With a desktop computer by his side, the secretary of state of the southern US state of Georgia on Thursday told reporters that a video spreading on social media, purporting to show Haitians voting in the United States presidential election for Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris, was fake.
It was, according to Brad Raffensberger, the Georgia state official, likely “a production of Russian troll farms”.
As the long, drawn-out race to the White House finally edges towards its conclusion on November 5, with Harris and former President Donald Trump locked in a nail-biting contest, Russia has once again found itself embroiled in the election.
Like in 2016 and 2020, Moscow has again been accused by US officials of attempting to sway election results, with a recent federal indictment alleging that right-wing social media influencers have received talking points from Russian state-run media. These incidents amplify accusations that the Kremlin prefers Trump in the White House.
Yet, while a Trump win could help Russia, some analysts argue that Moscow’s calculations are more complex – and they point to the Republican nominee’s first term as president as evidence.
Lessons from the past eight years
After Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, there were hopes in Russia that US policies would become more agreeable to Moscow and its interests.
However, he slapped new sanctions on Russia and approved lethal aid to Ukraine, including Javelin antitank missiles – something his predecessor, Barack Obama, had refused to do.
Still, the flow of munitions into Ukraine under President Joe Biden’s administration has increased by several orders of magnitude, while Trump has recently mulled reducing aid or even cutting it off entirely, a position clearly benefitting Russia.
That, and Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine right away if he comes to power, have found some resonance on the Russian street.
“My mom said today that Trump will soon win, and the war in Ukraine will end because America will finally stop giving money to Ukraine,” Isolda K, a 38-year-old Muscovite, told Al Jazeera.
Isolda added that while her mother was not a “furious” supporter of President Vladimir Putin, “the [state] propaganda has done its job”.
“Those at the top know better. That’s why they are in power!”
‘Predictable’ Harris or ‘impulsive” Trump?
The Kremlin’s official position on the election has been relatively restrained.
At a conference in Vladivostok in September, Putin quipped that he too supports Harris, citing her “infectious” laugh. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later clarified that Putin was joking, adding that Russo-American relations have deteriorated to the point where it makes little difference who occupies the Oval Office since all the crucial decisions are made by the “deep state” (the military-industrial complex and intelligence community), keeping foreign policy consistent regardless of the commander-in-chief.
Nevertheless, the two frontrunners for the presidency have expressed differing diplomatic stances.
“Harris’s policy will be a more forceful continuation of the Biden policy. Ukraine will be able to rely on the US for a stream of military aid and overall support, though I do not think Harris will be bold enough to have Ukraine admitted to NATO during the war,” said Russian economist and University of Chicago professor Konstantin Sonin.
Trump, meanwhile, has blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for allowing the war to begin, calling him “the greatest salesman on Earth” for having received billions of dollars in US aid. Trump has also claimed, without explaining how, that he would bring peace within a day if he was elected.
This was met with scepticism in Moscow, including by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who added that Harris was a more “predictable” opponent.
“Putin and Peskov are telegraphing that a Harris presidency is more stable in terms of her foreign policy stances, including towards Russia,” suggested Kimberly St Julian-Varnon, an American historian of the Soviet Union.
“Russia can count on continued financial aid and military support to Ukraine and bolstered US support for NATO and its allies in the European Union,” she said. “Essentially, more of what Russia has dealt with and prepared for since 2022.”
“Putin knows Trump is more impulsive and reactionary in terms of policy, and that his word cannot be trusted. Trump’s position on Israel’s war in Gaza is quite different from Putin’s, and this, I believe, also influences how Putin and Peskov envision a second Trump presidency.”
How much could Trump help Russia?
Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has a detailed peace plan for the Russia-Ukraine war, which includes a demilitarised zone along the current front line, effectively ceding Ukrainian territory presently under Russian control, and keeping Ukraine out of NATO.
“These are outcomes that heavily favour Russia and hint that a Trump administration would not continue to provide arms and financial support to Ukraine,” said Varnon. “An end or severe curtailment of sanctions on Russia could also follow.”
But while Trump or Harris could become head of state, they don’t have the final word.
“Trump’s policy will be more volatile – so there will be a lot of noisy pronouncements and far more uncertainty about the US commitment to support Ukraine,” said Sonin, the professor.
“Yet, Trump will not, in my view, cease the flow of military aid completely … Congress has the power of the purse, so the president has to build support for aid packages, et cetra. There is strong support for aiding Ukraine among the US public and the US Congress, so even President Trump will have to keep supporting Ukraine.”
However, Varnon warned this could swing both ways.
“While Harris or Trump would dictate their foreign policy goals, Congress, to me, is the more important player,” she explained.
“Even if Harris won and wanted to continue aid to Ukraine, a Republican-controlled or dominated House and Senate can easily curtail or postpone that aid, which is what happened in the winter and early spring 2024.”
What’s next?
But even if aid is halted, that does not guarantee peace talks.
“Moscow’s goals in Ukraine are unrealistic; all along, they have been based on a delusional worldview, in which there is no nation of Ukraine, Poland willing to carve out a part of Ukraine’s West, et cetra,” explained Sonin.
Putin, he said, will be hoping for a Trump win, and a subsequent “peace” imposed on Ukraine. But this, Sonin said, reflected Putin’s “delusion”.
“In Putin’s worldview, Ukraine is a US puppet, so they will do whatever the US president tells them to do. Of course, it’s not the case – check any US ally – do they really do what the US tells them to do?” he said.
“Ukraine is not going to accept Putin’s plans, and Trump has no way to force it on them.”
Meanwhile, many everyday Russians, largely apathetic towards – and powerless in – their own politics, are not majorly invested in a foreign electoral process unfolding thousands of miles away.
//
Is there another quote to use? This doesn’t add much substance to the article, much less so with the profanity. Suggest you cut.
Moscow resident Anton was blunt. “I don’t really give a s***,” he said. “But the spectacle can be quite interesting.”