This is why I am sceptical about claims of Russian meddling in our democracy
The long-delayed ‘Russia report’ will be published this week but it is likely to be a damp squib, writes John Rentoul
The “Russia report” will finally be published this week. It contains the findings of the inquiry carried out by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of MPs and peers into allegations of interference by the Russian government in the EU referendum in 2016. It seemed suspicious that Boris Johnson, the leader of the Leave campaign, should have prevented the report’s publication until after he was safely returned as prime minister.
It seemed equally suspicious that, a week before the report is published, the prime minister’s spokesperson should brief journalists that the intelligence services also suspect the Russians of having tried to influence the 2019 UK election.
At this point, however, the story becomes more comical than sinister. If the Russians rigged the 2019 election in Jeremy Corbyn’s favour, it was more Johnny English than James Bond. And if they are accused of being just as effective in boosting the Leave campaign, we have to conclude that Johnson won despite, rather than because of, their help.
Of course there is a sinister side to the spying business, as the Skripals, Dawn Sturgess and Alexander Litvinenko can testify. The other claim made by the British government last week, that the Russians are trying to steal vaccine secrets, could also be serious, although if Moscow can use its stolen knowledge to develop a vaccine more quickly than Oxford can, humanity might gain.
It is also possible that leaks from the Democratic National Committee, in which Russian agents were probably involved, might have helped “amplify” popular sentiment against Hillary Clinton, to repeat the phrase used by the prime minister’s spokesperson last week.
But these attempts to meddle in western elections and referendums seem marginal at most. The only reason for not ruling out Russian influence in the 2016 US presidential election is that the margin of Donald Trump’s victory was so small that it could be said in retrospect that almost anything could have swung it.
Our 2016 referendum and 2019 election were rather different. The ISC’s Russia report is likely to pour cold water on the idea that even a large number of St Petersburg-based Twitter accounts with small numbers of followers could have turned a referendum won by a margin of more than a million votes. I suspect if Boris Johnson has delayed publication it is because the report draws attention to the Conservative Party’s funding, rather than anything to do with the referendum. The Times reported last year that “the Kremlin links of some Tory donors would have been ‘embarrassing’ if aired before the poll in December”.
Well, if they would have been embarrassing then, they will be embarrassing now; but not as embarrassing, possibly, as suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn waving a leaked document he got from the internet is evidence of Russian state meddling in our democracy.
Yours,
John Rentoul
Chief political commentator