Andy Levin — Rep. Andy Levin on Countering a Resurgent Russia

Thank you

Speaker 1: Madam Chairwoman. Thank you all for coming in today. I know there's been some focus on Russia's activities in Ukraine, and I want to go back there a little bit and explore in more detail. Brookings fellow Alina Polyakova wrote that while Russian interference in Western elections came as a surprise to many, Russia has a long track record of intervening in Ukraine's elections since 2004

Speaker 2: Ukraine's experience is thus a bellwether for assessing the Russian tactics that may be deployed against the West

Ms

Speaker 3: Newland, can you share a bit more about the kinds of tactics that we've seen from Russia

Speaker 1: with respect to Ukrainian elections and what, if any, Russian interference do we see during or in the

Speaker 4: lead up to the recent presidential elections

The

Speaker 5: traditional Russian playbook in Ukraine had been less about influence campaigns on Ukrainian voters and more about support along with the oligarchs who are in their orbit of individual candidates who they thought would be more favorable to Russia's interests, its economic interests and its military interests. squeeze out Democrats or and when when they come into office to to damage them to hurt them with the electorate and in the case of Yushinka actually throw throw acid on his face and all you know there were some vicious things that went on the interesting thing about these elections is that that the mandate, the margin by which President-elect Zelensky won was so massive that any manipulation that may or may not have been by anybody got swamped by the people's will. I think the question

now

Speaker 5: Zelensky said a lot of the right things about anti-corruption and about breaking the oligarchic system in Ukraine, but he himself has been in business with senior oligarchic figures. So he's got to now prove it, and we should support him if he does, but we should tie our assistance to a cleaner, more democratic, more economically open Ukraine

Speaker 6: What do

Speaker 4: you and others think about the role of independent media in Ukraine and whether the U.S. could play a helpful role

Speaker 7: there in supporting the growth of independent media as part of that broadening you're talking about

We

Speaker 5: have done a considerable amount to offer training. I think it's very important that foreign media not be controlled by us but be indigenous. The problem has been that there's so much oligarchic money, not just in Ukraine, but throughout Central Europe as well in the media space, you know, the owning of television stations, etc., that it's very hard for independent journalists to survive and thrive. So support for independent journalism, training, solidarity with them, protection of them is very important. You

know, my

Speaker 8: reaction in Washington and Russia

Speaker 9: certainly meddling in elections is... clearly as part of their foreplay, so to speak. But when it comes to Ukraine, it wasn't too long ago when their stooge was running the country. And the reason why he's no longer running the country, obviously, is the impasse of Ukraine looking for the West, looking for economic ties with Europe in particular, and eventually in a political military alliance with NATO. So what I see Putin influencing more in the country is pushing back on the domestic reforms that are necessary to gain economic viability and political stability as a result of that, because that's clearly not in his interest. So oligarchs are a part of that, flushing money in there is a part of all of that, and the obvious corruption, even the Kurt Strait issue. While the focus was certainly on naval-to-naval issue, what he was really interfering with is economically the ports that are to the north of the Kerr Straits and the transit of... commodities out of those ports is what. All right, let me

Speaker 1: try to shoehorn one more question in really about the application of the tactics of the U.S. Last week, The New York Times reported that the White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, instructed former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Nielsen not to talk about Russian election interference. around the president because, quote, Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. Consequently, according to the Times, the issue did not gain the urgency or widespread attention that a president can command, and it meant that many Americans remain unaware of the latest Russian versions of interference. Do any of you want to comment about whether it's fair to say that until the president acknowledges the facts about Russia's interference in our elections and mobilizes, the defenses

Speaker 4: will need to counter that interference, we'll remain vulnerable to those attacks? I

think

Speaker 10: one of the themes from this

Speaker 11: panel has

been that

Speaker 11: presidential leadership is critical

As

Speaker 11: someone who like Ambassador Nuland did a lot of crafting talking points for secretaries and even presidents, vice presidents, it shouldn't be that hard to speak about the policy challenge of Russian election interference and disinformation without getting into the more difficult and partisan issues of the Mueller report. It's not that hard or

it shouldn't

Speaker 11: be that hard. Presidential leadership is crucial, acknowledging the facts of Russian attempted election interference can be separated from the partisan question and even the political question of the actual 2016 campaign. You could put it aside, draw a thick line and say, okay, this is what we have to do to prevent it and there is a viable set of toolkits. I mean, there's a consensus emerging among policy experts about how to deal with disinformation. Cyber experts know what they're doing. The level of knowledge is well ahead of the political ability to sustain

Speaker 13: it into presidential level policy, I think

All

Speaker 1: right. Well, I really appreciate the chairwoman and now the chairman's tolerance because I've gone over my time. But I really appreciate your

Speaker 2: answer

And I

Speaker 2: mean, it really is a question of the integrity of our democracy. So I agree it goes above all politics and above all partisanship. Thanks and I yield back