Over the weekend LifeZette spoke to a Russian-born expert who has a surprising but logical theory about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general election. If he is right, then almost all existing theories and ideas, most of them promulgated by Democrats, are wrong. Yuri Vanetik is an American attorney with many years of experience in working in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia. His extensive experience on Russia has led him to this view: the Russians did interfere in the 2016 American presidential election. But they did so to promote the election of Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Vanetik opines, “It is known that Russian intelligence apparatus has always been working to influence foreign elections. Cheka (the first Soviet internal police), GRU (Soviet military intel), KGB, and now the successor to the KGB, the FSB, are known for being experts in analytics, decision modeling of human behavior, and psychology. To this end, it would make sense that the Russians, if they did interfere beyond the routine influence peddling and information gathering that most countries conduct as their routine modus operandi, would have targeted the likely left-wing winner, Hillary Clinton, for support rather than the underdog, savvy American tycoon and promoter of a robust U.S. defense and foreign policy, Donald Trump.”
It makes sense. The Russians would have preferred someone with a hard-left background: Hillary. When she was Obama’s secretary of state she wanted a “reset” on U.S.-Russian relations, much to the favor of the Russians. Her boss, Barack Obama, was famously captured on a hot mike privately telling the Russian prime minister that he could be “flexible” after he was reelected. And the Clinton Foundation has done millions of dollars worth of business with pro-Russian groups. That leaves Hillary open to compromise if the unsavory details of those deals were ever exposed.
Donald Trump was known to be hardline on defense matters, promising in his campaign to restore the U.S. military. This would not have been to Russian advantage on the global stage. His business acumen would drive hard bargains with the Russians on trade deals and his general demeanor was of a man not to be pushed around by a mob-run banana republic with a medium-grade nuclear capability. The Russians would work to elect him?
Vanetik expounded on his ideas: “It is apparent that the Russians exerted certain efforts to influence U.S. elections in 2016. This empirical finding leads to two fundamental questions: were those efforts typical of what a country’s intelligence apparatus would engage in generally as part of its ongoing operations? Wouldn’t Russian interference be more likely focused on helping Clinton get elected? She is easier to understand and is more predictable. She has a history of behavior as an activist First Lady, a Senator, and Secretary of State. Her team is easier to analyze and for that reason easier to compromise. On the other hand, Trump was least likely to win and was considered unpredictable as a politician, and even as a businessman. His strong views on American national security, views dating back to Oprah interviews some 30 years ago, were not the kind of policies that would benefit Russian foreign policy.”
Russian Intelligence likely predicted Trump’s strong yet shrewd stand for the U.S. all over the world. Why in the world would they support a candidate like that? They would want a pliant left-winger, like Hillary.
Vanetik makes his case, saying, “In my opinion the specter of Russian interference was heavily weaponized by leftist political fringe groups, and with the help of media and online platforms brought into the mainstream. This partisan hysteria led to a Red Scare where everyone was suspected of being a Russian spy or at least an operative working for a complicit president-elect. The Russians did what they most likely do during any elections in the world: infiltrate, and gather information and attempt to influence. We do this as well. It is more likely that the Russians were helping Hillary Clinton get elected and the Left extreme groups who supported her seized upon any contact with the Russians to help her campaign.”
As such, either as a massive mistake or very intentionally to hide their own guilt, the Democrats may have turned the story around for their own benefit and the press aided them in this disinformation. All very possible, if not probable.