Media hysteria broke out in response to special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals who had been running an illegal social media operation in America during the 2016 election.
The New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote that America is in a “virtual war” with Russia, but “without a commander in chief.” Former President George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum said President Trump was guilty of “dereliction of duty” for not hitting back aggressively against the Russians.
The uber-hawkish Max Boot claimed this was an “attack” second only to Sept. 11. The New York Times’ Tom Friedman compared Russia’s actions to both Sept. 11 and Pearl Harbor. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd questioned the patriotism of Americans who weren’t wanting to “punish” Russia in return.
Here are the facts: According to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., Russian “trolls” spent about $100,000 beginning in 2014, $46,000 of which was spent before the election, primarily in 2015. Very little of that money targeted swing states. Of the money that did target swing states, $300 was spent in Pennsylvania, $832 in Michigan, and $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — though only $54 was spent after the Wisconsin primary in early 2016.
In comparison, the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns spent a combined $81 million on Facebook ads alone before the election. That means Clinton and Trump spent roughly $1,700 for every $1 spent before the election by those indicted by the Department of Justice. If you include legal spending from super PACs and other outside groups, the spread grows even further.
The Russians’ ads were meant to divide Americans. Facebook’s vice president for advertising, Rob Goldman, having seen all of the Russian-produced content, said that interference in the election was not the “main goal.” He added that even though the majority of the ads ran after the election, “Very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Trump and the election.”
Speaking to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, the New Yorker’s Adrian Chen, who is an expert on the Russian “troll-farm” that produced the social media posts in question, called the group’s activities akin to a “normal marketing campaign,” but without “very good bang for your buck.” Chen said the reaction seen in the media to Mueller’s indictment was “panic” and “hysteria,” two words that also aptly describe related fake-and-since-retracted news stories about Russia hacking the electric grid, hacking state election systems, or communicating with a server in Trump Tower. And of course, don’t forget the claims of Trump-Russia collusion, for which there is still no evidence.
Not only the media, but politicians, too, have helped fuel the hysteria. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was incensed when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson refused to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and many of his colleagues, called Russia’s election interference an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton said that Russia perpetrated a “cyber 9/11,” and many other policymakers have also used the “war” word.
To be sure, all Americans should be concerned by what happened. Russia’s cyber intrusions are serious and require the utmost attention of our national security apparatus. But context is also important, and proportion matters. If Russia’s $46,000 “attack” is really comparable to Sept. 11 or Pearl Harbor, what kind of response is this crowd really calling for?
The fact is, all this Russia-hysteria itself makes America less safe, and inadvertently helps Putin. Rhetoric like this could even lead to war, but at the very least it is causing unwarranted threat inflation. It’s important to understand Russia today for what it is. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union, as fragile as it proved to be internally, was a true peer competitor to the U.S. Today, Russia is much weaker, a geopolitical spoiler — although importantly, one with nuclear arms.
With its declining population of 144 million, Russia is smaller today than it was as a Soviet republic in 1989, and it’s not much larger than Japan. Russia’s GDP, which has also declined over the last decade, is now roughly the size of Spain’s and smaller than Italy’s. Russia’s murder rate is significantly higher than that of most African countries, including Uganda. The Russian government’s total revenue in 2016 was under $250 billion — less than one twelfth of what Uncle Sam collects annually. And although Russia spends more than a quarter of that (around $70 billion) on its military every year, that’s a lot less than America’s defense tab of about $700 billion. What’s more, even if Russia’s military is over-utilized, it isn’t exactly state-of-the-art — Putin has just one embarrassing aircraft carrier that belches smoke and has only 25 toilets for the 2,000 sailors unlucky enough to be aboard.
In short, even though Russia plays the spoiler to a multitude of American efforts, it is hardly the serious competitor that China may become in 30 or 40 years.
Of course, Russia should still be taken seriously. Even it is basically Spain with nukes, it has nukes, and they pose an existential threat to the U.S. That’s why we should do everything we can to improve relations. America needs a new, realistic, and effective grand strategy toward Russia.
Yes, Russia seeks to undermine our interests in certain areas. But they are also a major player that can sometimes help us achieve our interests — such as stopping North Korea from proliferating nuclear know-how or weapons. On the other hand, in many of the arenas where Russia is playing the spoiler, it is because our misguided foreign policy is giving them a prime and easy opportunity to do just that. If the U.S. were not acting outside of its interests and trying to be the savior to the complex and war-torn Middle East, Russia would merely exhaust itself with its meddling in Syria.
America must not bow to Russian wishes or aggression, but Russia and its interests will still be there long after Putin is gone. America and Russia must work together where we can, and America must challenge Putin when necessary — not everywhere and indiscriminately, but only when U.S. interests are directly at stake.
When it comes to values, there is no comparison as to who comes out on top between the U.S. and Russia. Because of this, America should approach Russia with confidence, recognizing our position of strength. Hysteria is counterproductive. Building Putin up into something he is not serves to increase his sway over the Russian people at the expense of any democratic movement within the country. Putin uses the impression of himself as doing battle with the West in order to build his own credibility in the eyes of ordinary Russians. Such propaganda is his tool for distracting his citizens from Russia’s miserable economic and social situation.
There is a third way between calling for war with Russia and handing Russia a naive, red “reset” button. The answer is peace through strength. That means talking with Russia and working to hash out our differences when possible, all while taking care not to be duped by the Putin regime.
There are times when drawing a hard line will be appropriate — when U.S. interests are directly at stake — and there are times when trade and cooperation will be the order of the day. Russia is a geopolitical spoiler with nukes. Don’t inflate their power, or provoke Russia needlessly. That doesn’t help America.
Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
