Report on the five fakes

Report on the five fakes


Political analyst Vladimir Bruter — the fraud in the report of the U.S. intelligence community, who accused Russia of hacking attacks on American political institutions

Photo:МТРК the World

The U.S. intelligence report on the alleged hacking attacks on Russia’s political institutions in Washington based on five fakes.

All of them well-known inside the American intelligence community, and among American political analysts and experts.

By itself, this fact essentially nullifies the informative value of the report, turning it into another propaganda publication. And it is no coincidence the NSA, the largest US intelligence Agency actually did not agree with the adoption of the report, that “Putin and the Russian government obviously preferred the elected President Trump, if possible discrediting of Secretary of state Clinton and exposing her in an unfavorable light.” If “the CIA and the FBI are experiencing a high degree of confidence in this rating”, NSA — average, the report said.

So, what are the fakes that are built in this analytical document?

Fake first: Russia actively intervenes in the American media space.

In fact, Russia simply is not present in the media of the United States. The report’s figures on the increase of the audience of the Russia Today TV channel cannot be misleading because the rankings RT with all their growth is incomparably small compared to American channels. The effects of RT on the American electorate slightly under these conditions, to influence the course and results of elections are simply impossible, and the authors are well aware of this.

Fake two: Russia’s intervention influenced the outcome of the election.

In fact, the entire campaign had on the election outcome minimal impact. Both candidates gained votes, close to the expected. So, no special influence of external forces was not and could not be. Clinton lost not because of the “intrigues of the external enemy”, but because they have failed miserably a number of key States where the Democrats had not lost for more than 20 years: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. The reason for the defeat of Clinton in the Midwest in the so-called steel belt, lies not in the machinations of the Kremlin, and in a difficult economic situation in the region. It is here people live, more than any other unhappy with the dominance of globalization and virtual economy. They don’t watch RT, I do not read Russian Newspapers in the morning and not even know who Putin.

Fake third: in the US there is a Pro-Russian lobby, which influenced the outcome of the election. This is not so. Russia has no structures that could affect elections in the United States.

We have no lobbyists in the United States, there is no Pro-Russian NGOs, not agents of influence in American political and even expert elite. There is no single member of Congress that would consistently favour the changing nature of us-Russian relations. A reasonable question arises: “how and through whom the Russian influence?” Talking about online communities can only bring a smile.

Fake four: there is a connection between the Russian campaign and the number of votes cast for trump.

But there is no proven link between voting for trump and “Pro-Russian” sympathies there. In General, the Democrats are Russian even better than the Republicans. Moreover, according to sociological observations, to those voters who decided the outcome of the elections, relations with Russia has never been a priority. They are generally uninteresting to foreign policy, the main thing for them is performance and stability. To influence these people, Russia does not.

Fake fifth, the report’s authors deliberately mix of Russia’s intention to communicate its position to the Western community with some results of activities of Russian propaganda. It’s about the same what to argue, as the “voice of America” collapse of the USSR. Such statements are humiliating especially for those who make them.

Russian TV online, hackers are actually defeated Clinton? Don’t believe that neither the CIA nor the FBI. Why, then, all the time to talk about it with persistence worthy the best application?

The main causes three.

First, the outgoing administration would like so finally spoil relations with Russia, to Trump (Tillerson, Kissinger) it would be extremely difficult to establish them in the near future.

Second, the establishment wants to limit Trump freedom of action. In fact, it is constantly forced to admit that his victory is the handiwork of mythical and still the all-powerful KGB, and thereby de-legitimize itself even before the official inauguration.

And finally, in the third. In the performance of the CIA and the FBI it’s kind of “wit on the staircase” — an attempt to finely and failure to respond after the main battle is lost. Including the fault of the security services, who were quite aware of the fact that the previous “mistakes” Clinton in fact was making an invalid of her part in the elections. Take, for instance, passages that with the help of hackers was released information about Clinton that intelligence agencies were trying to hide. It remains to ask: “Why they tried to hide it, and how it is compatible with democratic elections in a democratic country?”

How should Russia react? The answer is very simple — no way. During the reign of the Democrats was completed. Ended ingloriously, and remember it doesn’t make sense anymore. This policy differs from history.

The main thing now is the future, and we hope that the new us administration will find the strength to wipe out those ridiculous and meaningless things that characterized the outgoing administration. Russia is ready to contribute, but will always remember about their interests and protect them.

Carefully, consistently and accurately.

The author is the expert of the International Institute of humanitarian-political studies

See also:

The Department of state explained the lack of evidence in the report on “hackers from Russia”

The head of the CIA said about warnings about cyber-attacks in the address of the FSB

Kosachev: the Commission for investigation of cyber attacks will not be independent

The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial Board