Russia’s campaign against the West is getting more aggressive

Though it’s already been overshadowed in the deluge of post-election analysis of Donald Trump’s victory, Tuesday also marked a serious escalation of Russia’s global campaign of sabotage and intimidation targeting the US and other Western powers. 

Polling sites in several states received bomb threats — later determined not to be credible — which the FBI said in a statement “appear to originate from Russian email domains.” The threats forced several polling places to close temporarily in the swing state of Georgia. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told reporters on Tuesday, “We identified the source, and it was from Russia.” Polling sites in the swing states of Michigan and Arizona also received threats, though it’s unclear if these was part of the same campaign. 

Other officials have suggested that someone could have been spoofing Russian email addresses, and the Russian government was quick to deny any involvement. The US intelligence community had warned prior to the election that the Russian government was promoting disinformation via social media in the US in order to “undermine the legitimacy of the election, instill fear in voters regarding the election process, and suggest Americans are using violence against each other due to political preferences.” US authorities say the Russian government had been behind smear attacks targeting Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz and false allegations of voter fraud, among other examples of disinformation.   

As anyone following American politics over the past decade knows, the Russian government has tried to meddle in US campaigns before. As was the case in the past two elections, the Russian government was believed to prefer Trump, who speaks frequently of his good relationship with President Vladimir Putin and has been critical of both NATO and US support for Ukraine. 

This time, though, it ultimately may not have mattered that much. Though Russian disinformation was widely spread, including by X owner and Trump backer Elon Musk, nothing the Kremlin allegedly orchestrated in this election cycle appears to have had anywhere near the political impact of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, which US intelligence agencies also believe Russia orchestrated. 

Andrei Soldatov, an investigative journalist and analyst who has written several books on Russia’s security services, says this year’s campaign targeting the US election differed from past efforts. It was also different from recent alleged campaigns of fraud to help Moscow’s preferred candidates in elections in the former Soviet states of Georgia and Moldova. 

“The goal was not actually to change the results of the election,” Soldatov told Vox. “It was about posturing, about reminding Americans what’s at stake, and sending a message about what might happen if America continues its support for Ukraine.”

Though the election is over, Russia’s efforts to transmit this message are not, and they ultimately might take forms that are more violent and destructive than empty bomb threats. 

Out of the gray zone and into the blue

Two days before the election, the Wall Street Journal reported that Western security services believed two incendiary devices seized on board planes in Europe over the summer were a test run for a Russian operation to start fires on US-bound planes. The devices detonated without injuries at logistics hubs in Germany and the UK, but the head of Poland’s intelligence agency said, “I’m not sure the political leaders of Russia are aware of the consequences if one of these packages exploded, causing a mass casualty event.” The Russian government has denied involvement. 

This follows a campaign of arson and sabotage across Europe that intelligence officials say demonstrates an increasing recklessness on the part of the Kremlin. As the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service MI6 put it, “Russian intelligence services have gone a bit feral, frankly.”

In recent months, Russian agents have been accused of plotting sabotage attacks against US and German military targets, arson attacks in the UK and Lithuania, and the attempted assassination of a major German defense contractor, among other plots. 

Notably, Soldatov said this campaign goes beyond anything the KGB has attempted in Europe or the United States during the Cold War and should be seen as an attempt by Moscow to raise the costs of Western support for Ukraine, an effort that is separate from but complementary to Putin’s periodic threats to use nuclear weapons. 

“People sometimes think the only way Russia can escalate is with nuclear weapons,” Soldatov said. “But what we’ve seen in 2024 is that there are actually many more ways to escalate.”

Disinformation and sabotage are the kinds of tactics often referred to as “gray zone” or “hybrid” warfare: inflicting costs on an adversary while maintaining plausible deniability. The aim here is to cause just enough damage to get the point across without leaving an opening for an all-out military war. But that line is a narrow one, and some officials say Russia’s behavior is pushing the gray zone’s limits. 

At the NATO summit in Washington in July, Lithuania’s foreign minister said on a panel, “I’m not sure it can be called hybrid events or gray zone events any longer. It’s quite clear that [these are] terrorist attacks by a hostile neighboring country against NATO countries.” 

Moscow gets its man

Trump, after all, has promised to immediately end the war in Ukraine, presumably by pressuring Kyiv to accede to at least some of Moscow’s demands. Could the Kremlin dial back the campaign now that its preferred candidate is returning to the White House?

It’s possible. Russian leaders reacted with open jubilation to Trump’s victory in 2016 but were largely disappointed with his administration, which, for all his kind words for Putin, also saw a raft of new sanctions against Moscow and the sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.   

Moscow is being much more cautious this time around. In a statement Wednesday responding to Trump’s victory, the Russian foreign ministry credited him with countering the “globalist” course of America’s current administration. It also added, “We have no illusions about the president-elect, who is well known in Russia … the US ruling political elite adheres to anti-Russia principles and the policy of ‘containing Moscow.’ This line does not depend on changes in America’s domestic political barometer.”   

One of the risks of engaging in gray zone tactics is that you can’t always be sure how your opponent will react, and it’s difficult to know when a red line is finally crossed. Trump, for one, has prided himself on his unpredictability. Like everyone else after what happened on Tuesday, Putin is likely waiting to see what comes next.