HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019275.jpg

Freedom House Chapter 6 Flacks and Friends Did the Russian government attempt to surrepti- tiously influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump's favor? The answer to that question may never be definitively known. There is, neverthe- less, a critical mass of evidence that Kremlin-allied forces were responsible for hacking into the Dem- ocratic National Committee's computers, stealing millions of files, and turning the information over to WikiLeaks, which in turn circulated it to the media. Some may find the evidence unsatisfactory. But given Russia's well-established record of cyberwarfare, previously directed at neighboring states like Estonia and Ukraine, and the Russian regime's dislike for the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, there is ample reason to treat charges of Russian culpability as strongly credible. Another body of evidence can be found in Russia's record of involvement in the internal politics of a number of countries in Europe, including European Union (EU) member states. In fact, under Vladimir Putin, Russia has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of European states in ways that the Kremlin would regard as intolerable if Russia were the target. Russian involvement is usually camouflaged so as to ensure a degree of deniability, but the disguise is sometimes rather thin. In late 2014, France's far-right National Front party, led by Marine Le Pen, secured a €9 million loan from a Russian bank with indirect ties to the government in what many interpreted as a bet by Putin on the future of French politics. Le Pen has subsequently spoken favorably of Putin and criticized the sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU.' She has even called for a strategic alliance with Russia and proposed a pan-European grouping that would include Russia while leaving out the United States. By 2016, the National Front was seeking more funding that would enable it to participate on an equal footing with main- stream parties in the 2017 presidential contest. The 2014 loan came just months after the National Front helped provide a veneer of legitimacy to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. Aymeric Chauprade, a Le Pen adviser who once called Russia “the hope of the world against new totalitarianism,” participated in an observer mission to monitor the Crimean referendum on secession from Ukraine and union with Russia. The “As an operator, but not as a human being, | would say Putin. The way he played the whole Syria thing. Bril- liant.” —Nigel Farage, on the world leader he most admires “| admire his cool head. Because there is a cold war being waged against him by the EU at the behest of the United States... | admire that he has managed to restore pride and contentment to a great nation that had been humiliated and persecuted for 70 years.” —Marine Le Pen “[Putin] makes a decision and he exe- cutes it, quickly. And then everybody reacts. That's what you call a leader.” —Rudy Giuliani mission was arranged by a pro-Moscow organization called the Eurasian Observatory for Elections and Democracy, and consisted largely of politicians from a variety of European far-right parties, including Hun- gary’s Jobbik and Austria’s Freedom Party. The vote, held under Russian military occupation, was widely re- garded as falling well short of international standards. However, the Eurasian Observatory delegation gave the referendum an enthusiastic thumbs-up.’ oscow has paid considerable attention to evolving political developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Despite their relatively recent histories of Soviet subjugation and communist rule, a number of these countries have seen the rise of populist or nationalist parties that express admiration for or affinity with Putin's regime. Meanwhile, mainstream parties have developed attitudes toward Russia that are notable for their ambivalence, including on the pivotal issue of the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine. www.freedomhouse.org A HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019275