The Center for Political Information presented a report “External interference in the 2024 elections in Russia and possible consequences”

On Wednesday, the Center for Political Information (CPI) presented a report “External interference in the 2024 elections in Russia and possible consequences.” The key actor in this process, according to the authors of the study, is the United States and the ramified structures it has created, which also influence European politics. However, the threat needs to be dealt with measuredly and gradually, without resorting to blocking the information field and incessantly “tightening the screws,” experts are sure.

Against the backdrop of large-scale election campaigns in 2024 in Russia (presidential elections in March), Europe (European Parliament elections in June) and the United States (presidential elections in November), the topic of interference in elections has become global in nature, the scale of the phenomenon was immediately outlined by CPI General Director Alexey Mukhin. Nevertheless, the United States and the “collective West”, which it sponsors, have long abandoned “traffic rules on the streets of world politics” are showing the greatest activity in this issue, the expert pointed out: “But an experienced driver always knows that traffic rules, aka international law was invented by smart people. And those who abandoned them, as a rule, have one prospect ahead: either create an accident, which is an armed conflict, or meet a pole.”

It followed from the report that the main weapon of interference in elections is the notorious propaganda, while the interference itself is emphatically open in nature and is subject to Jesuitical logic – in order to “cover up” their own initiatives to interfere in Russian elections, Western actors blame Russia for this. “Influence structures” also act opposite to their stated goals: “centers for the prevention of Russian disinformation and propaganda” disseminate Western propaganda, “cybersecurity centers” look for vulnerabilities in Russian IT systems, and in parallel, expert communities conduct “pseudo-expert, pseudo-scientific” work in the interests of the intelligence services .

The American methods were analyzed in detail by Mr. Mukhin’s colleague at the Center for Research, Anastasia Gafarova. In addition to the “game in reverse”, led by the above-mentioned institutions, Washington uses “controlled leaks”, “pseudo-investigations” with references to “unnamed sources” (the same method began to be actively used in intra-elite disputes in the USA itself) and false interpretation (such as “double interpretation” “) of open data, the expert listed: “This is constant exhaustion, a form of psychological sabotage that undermines trust on the international track, and then on the part of citizens.”

“The United States has very clearly formulated what it means to undermine an election campaign,” guest political scientist Sergei Sudakov supported his colleague. “This is discrediting journalists and creating the image of “false media”: the technology is more than 60 years old.” The mantra familiar to Russians “I don’t watch TV and don’t listen to the radio” is a conscious result of the introduced trend of “unfashionability” of traditional media, the expert noted: “The next trend: all information should be obtained from certain third, trusted sources. Don’t want to listen to propaganda? We have unverified sources for you: there is truth there.” In the same vein, the concept “everything is decided for you”, used since the 90s, as well as introduced models of internal separatism, added Mr. Sudakov. At the same time, in his opinion, the European political space remains among the targets of Washington’s unfriendly influence.

However, the obvious “blocking of the information space” is not a way out of the situation, warned Anastasia Gafarova: “The way out is more careful information hygiene and careful attention to information processes.” True, against this background, the authorities still “have to determine the format and timing of the tightening of the political regime,” Aleksey Mukhin clarified: “It is already happening quite intensively, and is going in several directions.” It is important, however, that such measures “should be temporary” and “contribute to the achievement of certain goals”, upon achieving which “liberalization is necessary,” the expert concluded: “We should not be like our Western partners, who abandoned the law in favor of rules, and compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation must be systemic and existential.”

Political scientist Alexey Martynov also called for more caution in regard to rabid prohibitionism, saying that the “so-called jingoistic movement” in Russia enjoys “enormous attention from outside destructors”: “At one time, no one did as much for the desacralization and destruction of the Russian Empire as the so-called guards from the Black Hundred. This must be remembered and understood that most of these organizations are funded by the same people from the banks of the Thames and from the headquarters of the American intelligence services.” By the way, another “group of influence” is Russian relocants, Sergei Sudakov warned earlier: “As a rule, they are associated with IT technologies, and it is they who become conductors and indirectly criminals, engaging in financial transactions and involving Russians in their networks.”

Civil society can only rely on the wisdom of government agencies, admitted Alexey Mukhin, answering questions from journalists: “They should know when to tighten and when to loosen the screws.” Concerns about this remain, he admitted, but “practice shows that it is enough for civil society to concentrate and remind the state that sometimes the screws need to be loosened.” However, first of all, the “collective West” would still have to settle down, since its actions could lead to mutual non-recognition by international players of the legitimacy of each other’s elections, Mr. Mukhin concluded: “This will lead to irreversible consequences, and I really hope that colleagues will The West understands what kind of genie they can let out of the bottle.”

Grigory Leiba