Cyberattacks on the US from Russia have been gathering pace and a hack of the US presidential vote could spark post-election chaos, says Tim Stevens

Antiquated US electoral systems are a hackers’ dream Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

It’s been a busy summer for Russian hackers. After a series of high-profile data breaches and threats, questions are being raised about the vulnerability of November’s US presidential election to cyber-interference and subversion.

July saw the leak of Democratic National Convention emails, which embarrassed the Clinton campaign by revealing accusations of the party’s dirty tricks against Democrat rival Bernie Sanders. There was the infiltration of electoral registries in Arizona and Illinois, highlighting the insecurity of electronic voting systems. Both, arguably, boosted Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.

Investigations into these breaches implicate Russia’s domestic and military intelligence agencies, the FSB and GRU, a charge Russia denies. But these claims have been unusually specific and backed with corroborating evidence. If true, they suggest Russia is unleashing new tools and tactics to pursue its objectives.


Could it affect the outcome of the US election? And how should we understand the apparent escalation in Russian state-sponsored hacking?

Real risk

A report this week by the US Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology details myriad ways in which hackers could infiltrate electronic voting systems, potentially influencing electoral outcomes. The Arizona and Illinois hacks show this is more than a hypothetical risk. However, it is unlikely that large-scale digital tampering required to swing a vote would go unnoticed, despite the antiquated systems involved.

Hackers are more likely to try to erode trust in the outcome by introducing unreliability and uncertainty into vote-counting. In the event of a close result, it might also make seeking a Supreme Court ruling seem more legitimate.

Again, this would presumably benefit Trump. Many of his supporters mistrust government infrastructure already. He is also the candidate most likely to make political capital out of such travails.

Aside from the technical attribution of recent hacks to Russian intelligence, these events also align with Russian foreign policy. Its “New-Generation” warfare, focused on subversion and interference, aims to achieve political outcomes that fit Russian interests, as seen in Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere.

Putin favours Trump

Interfering with the US election would tally with this, not least as President Putin has made no secret of his wish for Trump to win.

This is not through any deep personal admiration but because the probable destabilising effect of a Trump victory – not least his suggestion of radically redefining US foreign policy – would give Russia opportunities for strategic exploitation. Possible electoral manipulation is just one way to pursue this end.

Such activities are not entirely novel, of course, but Russia has been uniquely willing to deploy them and does so with apparent impunity.

The US government’s reluctance to identify Russia as the culprit has only emboldened it. If the US has evidence of Russian involvement it should set this out in clear and unambiguous terms, as it has done in the past with China, Iran and North Korea. It must also warn, diplomatically, of the political consequences of further meddling in US internal politics.

It is technically feasible for foreign hackers to disrupt US electoral politics and processes, as recent events demonstrate, but vanishingly unlikely that such interference could directly engineer an election result.

However, Russia appears to be bold enough to try to shape the political environment through sophisticated technological means. The problem for the US and other democracies is how to respond to this growing threat.

Tim Stevens is lecturer in global security at Kings College London