The United States has the right to interfere in elections in other countries, because they are fighting for democracy, and Russia does not have this right because it carries evil. The American press and politicians fighting with Trump say this with almost pride, not noticing all the absurdity of what is happening. For what purpose?
Russia intervened in the American elections, although the candidate she helped did not know about this, and her interference did not affect the outcome of the vote. Such conclusions were reached by American special prosecutor Robert Muller, who charged three companies and 13 citizens of Russia. This became known on Friday, when the website of the US Department of Justice published an indictment against Russian citizens led by the US-sanctioned Yevgeny Prigozhin. Most of the accused, according to the Americans, work for his "Internet Research Agency".
Russians are accused of conspiracy to deceive the US, some of them are conspiring to commit fraud and identity theft with aggravating circumstances: "They participated in operations that were primarily designed to publish derogatory information about Hillary Clinton to blacken other candidates, such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, to support Bernie Sanders and then-then-candidate Donald Trump."
According to the act, the defendants were engaged in organizing and coordinating protests in the US since June of the year 2016, pretending to be American activists, creating fake accounts in social networks, through which protests were promoted: "The accused and their accomplices also posed as Americans for contacting the numerous primary groups supporting the then Trump candidate in an informal manner."
We will not disassemble this indictment. For the sake of simplicity, let's admit even that Muller's suspicions are true and the people of Prigogine did what they are accused of. But still a simple question arises: could the St. Petersburg Internet trolley agency influence the elections in the US?
With a penny-worth of advertising in social networks, several rallies and strange states chosen for agitation (for example, those in which Trump already had a big advantage)? No - and to this conclusion comes and the prosecutor Muller. But this is no longer important, say opponents Trump - most importantly, found evidence of the very fact of Russia's interference in the elections. And if so, the virginity of the American electoral system is violated and the elections are illegitimate.
Absurd? Yes, but not the top of the absurd - there are even more "outstanding" conclusions on the topic of "Russian intervention". For example, this:
Russian intervention is fundamentally different from the American one. What Americans can do is not Russian. This is directly stated in the New York Times article: because Russians are evil, and Americans are good.
And they talk about it as veterans of special services, and experts without a shadow of a smile:
"American veterans of democracy promotion consider Putin's hints that their work is comparable to what the Russian government is accused of in the US today. "It's like comparing a person who brings a saving medicine to someone who brings a deadly poison," said Kenneth Wallack, president of the National Democratic Institute ...
Stephen Hall, who worked in the CIA for 30 years and retired in 2015:
"If you ask an intelligence officer whether the Russian rules have been violated or have done something incredible, the answer is no, not at all." According to him, the US conducted similar operations to influence elections. "And I hope we continue to do it."
The intelligence expert Loka Johnson says that the Russian operation 2016 of the year was only a relevant cyber-epic version of the standard American practice:
"We have been dealing with such things since the CIA was founded in 1947. We used posters, pamphlets, mailing lists, banners - yes, anything. We spread false information in foreign newspapers. We used what the British call the "cavalry of King George" - suitcases with money. "
According to Hall and Johnson, Russian and American operations to interfere in the elections were not morally equivalent. "It's like saying that cops and bad guys are the same thing, because they have trunks. Motivation is important, "Stephen Hall said."
Once again - this is not a humorous article, but a serious text by Scott Shein in the New York Times titled "Not only does Russia interfere in the elections. We also do it. " In it, among other things, are the assessments of the researcher at the University of Carnegie - Mellon Dov Levin. He calculated that with 1946 for 2000 year, the US conducted 81 operation to intervene in the elections, and the Soviet Union or Russia - 36. Although the data on Russia are incomplete, it is carefully noted in the article, but examples of US intervention are given:
"Bags with cash delivered to the Roman hotel for the right Italian candidates. Scandalous stories merged with foreign newspapers to influence the elections in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers were printed to defeat the incumbent leader of Serbia. The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, these are just a few examples from the long history of American interference in elections abroad. "
The article mentions that "at least once the hand of the United States bravely reached out to elections in Russia" - Washington's influence on the elections of 1996 is recognized through the allocation of an IMF loan and the dispatch of political technologists. Moreover, it is noted that such an intervention in recent years increasingly comes not through the CIA, "over time, operations have become more frequent in the open by the State Department." It is also said that
"In recent decades, the US presence in foreign policy has been most noticeable in such taxpayer-sponsored groups as the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. They do not support candidates, but they teach the basic skills of campaigning, create democratic institutions and train observers in elections. "
Is this also an intervention? Well, you - "the majority of Americans consider such efforts harmless and in fact charitable." That's just the trouble, "Putin considers them as hostile," says the reference to the grants for Navalny from the National Endowment for Democracy.
In the New York Times the most amazing thing is with what conviction is told that what is permitted to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull. And this "holy simplicity" is not aimed at the outside world, but at internal consumption. Its goal -
convince the Americans that "we are not like the Russians, we are good, because we bear the light and freedom."
Since the 1970-ies, when a serious investigation of the CIA's actions began, the Americans know how varied the options for their own country's interference in other people's affairs. Not always - albeit more often than not - it took the form of political assassinations, military coups or direct interventions. Sometimes American intelligence services acted more elegantly - bribery, illegal financing, blackmail, disinformation and "black PR". Examples of such interference are tens and hundreds.
To prevent the Communists from coming to power in post-war Italy, the Americans banally financed the opponents of the Italian Communist Party. "We had bags of money that we gave to certain politicians to pay their expenses," as one of the CIA officers admitted decades later.
And in Nicaragua, the United States spent ten years financing and supplying weapons of anti-government rebels - and after the conclusion of the peace they helped by throwing dirt on alleged total corruption in the government of Daniel Ortega. And he lost the election. And ten years later, the States funded the campaign against Slobodan Milosevic - and all this is now recognized without a twinge of conscience.
Because "we can"? Of course - but why boldly remind about this in relation to the "Russian trail"? And that Americans could more clearly imagine the scale of "Russian atrocities." See what we have been doing and doing in the world - so, the Russians are doing the same thing, only worse. Also
"We bear freedom, and they are tyranny," do not compare the surgeon and the bandit, although both have a knife in their hand.
Here is a propaganda for their own - a simple, rough, poster. But, as history itself showed with the election of Trump, it is far from as effective as before.
"If this was Russia's goal - to create schism, disagreements and chaos in the US, then, with all these hearings on committees, investigations and hate between parties, they have succeeded beyond their boldest expectations. They are there bursting with laughter in Moscow. More intelligent, America! " - so Trump reacted to the publication of the indictment of Mueller.
Here the US president is not right - they do not laugh at Russia, but simply sympathize with the insanity into which those who think of themselves as Jupiter drive in America.