Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Media: US warns 100 countries of Russian election interference threat
Russia is using information operations to discredit democratic elections worldwide, according to a U.S. intelligence report sent to around 100 countries on Oct. 20, several media outlets reported.
While Moscow's past strategy focused on backing specific candidates, their new methods seek to sow distrust toward the electoral process, portraying elections as dysfunctional and their results illegitimate, the document said.
"Russia is pursuing operations to degrade public confidence in the integrity of elections themselves," the U.S. said in a cable sent to embassies of around 100 countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and obtained by the Associated Press.
The Kremlin was reportedly encouraged by its past success in amplifying disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. 2020 presidential elections, where unsuccessful Republican candidate Donald Trump spread unfounded accusations of electoral fraud.
While Moscow's past strategy focused on backing specific candidates, their new methods seek to sow distrust toward the electoral process, portraying elections as dysfunctional and their results illegitimate, the document said.
"Russia is pursuing operations to degrade public confidence in the integrity of elections themselves," the U.S. said in a cable sent to embassies of around 100 countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and obtained by the Associated Press.
The Kremlin was reportedly encouraged by its past success in amplifying disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. 2020 presidential elections, where unsuccessful Republican candidate Donald Trump spread unfounded accusations of electoral fraud.
https://kyivindependent.com/media-us-warns-over-100-countries-of-russian-election-interference-threat/
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Turns out, countries have been at this for decades. 
The more Americans know about foreign interference, the more they'll tend to trust leaders of the US and EU.
There could be a cyberwar going on, but it's probably classified and dealt with through the FISA Court (whose rulings are also classified).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
According to Dov H. Levin's 2020 book Meddling in the Ballot Box: The Causes and Effects of Partisan Electoral Interventions, the United States intervened in the largest number of foreign elections between 1946 and 2000.[2][3]
A previous 2018 study by Levin found that foreign electoral interventions determined the identity of the winner in "many cases".[4] The study also found suggestive evidence that such interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.[4]
Among 938 "competitive national level executive elections" examined by Levin from 1946 to 2000,[a] the United States intervened in 81 foreign elections, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36 foreign elections. Combining these figures, the U.S. and Russia (including the Soviet Union) thus intervened in 117 of 938 competitive elections during this period—about one in nine—with the majority of those interventions (some 68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.[3]
Also "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 U.S. presidential elections occurring after 1960.[3][c]...
In a 2012 study, Corstange and Marinov theorized that there are two types of foreign intervention:[5] partisan intervention, where the foreign power takes a stance on its support for one side, and process intervention, where the foreign power seeks "to support the rules of democratic contestation, irrespective of who wins".
Their results from 1,703 participants found that partisan interventions had a polarizing effect on political and foreign relations views, with the side favored by the external power more likely to favor improvements in relations between the two, and having the converse effect for those opposed by the power....
A previous 2018 study by Levin found that foreign electoral interventions determined the identity of the winner in "many cases".[4] The study also found suggestive evidence that such interventions increased the risk of democratic breakdown in the targeted states.[4]
Among 938 "competitive national level executive elections" examined by Levin from 1946 to 2000,[a] the United States intervened in 81 foreign elections, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36 foreign elections. Combining these figures, the U.S. and Russia (including the Soviet Union) thus intervened in 117 of 938 competitive elections during this period—about one in nine—with the majority of those interventions (some 68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions.[3]
Also "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 U.S. presidential elections occurring after 1960.[3][c]...
In a 2012 study, Corstange and Marinov theorized that there are two types of foreign intervention:[5] partisan intervention, where the foreign power takes a stance on its support for one side, and process intervention, where the foreign power seeks "to support the rules of democratic contestation, irrespective of who wins".
Their results from 1,703 participants found that partisan interventions had a polarizing effect on political and foreign relations views, with the side favored by the external power more likely to favor improvements in relations between the two, and having the converse effect for those opposed by the power....