While the world is distracted by Trump, here's how Putin and Musk are weakening European democracies
Georgescu's massive last-minute surge was largely blamed on the creation of thousands of paid-for Russian-controlled bots on TikTok and illegal campaign financing.
This may seem like last year's news, but with elections coming up in Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and possibly even Ukraine, there's plenty to worry about – apart from a new US president who is disrupting Washington (and the world) with a flurry of executive orders and foreign policy initiatives that feel more like real estate sales pitches.
Concerns about Russian election interference are nothing new, but so far the picture of Moscow's success is rather mixed.
Back in January 2017, the US intelligence community was confident that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential elections to get Donald Trump elected. The following year, similar accusations arose in the context of presidential elections in France. But in France, the Kremlin failed to prevent the victory of Emmanuel Macron.
More recently, in Georgia, the incumbent government of the Georgian Dream party won the parliamentary elections in October 2024 after alleged Russian interference. This sparked widespread protests and a government crackdown on media and civil society.
By contrast, despite alleged Russian interference in Moldova, the country's pro-western president won a second term in November 2024. A referendum on a constitutional commitment to EU membership was supported by a razor-thin majority of voters.
Read more:
Opinion polls on perceptions of Russia and Vladimir Putin across western democracies also offer some solace. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center in 2024, positive views of Russia and its leader remain very low across EU and Nato member countries. At the same time, approval ratings of the EU and Nato remained high among member countries' citizens.
But these relatively comforting headline figures mask important, and somewhat worrying, trends. In Germany, which holds early parliamentary elections on February 23, positive views of Putin more than doubled from 8% in 2023 to 17% in 2024. This is still a far cry from the 76% who approved of Putin in 2003 or even the 36% who did so in 2019, according to the same survey. The German increase is an outlier among the 13 EU members, but in only one of them – Italy – did support for Putin drop, compared with the previous year.
Read more:
The same goes for support for the EU and Nato. The median level of support for the EU across nine member states surveyed stands at 63%, with 36% of participants holding unfavourable views. Germany, with 63% favourable views, however, recorded the second consecutive decline, down from 78% in 2022 and 71% in 2023. And Germany is less of an outlier here – favourable views of the EU among member states have generally declined somewhat over the past two years.
When it comes to Nato, 63% of survey participants in 13 member countries thought more positively of the alliance, while 33% had more negative views. But again, with the exception of Hungary and Canada (where favourability went up), the share of those with favourable views had declined by between two and eight percentage points since last year.
Does this mean that Putin is winning? No, at least not yet. Attitude surveys are less important than election results.
Russia appears to have had some recent success in changing election outcomes, for instance in Romania where Romanian intelligance services discovered evidence of voter manipulation. But the Romanian example (in annulling the election) is also illustrative of how important it is for democracies to fight back – and even more importantly to take preventive action.
And this is a lesson that seems to have sunk in. On January 30, the foreign ministers of 12 EU member states sent a joint letter to Brussels urging the European Commission to make more aggressive use of its powers under the Digital Services Act to protect the integrity of democratic elections in the bloc. Article 25 of that act, crucially, establishes an obligation on online platforms to design their services free from deception and manipulation and ensure that users can make informed decisions.
While the commission has yet to demonstrate its resolve under the Digital Services Act, a Berlin court on February 7 2025, ordered that X must hand over data needed to track disinformation to two civil society groups who had requested it.
If Putin is winning, he is not winning on his own. Democracies are not only under threat from Russia. Musk – an unelected billionaire wielding unprecedented influence under Donald Trump – has repeatedly been accused of interfering in European debates and election campaigns. Of his comments on the German election, Musk has argued that as he has significant investments in Germany he has the right to comment on its politics and that the AfD 'resonates with many Germans who feel their concerns are ignored by the establishment'.
What Musk and Putin have in common is their deep dislike of open liberal democracies and a cunning ability to employ technology to further their goals by promoting political parties and movements that share their illiberal views.
Where they differ is that Musk focuses on the far right – Germany's AfD or the UK's Tommy Robinson. But Putin tends to back whoever he sees as serving Russian interests in weakening western unity and influence. This leads to the Kremlin lending support to leaders on both the far right and far left.
But often Putin's and Musk's proteges are the same. In the case of the German AfD, it was no accident that Putin echoed comments from a speech Musk gave at an AfD election rally, saying that Germans should move beyond their war guilt. Both were keen to remove the stain of being too close to Germany's Nazi past from the AfD and make it not just electable but also respectable enough to bring into a coalition, much like Austria's far-right Freedom Party which has a long history of friendly relations with Putin.
