Anti-Russian hysteria, which flared up in the US on the basis of suspicions of Russia's interference in the elections, is unreasonable, Consortiumnews believes. Persuasive evidence of American intelligence could not be imagined. The anti-Russian sentiments only play into the hands of the warmongers pushing the US to a new conflict with Russia, and prevent the democrats from finding the true reasons for their defeat at the election of the 2016.
Many opponents of Trump see in the scandal surrounding the alleged intervention of Russia in the process of presidential elections in the US the way to deprive the Republican of his position. Such political opportunism, however, fuels dangerous anti-Russian hysteria and prevents democrats from understanding the causes of the defeat, American journalist Rick Sterling writes for Consortiumnews.
Are charges based on Moscow based on facts based? Do they serve the triumph of peace and justice? Sterling lists the main problems of anti-Russian hysteria, which took place in American politics and in the pages of local newspapers.
1. The evidence provided by CrowdStrike is not convincing.
Statements about the abduction and promulgation by Russia of electronic communications of members of the National Committee of the Democratic Party of the United States are based on a study by a private computer company CrowdStrike. The National Committee of Democrats did not allow the FBI to investigate its computers, and instead attracted to the investigation a private organization that allegedly found in the system records in Cyrillic.
At the same time, it is known that CrowdStrike is politically biased. The company has relations with the Clintons, and in the past, the organization's representatives have already made false accusations.
2. Steele's file seems far-fetched.
Assumptions of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin's personal involvement in the presidential race originate in the 35-page file of former MI6 employee Christopher Steel.
No supporting evidence of Steel's claim was ever found; The data of the report were not checked. In the report itself, in fact, it is indicated that a source in the Kremlin reported this and that. It is also known that Christopher Steele himself had no direct contacts with Russian politicians. The information he provided is based on reports from Russians and Britons, who in turn received data from sources in the Kremlin.
During the summer and autumn of the 2016 media, politicians and intelligence officials were skeptical about the report. However, on the eve of the election, excerpts from the dossier became available to the general public, and before the inauguration the report was made public. So there were sensational reports about how Trump spent time at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow hotel.
3. The findings of several (not 17) US intelligence agencies are not supported by evidence and are biased.
6 January, the Office of the Director of the US National Intelligence unveiled an 14-page document entitled "Analysis of Russia's actions and intentions during the recent US elections". The authors of the report claimed that President Putin ordered the launch of a campaign in cyberspace in order to influence the outcome of the vote.
There is no conclusive evidence in the report. The authors of the report themselves admit that the document is based on incomplete and fragmentary information.
Moreover, in the past, American intelligence has already been mistaken (a classic example is the assumption that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction), and intelligence officers have repeatedly lied under oath.
Also, to no general conclusion about the Russian intervention, US intelligence agencies did not come. In October last year, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper discussed the likelihood of interference from Russia with representatives of US intelligence. Local media decided that Clapper communicated with representatives of all 17 departments, although in fact only three agencies gave their conclusion: the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.
Finally, given Trump's doubts about the accuracy of the reconnaissance findings, which the US president has repeatedly expressed publicly, there is reason to believe that the intelligence officers are biased towards the Republican.
4. Evidence that disproves US intelligence findings seems more convincing.
Members of the Association of Intelligence Veterans for Common Sense, which includes the former technical director of the NSA William Binney, found that the correspondence of democrats became available to the public not as a result of hacking, but because of a leak. One of the members of the National Committee of Democrats downloaded the files to a USB drive and then unveiled them.
Moreover, WikiLeaks claims that no files from Russia were received.
Russia was also accused of interfering in the course of elections in Europe. The results of the investigation, however, suggest the opposite. Neither in Germany, nor in France, nor in the UK, no evidence on the intervention of Russia was found.
5. The alleged crimes have greatly inflated.
Disclosure of the correspondence of democrats and electronic messages Podestas in the US were dubbed "an attempt on American democracy" and "an act of war." The Washington Post called it "the crime of the century".
Even if Russia really broke into the mail of the Democrats and the head of the Clinton electoral headquarters of John Podesta, the published information was reliable. The publication of this correspondence was not at all part of the campaign to spread disinformation. To call the disclosure of true and meaningful information "an act of war" is simply ridiculous.
6. Anti-Russian hysteria prevents the creation of an effective opposition to Trump in domestic politics.
Anti-Russian hysteria distracts attention from the need to prevent the implementation of a number of initiatives by Donald Trump. This concerns the reduction of network neutrality, the growth of military spending, the reduction of environmental protection costs, plans to reduce the provision of medical services to low-income citizens, and to reduce taxes for the rich, limiting the financing of educational programs.
7. The leakage from the Democrats and the Podestas is a good event, not a bad one, as is commonly believed.
The leakage of electronic messages from the Democrats shed light on the violation by members of the party of the principle of neutrality and impartiality, which they had to adhere to during the election of a candidate from the Democrats. In fact, the party leadership tried to push Hillary Clinton. So if someone and "encroached on democracy," then this leadership made the Democratic Party of the United States.
8. In the criticism that Hillary Clinton exposed in social networks, there is also nothing wrong.
US intelligence officials and the American press - even despite the lack of convincing evidence - blamed Russia for "undermining confidence in the democratic process in the US," in particular at the expense of denigrating Clinton, which diminished her chances of winning. In an intelligence report from 6 January, Russia is accused of publishing a large number of reports on Twitter and Facebook, containing criticism of a Democratic candidate.
However, Clinton's condemnation in social networks was quite predictable: the politician had long been a target for criticism from both right and left. She is very disliked by progressives for a variety of reasons, including because of the belligerent nature of her foreign policy. Thus, a large number of critical remarks about Clinton on the Internet are not at all surprising. Donald Trump was also criticized by many Internet users.
9. Anti-Russian hysteria distracts from the search for the true reasons for the defeat of the Democrats.
Instead of objectively considering the reasons for the failure in the elections, the Democrats made enormous efforts to spread the version about Russia's interference and Trump's conspiracy with the Kremlin. If Democrats want to regain their former popularity and succeed in the congressional elections in 2018 and in the presidential elections in 2020, they should analyze the mistakes and take the path of reforms.
10. The anti-Russian hysteria played into the hands of the warmongers.
Grasping for the scandal around Russia, Democrats and liberals play into the hands of neoconservatives and representatives of the military-industrial complex who are calling for a new war in the Middle East and the revival of a costly cold war with Russia. The explosive area in this regard is Syria, where the government and its allies are slowly but surely defeating tens of thousands of extremists financed from abroad.
In response, the US and its partners strengthened the military presence in the country. They are actively fighting for control of the territories in order to impede the advance of government troops and to ward off the victory of the Syrian government. The more active participation of America in the conflict can also provoke a clash between Moscow and Washington. The latter operates in Syria in violation of international law, while Moscow renders support to the government recognized by the world community.