Real diplomacy is the beginning, but the US has to pay for Putin
Despite the fact that the red lines have been raised, it has been a very low cost for the Russian government to intervene in the previous US elections. State-sponsored Internet Research Agency, to give a figure, spent Only $ 46,000 in 2016 Election Day Facebook ads arrived 126 million Americans. General Budget circa September 2016, U.S. Department of Justice documents, was more than $ 1.25 million a month — and there wasn’t much the billionaire oligarchy and Putin’s hand trying to sow chaos in the U.S. election, especially in the hundreds of millions spent candidates. These tactics continue to have a long history as Russian security agencies and various frontline organizations use “active measures” to spark divisions to carry out covert activities under the threshold of armed conflict and to promote the goals of leaders. The internet has made the current version even cheaper to run.
Washington has received few responses. Many American diplomats, law enforcement officials, and intelligence officials publicly raised election intervention under the Trump administration, though for the most part Trump opposed and attacked it. USA has carried out a lot penalties Many talk about the Russian government — including the recent increases in the Bide administration argue at least communicate The Kremlin’s election intervention will get the US response. But the unhappiness of the signs is not that this activity is much more expensive or more difficult to perform.
U.S. technology platforms have not fundamentally changed their business models and website structures so that Russian “troll factories” do not spread misinformation (cheaply built). While these companies point to the money spent on the fight against operations, they are still struggling in many ways with their own systems designed for maximum engagement and microorientation. Let us remember, for example, how the Russian operatives are basically used Facebook’s ad function is in 2016 and 2018. And these actors are constantly moving targets, fits techniques that still carry out operations on platforms.
On the other hand, the gains have been excellent for Moscow: information campaigns spread without serious resistance, a wide media coverage of Russian election intervention in the US, and a narrative fuel for Putin’s image of the fort. Not to mention that the Kremlin already sees itself in its information conflict with the West. There is certainly propagandistic value in these types of comments — for example, they suggest that they are tools for overthrowing U.S. social media platforms — but they also reflect the Kremlin’s true belief in the United States and the global open internet. The Kremlin’s cost-benefit decisions are placed in that context.
Some things have improved; They could be American journalists less prone To cover materials that were selectively pirated and filtered by the Democratic National Commission in 2016, we know the ways we are now accustomed to. fabricate scandal. Biden has also pledged to engage in cybersecurity talks with members of Russia, an important part of contemporary diplomacy degraded by the Trump administration.
Going forward, limiting attacks or infrastructure that are considered “out of bounds” will be a key part of these lower-level cybersecurity conversations. Biden’s own travel and public statements against election intervention also underscore that the White House has given priority to US allies and partners in diplomacy – another benefit of the summit. Even if Putin’s calculation of election interference is actually going to change, the old U.S. responses are hardly enough.
WIRED feedback publishes articles from outside contributors who represent a wide range of perspectives. Read more reviews here, and see our shipping instructions here. Send to op-ed firstname.lastname@example.org.