Putin’s intolerable interference

There is much that vindicates Donald Trump in the historic indictment by a US federal grand jury of three Russian companies and 13 individuals for their interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mr Trump has lost no time in tweeting, with undisguised satisfaction, that nothing in this initial, significant indictment by special counsel Robert Mueller lends any weight to the contention that has overshadowed the President for the past year — that there was collusion between his campaign and the Russians. Nor does the indictment support Hillary Clinton’s ongoing gripe that Mr Trump “stole’’ the election from her.

As the US Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein announced: “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”

The clear inference is that, so far, Mr Mueller has found nothing to indicate that Mrs Clinton lost for any reason other than she was a poor candidate and was out-campaigned in key states. Mr Trump would be wrong, however, to focus on this alone. While the indictment vindicates his insistence that there was no collusion and therefore no smoking gun, it detailed information that should, in the interests of the US’s democratic processes, make him as mad as hell with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The lengths to which Russia, apparently on the direct orders of the Kremlin, interfered in the election, disclosed in the indictment, should leave citizens of the US and other Western democracies profoundly alarmed about the Russian leader’s malign and dangerous determination to wield influence around the world.

The indictment records that from 2014 onwards, the Putin regime spent tens of millions of dollars purchasing computer space in the US to create hundreds of social media accounts aimed at eroding trust in the American democratic process. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter became the conduits of choice for the Russian campaign. The aim was to erode trust in America’s democratic institutions while making it appear the accounts were controlled by people in the US.

The indictment makes it clear that any Americans contacted by the 13 charged Russians, including any Trump campaign workers, did not know they were dealing with Russians. It also emphasises that the multimillion-dollar social-media effort launched by the Kremlin, mostly in support of Mr Trump’s candidacy, had no impact on the election outcome. That, however, should not diminish the President’s fury over the Kremlin’s interference. The Kremlin’s campaign was not the “myth” or “hoax” by the “false media” Mr Trump has tried to make it out to be. Evidence of Russian attempts to interfere in America’s democratic processes is now, as Mr Trump’s National Security Adviser HR McMaster says, “incontrovertible”. It demands sanction and retribution.

The controversy has tarnished Mr Trump’s first year in office. In the interests of the US and other nations under threat from Moscow, he should leave Mr Putin in no doubt that he will be made to pay a heavy price for his malign activities. Mr Trump must assert firmer leadership towards Mr Putin than Barack Obama, who failed abysmally to match the Russian leader.