Skip to main content

Joseph Grieco is a professor of political science at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Should we be alarmed about reports that Russian nationals linked to that country's military intelligence service conducted cyberhacking operations during the U.S. presidential election to promote Donald Trump's candidacy over Hillary Clinton?

According to the CIA, Russia hacked the computer systems of the Democratic Party national committee and key Democratic operatives, and then transmitted embarrassing materials to WikiLeaks. Russian nationals also hacked the Republican national committee, but did not – at least not yet – release materials from the Republican side.

Story continues below advertisement

Just before the CIA news broke, president-elect Trump said the hacks may have been carried out by Russia, by China, or by "some guy in his home in New Jersey." After the news went public, Mr. Trump's transition team issued a statement that "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest electoral college victories in history. It's now time to move on and make America Great Again."

Editorial: Donald Trump is ignoring valid intelligence on Russia. This won't end well

Read more: Former Trump adviser hails 'new era' in U.S.-Russia relations at Moscow press conference

Read more: Trump expected to name Exxon Mobil CEO, who has business ties to Russia, secretary of state

Then, on Sunday, Mr. Trump called the CIA story "ridiculous."

Mr. Trump and his team are reacting to the CIA's assessment in precisely the wrong way. If Russian hacking operations did in fact occur, and if they did so at the behest of Russian intelligence, then the more he doubles down on claiming the story is inaccurate, the more reliant he becomes on Mr. Putin keeping the Russian operations a secret.

And Mr. Putin will eventually want to be paid for his silence. For example, he may want Mr. Trump to show flexibility regarding economic sanctions against Russia as a result of Mr. Putin's 2014 invasion of Crimea.

Story continues below advertisement

In other words, if Trump doesn't change course, once he takes the oath of office our next president may be vulnerable to blackmail by a powerful and determined foe of the United States.

Mr. Trump needs to get out from under Mr. Putin's heel. To do that he should endorse President Obama's recent instructions to his national security team to provide a full report on Russian operations during the election season. He should urge Mr. Obama to release that report before inauguration day Jan. 20. And he should endorse the efforts by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham to launch congressional investigations into Russian operations against the election and other U.S. targets.

In addition, when Mr. Trump takes office he should consult with congressional leaders to establish a bipartisan national commission not just on Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, but that country's growing capacity to launch cyberbased attacks against a wide range of political and economic targets in the U.S. That commission also should be instructed to recommend ways to thwart all cyberrelated activities against the U.S., including specific proposals for what might be large expenditures needed to protect us from attacks from not only Russia, but other hostile countries such as China, Iran and North Korea, as well as terrorist organizations.

Finally, after U.S. cyber-defences are deepened, Mr. Trump should make it clear publicly to Mr. Putin and other hostile leaders that real consequences will result from further cyberattacks against America.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies