putin has been bankrolling all the bad things in Western politics in recent years.

For example: Why does Russia specifically fund far-rights in Europe?

The idea of malign influence from the Russian direction is not new - in its era, the USSR was regarded as a constant menace to the Western capitalist world.

First, what (if anything) has changed to make the West suddenly more susceptible to such interference?

Or if nothing has changed (as a commenter suggested via a proposed edit), then why would the political system in the West be under any new adverse influence than it was when the USSR openly contended for supremacy?

Second, if we accept the existence of the influence mechanism in principle and susceptibility to influence, could other bad things in the West be attributable to foreign or sectarian meddling? Such as (I would argue) austerity politics, free trade, and globalism?

Steve
  • 6,258
  • 12
  • 30
  • 1
    could other bad things... ... ... austerity politics, free trade, and globalism --- How do you conclude that those are bad things? – user366312 Jul 15 '23 at 11:04
  • 3
    the West suddenly more susceptible to such interference --- How do you deduce that? – user366312 Jul 15 '23 at 11:07
  • 4
    @user366312, on your first comment, I assert they are bad because they are correlated with a collapse in living standards. The average American worker hasn't seen real pay rise since about 1970, when global financial regulations started to break down and global free trade started to return to the agenda. Similarly in 1979, the UK lifted capital controls, and shortly afterwards there was an economic crash that destroyed millions of jobs and a lot of industrial production. Today, austerity continues to destroy public services and even basic infrastructure like road surfaces. – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 11:13
  • 4
    @user366312, on your second comment, I'm deducing that susceptibility must have increased because conflict with Russia (and the broadly equivalent predecessor state in that region, the USSR) isn't new. In fact the West has been prepared in the past for total war during the Cold War era. But nobody said Khrushchev was swinging US elections. – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 11:20
  • 1
    Your question is written in a way to imply a lot of questionable assumptions as true. So much so that it hurts its ability to ask the question. I'm assuming the question is about Russian political operations abroad, and not simply a chance to say "Russia good, West bad". – bharring Jul 15 '23 at 16:52
  • 1
    @bharring, I'm happy to discuss things you think are questionable, and invite answers which challenge any assumptions. – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 16:55
  • 1
    I had proposed some edits a yesterday that might have helped, although it looks like you don't want to move the question in that direction – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 13:59
  • @bharring, I did make some more minor edits following your suggestion, but an to the question can only be accepted or rejected, not discussed. At any rate, it's closed now. – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 15:44
  • 2
    The edits I proposed were a first step at turning this into a reasonable question. If you want this reopened, it'll need a lot more work. – bharring Jul 18 '23 at 13:23

2 Answers2

2

At least two major factors:

  1. Between about 1990 through about 2010, Russia collapsed, flirted with a liberalized, free society, then re-entrenched back to a totalitarian state.

During this time, Russia lacked first the means, then later the desire, to meddle in foreign affairs, for roughly twenty years.

Russia was so cordial with the West that American views shifted somewhat to seeing Russia as a peer and potential friend for the first time. For example, in the 2008 election US presidential election, one of the touchpoints was Russia; one candidate (Romney) suggested Russia was an enemy, and he paid dearly for that view in popular opinion. To the American electorate, the Cold War was over and Russia was finally a peer.

Russia has since returned to an antagonistic relationship with the West, going so far as to invade Ukraine when a Russian-friendly Prime Minister was ousted by his own party (for shooting protestors) in 2014. When they couldn't win on ideas, they decided to win with violence.

So it may look like Russian influence is new, but that's only because we had a wonderful break from Russian imperialism that lasted decades.

  1. Modern Interconnected World

It's a much smaller world now.

The biggest part of this is the internet. It's a lot cheaper and easier to influence populations when you can post a screed to a board seen locally from the other side of the world.

It's not hard to have an individual in Timbuktu write a question on a message board about something seemingly reasonable, and either heavily imply FUD so it gets accepted as truth (see "free trade bad" in this very question: we could argue that point for days, but instead it just gets implied here and gains market share without debate), or pushes a conversation in a direction they want (like one poster asserting Reagan shows that Democrats think we should force Ukraine to surrender).

bharring
  • 1,840
  • 1
  • 17
  • "It's a lot cheaper and easier to influence populations" - why should that imply more influence from Russia? Why wouldn't it imply more influence from our own government, from other forces (internal or external), or even just from internal grassroots influence that was previously silenced by rich-owned media? My point is why do you hold that social media has exacerbated the influence of foreign governments on the West specifically? We accept that Russia might have the motive, but don't others also? And does the West similarly corrupt Russian and other politics using social media? – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 17:51
  • Another way of putting a certain point is, if social media is so influential, wouldn't we expect to see propaganda from Timbuktu, telling us constantly that Russia uses social media to meddle in Western politics, and that everything is going wrong because of our external enemies? The purpose being for certain forces to meddle in Western politics from within, and suggest (for example) that Trump is a foreign agent or a friend of the US's foes, rather than genuinely popular amongst the US electorate? – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 17:58
  • Of course we should expect Trump's opponents to paint him as Russia's dream. That doesn't mean he isn't. In fact, we should expect him and his allies to try to dismiss any suggestion as baseless. One group suggests something is true, the other that it's false. That's how oppositional systems work as designed. We wouldn't assume every defendant is innocent just because the prosecutor wants us to think they're guilty. We need to examine the arguments and evidence, not just accept or reject what we want. – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 14:12
  • 1
    Also, whether someone is genuinely popular doesn't change whether an external party supported them. US revolutionaries weren't right just because France supported them. – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 14:13
  • "That doesn't mean he isn't." - there's quite a difference between saying a particular candidate would be favourable to Russia, and saying that Russia determined the election of that candidate. And even in terms of favourability, they lied similarly about Corbyn - they found some fantasist from East Germany to say he was a Stasi agent and a national traitor, and the supposedly trustworthy traditional media splashed it over the front pages. – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 15:52
  • 1
    There's also quite a difference between "Russia determined the election" and "Russia influenced the election". – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 15:59
  • As for "the arguments", I propose that most people have a very simple formula. If their lives are rich and secure, they trust the authorities. If not, they don't. They don't fuss over the talk much. The success of the liberal media is not in making people believe otherwise, but in disrupting all coherent opposition to their attacks and disabling the normal workings of the electoral system by sowing confusion and destroying any sense of shared understanding. Like the CIA brainwashing experiments, they found they could destroy the mind, but not remake it in the desired form. – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 16:02
  • There isn't really a difference between determining and influencing, if the suggestion (perhaps only vaguely articulated but intentionally telgraphed) is that the influence determined the election outcome and is the primary cause of a candidate's popularity. – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 16:05
  • 1
    I would argue the difference between determine vs influence really does exist when discussing the primacy of a cause. Especially in that case. I'd say perhaps we should take this to chat, but if half your comments are aimed at asserting controversial theories or conspiracies, I'm not sure if there will be value. Comments here aren't the place to propose your personal political theories or browbeat "America bad, Russia good" into the common discourse. – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 16:23
  • 1
    The problem is that the allegation that "Russia influences elections" is itself a conspiracy. We are discussing conspiracies. – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 16:26
  • But not a controversial one. If you want to discuss it, you could open a question on it, but that would be more for Skeptics.stackexchange than here. – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 18:01
  • 1
    To say that Putin influences American elections is a pretty controversial statement. Because if nothing else it says that the American state, with its power and security apparatus, is incapable of defending its own supposed democratic processes from corruption. If the Americans can be swayed, then what hope smaller and weaker "democratic" states? Frankly I think its a sign of the rot that such claims are regarded as mundane and uncontroversial. (1/3) – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 19:46
  • The USSR was regarded as influential on politics, by converting more people to Marxist ideological tenets, and it had some demonstrable successes (like in industrial development, WW2, or in the early space race). What grand successes has Putin had? How does his model much differ in a way that the Western masses would find persuasive at the ballot box? (2/3) – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 19:47
  • 1
    It seems to me that Russian interference is a comforting lie, so that you do not have to face the reality that your own politics are actually deeply divisive and quite unpopular at the grassroots, and increasingly not even control of the media and every other charade against your political opponents, can actually get your political frontmen over the line in an election anymore. (3/3). – Steve Jul 17 '23 at 19:48
  • 1
    I'd suggest doing more reading before finding an appropriate forum for this discussion. Consider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections for a starting point. Maybe post in Skeptics afterwards. Either way, repeating those arguments without fixing them won't get us anywhere. – bharring Jul 17 '23 at 19:59
  • 1
    Your link simply says no agency knows whether there was any effect on the election, and that the Russians targeted Clinton by publicising truths about her wrongdoing and hypocrisies. In other words, the proposed mechanism of influence, was by Russia assuming the traditional role of journalism and the free press. Don't raise conspiracies at all unless you're willing to talk them through. – Steve Jul 18 '23 at 08:07
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – bharring Jul 18 '23 at 13:07
-1

Firstly, the USA meddled in more elections around the globe than Russia did.

Secondly, the USA is involved in more regime change than Russia (excluding the USSR).

What has changed to make the West suddenly more susceptible to such interference?

Russia retaliated after a long time.

When the Cold War was over, Russia plunged into economic and political chaos. Then came Boris Yeltsin, a Western sympathizer who allowed Western businessmen to exert influence on the Russian economy. Then, Putin came to power and he took a long time to consolidate. In the meantime, the US and the West were enjoying a hall pass in international politics.

When Russia decided to retaliate, then the West became nervous, and hence the hullabaloo.

Other factors are:

  1. Social media: Social media has made it easier for foreign actors to manipulate public opinion and sow discord in Western societies.

  2. The erosion of trust in traditional sources of information: With the rise of social media, traditional sources of information such as newspapers and TV news have lost their monopoly. This has led to a proliferation of sources of information, some of which are unreliable or outright false. This has contributed to a growing mistrust of traditional institutions and a willingness to believe in other forms of disinformation.

