The ODNI report on foreign threats to the 2020 elections shows a serious, ongoing threat to US national security that we really aren’t talking about: the American proxies & dupes doing the Kremlin’s dirty work against America
The report covers technical interference, Russia, Iran, China, and other actors.
It also corrects (without saying so) some misrepresentations of US intelligence findings issued before the election, which attempted to play up Chinese initiatives and downplay Russian activities /2
Key takeaways—
1) Trump’s denial of 2016 Russian elex interference & refusal to act helped normalize the use of election interference by a broader range of actors who perceive there are few real costs. This is now just another tool in the toolkit. Bad news. /3
2) Russian efforts remain more expansive, daring, integrated, and better-resourced than other foreign campaigns. Russian activities in 2020 were more aggressive than previously disclosed by intelligence reports, but also far more overt. /4
3) Moscow is increasingly relying on proxies & dupes to do its heavy lifting — and finding far too many of both in the United States. This network of actors is highly integrated and self-amplifying, and has significant reach into key audiences in the United States. /5
4) The clarity of the report — which avoids naming US persons but we know — should make us question why there has been so little cost to elected Republicans, Trump appointees, R operatives, & media personalities who are identified as working with or as proxies of Russian intel /6
5) It isn’t really good news that China thinks its existing influence campaigns in the US are sufficient enough not to warrant higher-risk behaviors like election interference. We need to focus on the resources China is pouring into influence, intel gathering, & recruitment /7
6) There must be clear costs for any foreign threats to US elections. A lot of actors are trying to get in on this game, but it actually requires significant state resources and focus to make it successful — so far. This must be a target for deterrence. /8
Additional analysis of the details of the report is in the piece — but what do we do about it? Read on /9
First, we must be aggressive & creative in defining costs for election interference and malign influence campaigns, and ensure those issues are always on the agenda when engaging foreign powers who are using them to target Americans. /10
In a recent interview, President Biden said that Putin will pay a price for this interference. It needs to be visible if it is going to discourage other from emulating these tactics. /11
Second, high-level strategic national security and foreign policy concepts need to be supplemented by essential personnel ASAP. To many foreign-facing posts are unmanned. /12
The Biden administration should closely coordinate messaging and responses to foreign interference and malign influence efforts so they are consistent throughout all US engagements, whether it be Russia or Iran or China or “patriotic hackers” /13
Third, foreign influence operations, particularly those by Russia & China, should be better mapped and assessed consistently by US intelligence with a whole-of-government collaborative effort, not only focusing on elections but other strategic objectives. /14
The more communication there is about these efforts to the public, especially regarding tactics and objectives, the better off we will be.
Within government, assessments should be clear about how these efforts seek to shape US policy decision-making. /15
Finally, we must consider what to do about the Kremlin shills & ghouls — particularly those with security clearances who maintain elected office and committee assignments where they can influence lawmaking and tie up legislative process /16
There are now a series of politicians who have built their domestic influence around their foreign collaborations.
And this is deeply troubling. /17
The same is true of those in the public domain. Media outlets & personalities running Kremlin narrative. Political operatives/strategists who connect all the pieces and field the campaign. The people meeting directly with Russian operatives like it was all no big deal. /18
We have seen the cost.
We need a whole-of-society resilience-building effort to limit the ability of foreign influence campaigns to pull us awry.
This must be a top priority for the new administration. /19
New FBI bulletin from warns of increased use of synthetic media in influence operations, specifically mentioning use of these tools for “social engineering”
Cc “it’s just Facebook ads” and “but it doesn’t do anything” people
Recommendations on what you can do about it are all over the place — jumble of security tips and “media literacy” recs
“Train users to report social engineering attempts” — sure, ok, easy-peasy /2
I remain 🙄 of solutions that pass along responsibility for state-led attacks to individual citizens. But I am encouraged to see greater engagement from the government & timely warnings like this that add authority and credibility to attempts to explain what has been happening /3
An interesting point from the Bill Burns/CIA confirmation hearing today.
Sen. Blumenthal raised the issue of US Intel agencies going around legal restrictions/court approval to buy the private data of Americans from data brokers — which he labelled sleazy operators (true) /1
Raises an interesting point tho about the “OSINT” stuff which often relies on such purchased/illicit but online anyway data
“private” researchers can leverage information in ways Intel agencies can’t—in ways they are often criticized for (“how can they not know, it’s online”) /2
This same data also underpins all political campaigns.
Why should goons like Parscale get to use this against Americans? /3
Republican commentator on PBS makes point that by same standard presented by House managers, you could argue many Republican senators also incited violence and anti-constitutional sentiments — but like, yes, that’s the point.
Now she is arguing Trump tweeted a lot, so a hundred or so tweet inciting violence isn’t really a lot in the total volume, and just 😂
Republican commentator on PBS continues: are we getting to the point where everyone is going to be held accountable for what they say? I hope not.
So far the opening statement by Trump’s defense team is “emotion means the law shouldn’t apply” and “Senators are different than people” and also let’s not forget “and I guess we include women too now — sign of the times”
Not sure where this debate club catastrophe is going
“Why is it that we say MY senator?”
Umm actually it’s because English and federalism?
Stunning insights by Bobby genius
“And I guess not all senators agree with each other all the time”
Wut
“And uhhh FEDERALIST PAPERS MADISON HAMILTON because clearly I am losing the audience — should I rap it for you?”
My George Shultz story: he once have me an A+ on a project for making him laugh.
He team-taught an amazing class at Stanford — negotiations? Arms control? Not actually sure what class actually was — with three other big-name “formers” (which is why you took the class) /1
The first assignment was a team project — you were assigned a country and had to present your case on some arms control issue.
Of course my team got Russia.
So we worked out the whole presentation on nuclear whatever and I’m sure it was fine. /2
But when we presented it in class, we staged it so one very serious member of our team read the presentation in English (as the interpreter), while I was the “Russian” diplomat actually presenting. /3