In February 2018, a report published by the U.S. Department of Justice and former FBI Director Robert S. Muller accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Today, the scenario is repeating itself. A federal indictment charges Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afnasyeva, employees of RT, a Russian website, with spending $10 million to influence American public opinion, including by blaming Ukraine for the war with Russia. Thomas Huchon, a journalist specializing in disinformation, warns us about the threat of this interference.
An FBI statement released on Wednesday, September 4, announced that the goal of this propaganda campaign is to promote Donald Trump’s candidacy. Is this Russia’s agenda?
So for that, to know Russia’s agenda, we must observe the statements of Russian leaders. For example, Dmitry Medvedev said that it was Russia’s role to support parties and politicians favorable to Russian interests all over the world..
This is a clear enough statement to show us that Russia has decided to play the role of a destabilizer in Western democracies, and that this role is not neutral. They will destabilize people who are opposed to them, or support those who are favorable to them.
From Brexit to the election of Trump, Russia’s invisible but present hand is everywhere.
Their agenda is to defend the interests of Russia and we all understand that Trump is more favorable to Russia than his Democratic opponent.
All these destabilization campaigns are taking place digitally and it is difficult to trace back to the person who gave the orders, but we know that Russia has decided to play this game, and they have at their disposal their knowledge as secret destabilizing agents and at the same time they find an echo in the countries in which they seek to act.
It seems that Russia has changed its interference technique. How did they go about interfering in the campaign this time?
If we take the case of the 2016 elections, the troll farm was creating narratives, broadcast via Facebook in the hope that these lies would be taken up in American debates. We have seen a change, they are no longer going to create narratives, they are going to observe society, the points of cleavage and play the game of astroturfing to give scope to the divisive subject.
For example, in France, for the angry farmers’ movement, the new hashtag was chosen and pushed by the Russians. The hashtag was flooded with posts, but in reality many of them were not from farmers, but from Russian accounts.
So lately, their working method has evolved a bit. Instead of fabricating lies, they observe divisive subjects and press where it hurts. And there, beyond the digital forces, we find ourselves with real people who will be interested in the subjects and make the buzz grow.
Do you think that the sanctions imposed by the United States will be effective in combating interference?
It’s a bit of a cat and mouse game. These sanctions will not solve the problem, but will make the task of destabilization more complicated to carry out in the next few hours and days. If you can’t reach your opponent’s entirety, you have to find other ways to hit him and limit his ability to act. So inevitably, it changes something, but it would be too optimistic compared to the reality of the threat.
This Thursday, September 5, during an economic forum in Vladivostok, President Vladimir Putin affirmed his support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. What is Putin’s strategy behind this statement?
I’m not sure we should give any credence to what Putin says. I don’t buy that story. They are particularly adept at disrupting order. And in fact, it’s not a good argument for Kamala Harris voters to think that she supports Putin.
Western democracies must understand that Russia is carrying out a massive destabilization operation. We must behave aggressively towards what is being proposed to us.
Do you think that Russian influence can really change the course of the elections? How can we really measure the impact of interference and draw a conclusion?
Trump won the 2016 election thanks to Cambridge Analytica. It’s always the same thing and the problem is that we will never be able to know the person giving the order and the impact of all this. The question is not how to measure influence, but rather whether we can really deny the impact of influence? Studies show that exposure to one big lie causes us to tell other lies. seem more credible. And this is one of the strategies used by the Kremlin. The idea is not always to make us believe in something but rather to disgust us from believing in something thing. And then the invisible side of the consequences of this influence is a form of total rejection of informations.
In your opinion, knowing that the sanctions taken by the United States yesterday will not solve the problem in depth, how can we fight against disinformation?
In my opinion, we need to change not the battle but the battlefield. Social networks do not control the content they disseminate. Social networks must be considered as media. The real problem is more X and Facebook than the Russian armies of Russian trolls. If these networks did not exist, there would be no interference. These networks must therefore live up to the immense powers they have. With great power comes great responsibility.
What we notice, particularly in France, is that it is not politicians who change things in this regard, but justice, and that is perhaps the key to these problems.
In reality, politicians do not protect us much from GAFA.
For example, I see that justice is doing more to protect us from Telegram than Mr. Macron.
Interview by Juliette Durand