  3. The rise of populist movements: Populist movements have gained ground in many Western countries in recent years, fueled in part by economic anxiety, immigration, and a sense of cultural and national identity under threat. These movements often espouse anti-establishment and anti-globalist rhetoric, which can make them more susceptible to foreign influence.

  4. The weakening of democratic institutions: In some Western countries, democratic institutions such as the judiciary, the media, and civil society have been weakened in recent years. This has created a vacuum that can be exploited by foreign actors seeking to influence political outcomes.

user366312
  • 1
  • 7
  • 54
  • 117
  • Aside from 1990 to say 2010, are you saying that pre-1990 Western politics were meddled with by the USSR to the same degree as Russia meddles today? (1/3) – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 11:52
  • Are you saying that the loss to social media of the traditional press monopoly alone creates distrust? In other words, that supplying people with more information sows distrust? Would this apply when allowing multiple newspapers with different views to coexist? The "free press" was once a tenet of Western democracy. (2/3) – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 11:52
  • When you say that populist movements have gained ground fuelled by anxieties over worsening economies and mass migration, are you essentially saying that these policies are unpopular, and pursuing them forcefully without popular consent has made people more prepared to believe the propaganda of foreign governments, and less prepared to believe their own? (3/3) – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 11:53
  • are you saying that pre-1990 Western politics were meddled with by the USSR to the same degree as Russia meddles today? --- No. Coz, there was no social media and the ideological division was clear and strict. – user366312 Jul 15 '23 at 12:00
  • Rest of them I am not replying to as there are too many questions. – user366312 Jul 15 '23 at 12:00
  • Sorry to overload with questions. What I'm not understanding is why social media has granted a new and disproportionate influence to foreign governments? For example, isn't it reasonable to suppose any well-funded entity might be engaged in meddling via social media? Including those arising inside our society, or even by our own government (which you've already said pursues trust-corrosive unpopular policies, which was less the case in the past)? Or do you say that foreign governments have special access to social media platforms that other malign actors wouldn't? – Steve Jul 15 '23 at 12:09
  • 1
    Might be worth a separate question asking the difference between policy discussion "interference " and "participation ", although that may come down to opinion. – bharring Jul 15 '23 at 17:25
  • 1
    @Steve I don't understand your point. This answer isn't stating social media effects are limited to foreign influencers, only that social media + the decline of, even partisan, traditional news sources are a facilitator to sowing distrust, one of the possible actors then taking advantage are foreign actors. If it's domestic actors, then it's not foreign interference, just domestic politics so outside of scope of Q. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jul 16 '23 at 06:51
  • +1 Honestly, I feel DVs seem largely motivated by the statement the US meddles more. Which is very likely true, the US has a large effort put together to promote democracy. In the case of Russia, a good deal of electoral meddling happened early on, at Yeltsin's request, and consisted of "loaning" US electoral campaign experts to assist Yeltsin in keeping power. Source: Putin: His Life and Times. Now, before anyone says: "but Yeltsin asked!", Western nations are very unkeen about meddling in each others' elections. It's not done. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jul 16 '23 at 06:57
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, my point is that the whole logic is not clear. The answer says social media allows foreign actors to manipulate public opinion - but it doesn't explain why domestic actors couldn't manipulate public opinion in the opposite direction by using social media. There's no obvious explanation why it conveys a 'net foreign advantage in public manipulation', so to speak. (1/3) – Steve Jul 16 '23 at 07:45
  • Meanwhile you say "social media facilitates the sowing of distrust". But how exactly so? For example, if SM simply helps reveal home truths from within (like the "free press" is supposed to, and people then rightly find today's elites untrustworthy), that's different from foreign meddling. It's certainly to the advantage of foreign states if the West collapses under its own weight, but that's not the same as asserting meddling (or asserting that meddling is any greater today than it has always been). (2/3) – Steve Jul 16 '23 at 07:45
  • There's significant implications in this, because saying (for example) that Trump has soared because of foreign meddling, is very different from saying Trump has soared because the Western masses have fathomed (from internal information and from their direct experience of deterioration) that their own system is rotten to the core. So I think the point should be made much clearer - indeed, I think "foreign meddling" is itself a public misinformation campaign, designed by those who benefit from corrupt domestic politics and want to deflect attention from the distrust-causing effect of it. (3/3) – Steve Jul 16 '23 at 07:50
  • 1
    Your claim that the US is meddling more than Russia is insufficiently supported. Your Wikipedia link compares US meddling from 1848 to 2023 with Russian meddling from 1991 to 2023. The book you cite is only describes meddling in elections, not more violent kinds of support (for instance, Assad would probably not be president of Syria without Russia's military aid). Moreover, this claims seem unrelated to the question being asked. – meriton Jul 16 '23 at 13:49
  • 1
    Your claim that Russia is "retaliating" is wholly unsupported. That would presume that the US government has meddled in Russia, for which you show no evidence at all. Even if Yeltsin sympathized with the west, and allowed "Western businessmen" to exert influence (both claims for which you offer no evidence), western businessmen are not the US government. – meriton Jul 16 '23 at 14:01