In the controversy over the release of the dueling memos from the House Intelligence Committee, the United States has handed Russia a tool of influence far more powerful than its military. As the Nunes memo and President Trump Donald John TrumpObama calls on Senate not to fill Ginsburg's vacancy until after election Planned Parenthood: 'The fate of our rights' depends on Ginsburg replacement Progressive group to spend M in ad campaign on Supreme Court vacancy MORE’s tweets seek to discredit America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies, they also prove the case that election meddling works.

When Vladimir Putin launched Russia’s cyber efforts to influence the U.S. election in spring 2016, he likely sought to increase the odds of a Trump presidency — one that would simultaneously respect Russia’s place in the world and, perhaps, improve U.S.-Russia relations. What he ultimately achieved was far, far more valuable: an internal questioning of the legitimacy of the key institutions of the American government and liberal democracy itself.

ADVERTISEMENT

We have shown Putin that even relatively costless efforts to influence an election from abroad can cause the institutions of American democracy to fray. He now has an easy-to-deploy, difficult to defend against, and well-tested tool of political influence to use against the United States and others in the future.

On Feb. 1, I interviewed Rep. Adam Schiff Adam Bennett SchiffTop Democrats call for DOJ watchdog to probe Barr over possible 2020 election influence Overnight Defense: Top admiral says 'no condition' where US should conduct nuclear test 'at this time' | Intelligence chief says Congress will get some in-person election security briefings Overnight Defense: House to vote on military justice bill spurred by Vanessa Guillén death | Biden courts veterans after Trump's military controversies MORE (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, during an event on the University of Pennsylvania campus. The next day, in Moscow, I sat down with political commentators, Russian government officials and U.S. diplomats. What I have heard in Moscow confirmed the worst fears from my discussion with Schiff, who observed that “the threats from within are more dangerous than the threats from without.”

In fact, the threats from within our own government are dovetailing with the threat from Moscow to question the precepts of liberal democracy and to limit U.S. global influence. Just like a computer virus, cyber election meddling has allowed Putin to turn the institutions of the U.S. government against themselves and advance his own interests in undermining the U.S.-led, post-World War II liberal democracy order.

Schiff was exactly right that “the Russians are astounded at how fragile our democracy is ... that with a prick of a pin they could cause catastrophic damage.” From my conversations with Russians in Moscow — both those loyal to Putin and those who oppose him — I see they are united in their incredulity. They have asked me, repeatedly, how a country so strong could be so weak.

They wonder why dueling memos written by House staffers have captivated American political discourse. And they ask why we are willing to declassify secret documents for political purposes. My Russian interlocutors who hope for political change here remind me how important U.S. pressure and American ideals are to those efforts.

With the leading opposition candidate, Alexei Navalny, barred from running in the 2018 Russian elections, there is little hope for an electoral upset. But, as Putin begins what is likely his final six-year term, the processes of political transition will begin and the Russian opposition is looking for a model of effective democracy.

In our troubled diplomatic discourse, Russian officials don’t mention the 2016 elections, the current investigations, or the dueling memos — they don’t need to. Instead they watch, perhaps with a bit of glee, as the United States is consumed by partisan bickering.

What they do note is the disappearance of America's diplomatic corps from the world stage. After Putin expelled 755 U.S. diplomats this summer, our embassy’s ability to engage has been curtailed. Worse for us is a self-inflicted wound, with countless key vacancies at the State Department — even more notable after the announcement of the early retirement of Tom Shannon, the third ranking official at and a widely respected career diplomat — we lack diplomatic leadership.

It is hard to imagine who will chair key meetings with the Russians on issues ranging from North Korea and Syria to nuclear arms control. By shrinking the State Department, the Trump administration is effectively doing Russian diplomats' jobs for them, allowing Putin to advance an alternate world view of kleptocratic authoritarianism, rather than liberal democracy in diplomatic meeting rooms around the world.

In recent weeks, America's foreign policy establishment has proscribed new ways to contain Russia. A new report from the Council on Foreign Relations calls for “expanded sanctions,” “electoral and cyber countermeasures,” and a renewed commitment to “European security.” An article by former Vice President Joe Biden Joe BidenSenate Republicans face tough decision on replacing Ginsburg What Senate Republicans have said about election-year Supreme Court vacancies Biden says Ginsburg successor should be picked by candidate who wins on Nov. 3 MORE in Foreign Affairs suggests strengthening NATO, increasing financial market transparency, and buttressing the security of our electoral system.

These are all good proposals, but far more important is the restoration of faith in the institutions of the U.S. government and liberal democracy itself. No amount of computer infrastructure can truly secure American democracy.

Rather, it is the resilience and legitimacy of the institutions of government — from the White House to Congress, the FBI to the CIA — that must be buttressed if we are to defuse the weapon we have handed the Kremlin.

William Burke-White is director of Perry World House and professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania. From 2009-2012, he served on Secretary Clinton’s policy planning staff at the U.S. Department of State.