Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew
up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - documents
Send a link to a friend
[April 20, 2017]
By Ned Parker, Jonathan Landay and John Walcott
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Russian government
think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the
2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’
faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former
U.S. officials told Reuters.
They described two confidential documents from the think tank as
providing the framework and rationale for what U.S. intelligence
agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere
with the Nov. 8 election. U.S. intelligence officials acquired the
documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for
Strategic Studies [https://en.riss.ru/], after the election.
The institute is run by retired senior Russian foreign intelligence
officials appointed by Putin’s office.
The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last
June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but
was not addressed to any specific individuals.
It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media
and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to
elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the
administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bda1c/bda1cbe9fda4f5e872800e0cc1b60c2f050cd0b0" alt=""
A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the
same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was
better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify
its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s
legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her
presidency, the seven officials said.
The current and former U.S. officials spoke on the condition of
anonymity due to the Russian documents’ classified status. They declined
to discuss how the United States obtained them. U.S. intelligence
agencies also declined to comment on them.
Putin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. Putin’s spokesman and
the Russian institute did not respond to requests for comment.
The documents were central to the Obama administration's conclusion that
Russia mounted a “fake news” campaign and launched cyber attacks against
Democratic Party groups and Clinton's campaign, the current and former
officials said.
“Putin had the objective in mind all along, and he asked the institute
to draw him a road map,” said one of the sources, a former senior U.S.
intelligence official.
Trump has said Russia’s activities had no impact on the outcome of the
race. Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian
interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump
associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the
election.
Four of the officials said the approach outlined in the June strategy
paper was a broadening of an effort the Putin administration launched in
March 2016. That month the Kremlin instructed state-backed media
outlets, including international platforms Russia Today and Sputnik news
agency, to start producing positive reports on Trump’s quest for the
U.S. presidency, the officials said.
Russia Today did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson
for Sputnik dismissed the assertions by the U.S. officials that it
participated in a Kremlin campaign as an “absolute pack of lies.” “And
by the way, it's not the first pack of lies we're hearing from 'sources
in U.S. official circles'," the spokesperson said in an email.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3cd18/3cd18d5afbfe65c4dad5ffdded31a3b2ff520ea6" alt=""
PRO-KREMLIN BLOGGERS
Russia Today and Sputnik published anti-Clinton stories while
pro-Kremlin bloggers prepared a Twitter campaign calling into question
the fairness of an anticipated Clinton victory, according to a report by
U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian interference in the election made
public in January.
[to top of second column] |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/059d8/059d8a68b519d9afd3b7bb3354f9f7b65337a252" alt=""
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with Uzbek
President Shavkat Mirziyoyev (not pictured) in Moscow's Kremlin,
Russia April 5, 2017. REUTERS/Pavel Golovkin/Pool
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e29ca/e29caf3f76955472a30ba713d0453186755a6497" alt=""
Russia Today’s most popular Clinton video - “How 100% of the 2015
Clintons’ ‘charity’ went to ... themselves” - accumulated 9 millions
views on social media, according to the January report.
[http://bit.ly/2os8wIt]
The report said Russia Today and Sputnik “consistently cast
president elect-Trump as the target of unfair coverage from
traditional media outlets."
The report said the agencies did not assess whether Moscow’s effort
had swung the outcome of the race in Trump’s favor, because American
intelligence agencies do not “analyze U.S. political processes or
U.S. public opinion.” [http://bit.ly/2kMiKSA]
CYBER ATTACKS
Neither of the Russian institute documents mentioned the release of
hacked Democratic Party emails to interfere with the U.S. election,
according to four of the officials. The officials said the hacking
was a covert intelligence operation run separately out of the
Kremlin.
The overt propaganda and covert hacking efforts reinforced each
other, according to the officials. Both Russia Today and Sputnik
heavily promoted the release of the hacked Democratic Party emails,
which often contained embarrassing details.
Five of the U.S. officials described the institute as the Kremlin’s
in-house foreign policy think tank.
The institute’s director when the documents were written, Leonid
Reshetnikov, rose to the rank of lieutenant general during a
33-year-career in Russia’s foreign intelligence service, according
to the institute’s website [http://bit.ly/2oVhiCF]. After
Reshetnikov retired from the institute in January, Putin named as
his replacement Mikhail Fradkov. The institute says he served as the
director of Russia’s foreign intelligence service from 2007 to 2016.
[http://bit.ly/2os4tvz]
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6f69/d6f690a2b840b9104719e27d2523c0f0cbc91016" alt=""
Reuters was unable to determine if either man was directly involved
in the drafting of the documents. Reshetnikov’s office referred
questions to the Russian institute.
On its website, the Russian institute describes itself as providing
“expert appraisals,” “recommendations,” and “analytical materials”
to the Russian president’s office, cabinet, National Security
Council, ministries and parliament. [http://bit.ly/2pCBGpR]
On Jan. 31, the websites of Putin’s office [http://bit.ly/2os9wMr]
and the institute [http://bit.ly/2oLn9Kd] posted a picture and
transcript of Reshetnikov and his successor Fradkov meeting with
Putin in the Kremlin. Putin thanked Reshetnikov for his service and
told Fradkov he wanted the institute to provide objective
information and analysis.
“We did our best for nearly eight years to implement your foreign
policy concept,” Reshetnikov told Putin. “The policy of Russia and
the policy of the President of Russia have been the cornerstone of
our operation.”
(Reporting by Ned Parker and Jonathan Landay, additional reporting
by Warren Strobel and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by David Rohde and
Ross Colvin)
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |