In Article 56 of the “Kazan Declaration”, published on October 23, 2024, Russia, together with BRICS representatives invited to the capital of Tatarstan, expressed its concern about the “exponential growth and proliferation of disinformation”, as like hate speech that encourages the radicalization of conflicts. But it is well known that Russia, in addition to interfering with the electoral processes of many neighboring countries - as it recently did in Georgia and Moldova – and distant ones – from the United States to the African Republic Central – engaged in targeted media propaganda. to improve its own international image and to undermine the foundations of regimes that are - or appear to be – hostile to it.
If we only take France as an example, the red hands painted on the “Wall of Justice” at the Shoah Memorial last May were quickly identified as a Russian destabilization operation. It was even thought that the Kremlin was behind the sabotage of the railway lines before the opening of the Olympic Games, before the Minister of the Interior was quick to explore a hypothesis that attributed it to the ultra-left. No one seems to be commenting on the Donbass terrorist who was arrested last June near Roissy airport while preparing a homemade explosive device. From a political point of view, the influence of the Kremlin was evident in the formal and financial support of the Rassemblement National campaigns: it is true that Marine Le Pen’s party benefited from millions of loans from the Russian Federation. a study by David Chavalarias of the CNRS confirmed what he suspected a lot: the excessive involvement of the media on the Palestinian issue, at least in the first months of Israel’s deadly response, was partly because of the Kremlin’s efforts to promote concern. -encourage content on X (previously Twitter), aimed at increasing emotions and dividing public opinion in France more than before.
For many months, therefore, the eyes of the political and journalistic world have been focused on the way Russia tried to influence the US presidential elections: above all because it has been established without a shadow of a doubt that cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns there. and propaganda operations tried, in 2020 as in 2016, to polarize the US electorate and question the integrity of the electoral process itself. However, we would be misled about how Russia views its political and geopolitical interests if we assumed, from the beginning, that it would use all resources at its disposal to favor the victory of Donald Trump.
Russia considered the 2024 elections to be a real headache. It is clear that the political ambitions of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump agree on several points: the weakening of democracy, the subjection of all political and administrative mechanisms to the will of an all-powerful president, the reign of traditional values and even the popularity of. migrants – especially if we consider the recent racial tightening of Russian migration policy, which succeeds in diverting flows from Central Asia towards Europe and other Asian countries. However, Vladimir Putin’s vision is more strategic than ideological. No one in the Kremlin has forgotten, as his spokesman Dmitry Peskov recalled, that the tightening of sanctions against Russia and the arming of Ukraine took place under the Trump administration. In addition, Kremlin experts and the Russian-speaking media are trying to understand the concrete content of Donald Trump’s possible plan to end the war in Ukraine. For this reason, they are particularly interested in the aspects of this program recently presented by Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State from 2018 to 2021, although they are in the form of hypotheses.
However, the analytical features available to us do not seem to indicate that Donald Trump, who has just won the American elections, is Russia’s clear ally on the international stage.
Published after the elections, the one-page official statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation makes a fairly clear analysis: if the victory of the republican candidate is still Vladimir Putin’s best option, he is over anything else thanks to it being a destabilizing factor in the entire political and social life
The interest of the President of Russia can be summed up in a simple formula: to maximize the predictability of international politics and the political uncertainty within the countries of the so-called “collective West”. To successfully carry out his policies, Vladimir Putin needs to “predict moves” that Ukraine’s supporters might consider or attempt. From this point of view, the European institutions adapt perfectly to the Kremlin, since they are seen as perfectly predictable actors. Furthermore, any confusion within the countries that oppose it, starting with the United States, will be in its favor. But after election night on November 5, one question remains: If Trump, now closely aligned with Musk, remains an unpredictable force, how much can Putin’s strategy of uncontrolled chaos stand up?
Official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on the American presidential elections
The victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential elections, which represents the return to the White House after a four-year absence, undoubtedly reflects the dissatisfaction of the American people, who ignore the results of the Joe Biden administration and the electoral program presented by the Democratic Party , who was promptly invested by Vice President Kamala Harris in place of the current head of state.
Despite the powerful propaganda machine released by the Democrats against Donald Trump, which mobilized all possible administrative resources for this purpose and benefited from the support of the liberal media, the candidate took Republican, strengthened by the experience of his first presidential term, with the bet. address the issues that really concern voters, such as the economy and illegal immigration, compared to the global orientations of the White House.
