Foreign intervention with the clear aim of causing political rift doesn’t care about party lines other than the fact that they can be used to manufacture outrage and division.
If Trump was a democratic candidate or if the Dems had a different loon in play while the republicans had someone say like McCain running then the same actors would have been working in the same manner just now in favor of a different party.
These actors will exploit any vulnerability and there is no hidden intention to benefit a single party other than to further their own goals.
During the Cold War the Soviets we’re finding both communist and neo-Nazi groups in west Germany at same time because for them the goal was always to cause as much chaos as possible.
In the US during Vietnam they were funding anti-war groups on campuses again simply because they were seeking to incite as much dissent as possible.
All interests are or at least can be easily compromised it’s just a matter of circumstance and timing.
Putin said in Helsinki that he favoured Trump and directed his officials to help Trump. This was not a non-partisan issue. They wanted Trump, and causing chaos was one of the features which likely attracted them to Trump.
Wait, what? Can I get a cite for that because I have heard a lot of claims about Helsinki but I have never heard that.
That does not make it a partisan issue however, Putin doesn't give two fucks if Trump was republican or democrat and attempting to make it look like a clear partisan issue is actually playing into their hands.
>No, it's not at all clear.
> The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate, while simultaneously attempting to radicalize his opposition.
Per a recent article by FiveThirtyEight.com [0] they labeled 719,087 tweets as "Right Troll" and 427,811 tweets as "Left Troll." When describing the two types they say
"Right Trolls behave like “bread-and-butter MAGA Americans, only all they do is talk about politics all day long,” Linvill said. Left Trolls often adopt the personae of Black Lives Matter activists, typically expressing support for Bernie Sanders and derision for Hillary Clinton, along with “clearly trying to divide the Democratic Party and lower voter turnout.”"
So on one hand, yes they clearly favored Trump. On the other hand, favoring Trump was the most divisive and destabilizing thing they could do.
> Or maybe they're just indiscriminately pouring gasoline into the fire.
I think that is a huge part of the strategy. Was there collusion as well? Probably but Putin is happy to watch the West burn.
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-mill...
Or are you trying to argue that evidence of possible Russian influence over one candidate, by its very existence, is evidence that they don't have influence over that candidate?
No. It's possible evidence - some of it is verifiable while other parts are simply allegations.
Can you prove that the part in the dossier about the hotel orgy was not a disinformation campaign used on western intelligence?
Is President Trump the type of dude that would be into golden showers?
This is your logic.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-t...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gav...
Politicizing the intelligence apparatus would be highly disturbing, even moreso than when the Obama administration apparently used the IRS to target political opponents [1] like the tea party.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
>links article where "Putins ally" is interviewed
What even is this?
During the actual campaigns this was never brought up with any seriousness. Only war related thing that was brought up was Clinton's eagerness to move troops into Syria which Putin said would lead into war between Russia and US.
That cowardly downvote without response... What else to expect from HN
However there are differences of opinion on the interests of the state, do you mean citizens or those that are controlling and manipulating the elected representatives? These latter folk are known as the 'deep state' although on HN the correct terminology is the 'military industrial complex'. Under normal circumstances the deep pockets of the 'deep state' back both sides of the house with contributions to both the liberal and conservative sides. No matter who gets in they have people in their pocket to further their interests and project their interests as the national interest.
The rest of the world determines who the outside enemy is supposed to be. A resurgent Russia is the current enemy, although first among many with China, axis of evil states Iran and North Korea also at the top of this very long list. In reality nobody wants to be an enemy, the enemy has to be imagined and incited into being the enemy.
With the last election no matter who won the interests of the deep state had put in the groundwork to be able to blame Russia for meddling in the result. The candidate and political party were immaterial, whatever the outcome there would be proof of Russian interference. Had the world situation been different then there would have been proof in this post truth age that China, Iran, North Korea, you name it had been meddling.
Domestically this works well as much squabbling goes on at a belief rather than a fact-based level as to whether or not the Russians did interfere. It all depends whom you get your news from. It is like a wedge strategy all over again.
The wedge strategy was used to get people talking about whether 'Creationism' should be taught in schools, meanwhile vast cuts to science funding were made and nobody talked about that because they had such strong opinions of freedom as applied to schools and 'Creationism'.
As far as I can tell, the main aim was (and still is) to sow division, and the ads targeted the liberal side more simply because their rhetoric was more aggressive. They went as far as organizing BLM and “resist” protests.
Facebook’s disclosure shows that they (whoever “they” are this time — FB was unable to pin this on anybody) are still doing the exact same thing and rallying the radical left, and racial/ethnic minorities.
Is the issue just that the organizers are ostensibly from another country/nation? Maybe the solution is for FB to regionize similar to the DVD industry? Posts in one region can only be seen in the same region?
No, it's not at all clear.
The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate, while simultaneously attempting to radicalize his opposition.
Maybe stirring up anti-fascist counter-protests actually helps the right wing by proving that they're fighting evil scary masked guys wearing black.
Maybe the adversaries understand very well the countermeasures Facebook has taken, knew these accounts would be discovered, and the discovery itself is intentionally part of their campaign.
Or maybe they're just indiscriminately pouring gasoline into the fire.
It's not at all clear that all interests are equally compromised.