And what Musk can do openly on X, Putin tries to achieve with a campaign of his bot army on the platform.
Perhaps the most significant similarity between Musk and Putin – and others who have been accused of election interference – is that they tap into a growing reservoir of discontent with liberal democracy.
According to a 2024 survey of 31 democracies worldwide, 54% of participants were dissatisfied with how they saw democracy working. In 12 high-income countries – Canada, US, and 10 EU member states – dissatisfaction was even higher with 64% and has been increasing for the fourth consecutive year.
Pushing back against the kind of blatant election interference by the likes of Putin and Musk is clearly important. But it will not be enough to reverse persistent trends of decline in the support for democracy and its standard bearers including the EU and Nato. It is right to resist and prosecute election rigging. But it is also crucial to ask why people are dissatisfied with democracy – and to do something about it.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU's Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump meets Putin: Will Alaska be our Yalta?
President Trump, hostile to law at home or abroad, hopes to win a Nobel Peace Prize by giving parts of Ukraine to Russia to end the war there. He would arrange this by meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, on American soil, flouting the finding of the International Criminal Court that Putin is a war criminal and must be arrested wherever he sets foot. Unlike the 125 countries that accept the ICC's jurisdiction, the U.S. does not recognize the court and has even tried to punish its officials for indicting Trump's friend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Another Republican president, Herbert Hoover, faced a problem similar to that posed by Russia's war on Ukraine. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, officially part of China but coveted by Japan for its resources. The U.S. was not prepared to intervene militarily, but Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson announced in 1932 that the government would not recognize any political or territorial change accomplished by force. Hoover's U.S. did not belong to the League of Nations, but most League members endorsed what became known as the Stimson Doctrine. Japan, however, denounced these happenings and withdrew from the League in 1933. The Stimson Doctrine did not stop the invasion of China, but it helped build broad recognition of Imperial Japan's threat to global order. The doctrine shaped U.S. and European refusal to recognize the Soviet takeover of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the 1940s. When the three small Baltic nations finally broke free of Soviet rule in 1991, the U.S. and its partners immediately recognized their independent statehoods. The United Nations Charter, signed by Russia as well as the U.S., also bans trans-border aggression, prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In 1994, Russia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom signed the ' Budapest Decl a ration,' which banned them from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, 'except in self-defense' or otherwise in accordance with the U.N. Charter. As a result of this declaration and other agreements between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their Soviet legacy nuclear weapons. When Russia violated that commitment by invading Ukraine in 2014, the U.S., U.K. and France provided Ukraine with financial and military assistance and imposed economic sanctions against Russia but ruled out direct intervention with their own forces. Trump now follows the calamitous 'might makes right' precedents set at Munich in September 1938 and Yalta in February 1945. At Munich, leaders of the U.K., France and Italy authorized Adolf Hitler to seize a key region of Czechoslovakia in order to achieve 'peace in our time' — only to open the door to Nazi aggression soon after. At Yalta, a dying Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill consigned Eastern Europe to the USSR in return for Stalin's empty promises of free elections and democracy. As David E. Sanger and Luke Broadwater recently put it in the New York Times, Yalta symbolizes what can go wrong when great powers carve up the world: 'smaller powers suffer the consequences and free people find themselves cast under authoritarian rule.' It is noteworthy that although FDR valued his alliance with Moscow, the U.S. stood by the Stimson Doctrine in the Baltic region. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky bristles at both the suggestion of ceding territory and the prospect of talks being held without Ukraine. 'Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace,' he said. They will never work — Zelensky said that Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done.' For Trump, however, what counts are facts on the ground. Brought up to date by his emissary Steve Witkoff — a dilettante with zero knowledge of Russia — Trump believes that Putin still holds the cards. Some experts, to the contrary, believe that the only way Putin does not eventually fold is if he is rescued by Trump. Trump is an unreliable partner for Ukraine and potential plaything for Putin to flatter and manipulate. Walter Clemens is an associate at the Harvard Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and professor emeritus of political science at Boston University. He is the author of 'Blood Debts: What Putin and Xi Owe Their Victims' (2023) and 'The Republican War on America: Dangers of Trump and Trumpism' (2023).
Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional map. Read More: 'Time to Stand Down': Newsom Gives Trump Deadline to Call Off Redistricting Plan In Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured representation. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution We used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Watch: Kremlin negotiator speaks to CNN ahead of Alaska summit
The Kremlin's top economic envoy, Kirill Dmitriev told CNN's Frederik Pleitgen that Friday's Trump-Putin summit could be an opportunity to reset US-Russia relations.