This victory is not enough to end the deep fracture in American civil society, where the electorate is, in fact, divided into two halves: Democratic states and Republican states; supporters of “progressivism” and defenders of traditional values. It is reasonable to imagine that Donald Trump’s return to power will only exacerbate the internal tension and hostility between the various sides.
However, we have no illusions about the newly elected President, who is well known in Russia, or about the new composition of the Congress, where the data available now show that the Republicans will have a majority. The ruling political elite of the United States, regardless of its affiliation with both parties in the race, harbors the same anti-Russian sentiments and unanimously supports the project of “containment” of Russia. This line is constant even when the internal political climate of the United States changes, whether it is promoting “America First” according to Donald Trump and his supporters, or defending a “rules-based world order”, truly the Democrats’ obsession.
Russia will cooperate with the new administration once it takes office in the White House, vigorously defending Russia’s national interests and continuing to pursue the objectives set forth in the special military operation.
Our conditions have not changed and are well known in Washington.
Time.news Interview: The Dynamics of Disinformation in Modern Politics
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Elena Grigoryeva, an expert on international relations and disinformation campaigns. Thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Grigoryeva: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. The recent Kazan Declaration highlighted Russia’s concerns about the “exponential growth and proliferation of disinformation.” Yet, it’s quite well-documented that Russia has been implicated in various disinformation campaigns globally. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints?
Dr. Grigoryeva: That’s a crucial question. Russia’s public position often emphasizes the dangers of disinformation, portraying itself as a victim of Western media narratives. However, this stance contrasts sharply with its actions, such as interference in electoral processes and targeted propaganda to enhance its geopolitical image. It’s a clear case of double standards.
Editor: In the context of elections, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, what strategies has Russia employed to influence public opinion?
Dr. Grigoryeva: Russia has sought to polarize electorates through cyber-attacks, the spread of misinformation, and manipulation of social media. For example, during the U.S. elections, it strategically amplified divisive content. In France, we saw allegations connecting the recent graffiti at a memorial site to Russian destabilization efforts. These tactics are designed to exploit societal fractures, pushing narratives that foster distrust and chaos.
Editor: It seems that disinformation serves a dual purpose: altering public perception and destabilizing political landscapes. How does this fit into Putin’s broader strategic goals?
Dr. Grigoryeva: Putin’s strategy is not merely ideological; it’s fundamentally about predictability and control in international relations. By fostering chaos, especially in “collective West” countries, he aims to weaken democratic structures and create openings for Russian influence. In the current climate of political uncertainty, this chaos becomes a tool to further his agenda, such as in the context of the Ukraine war.
Editor: Speaking of Ukraine, as you mentioned, Putin appears to consider Trump’s potential return to office both an opportunity and a risk. Why is that?
Dr. Grigoryeva: Trump represents a destabilizing factor within U.S. politics. While Putin may prefer a Trump presidency due to their aligned views on certain issues, Trump’s unpredictability poses challenges for the Kremlin. The balance of risk involved means they are closely watching the developments in American politics, especially Trump’s policies related to Ukraine and sanctions.
Editor: The recent analyses suggest that Russia’s best option may also create significant unpredictability in U.S. foreign policy. How should Western nations respond to this situation?
Dr. Grigoryeva: Western nations must prioritize resilience against disinformation while reinforcing democratic integrity. This involves clearer communication strategies, robust fact-checking mechanisms, and fostering media literacy among citizens. Additionally, consistent international cooperation to counter hybrid threats from Russia is critical for establishing a unified front against misinformation.
Editor: in your view, what future challenges do you foresee in the realm of disinformation and international relations?
Dr. Grigoryeva: One of the most significant challenges will be the ongoing evolution of technology and cyber capabilities. As new platforms emerge, so will the tactics used by state and non-state actors to spread disinformation. Moreover, the interplay between domestic politics and international relations will complicate responses. Countries will need to navigate this landscape carefully to maintain trust in democratic processes and protect their sovereignty.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Grigoryeva, for sharing your insights on such a pressing topic. It’s clear that navigating the landscape of disinformation requires both vigilance and proactive measures.
Dr. Grigoryeva: Thank you for having me. It’s an ongoing conversation that needs to be at the forefront as we tackle these complexities together.
