Kremlin Was Hoping for Division in America, Not Victory for One Candidate

There are conflicting accounts regarding whom the Kremlin preferred as the next president of the United States. However, it is likely that Moscow did not truly favor either candidate. The style of the Kremlin’s attempted influence campaigns, along with insider reports, suggests that the Kremlin’s ideal outcome was not a particular winner but a conflict over the vote itself. 

Sources within the Kremlin administration, cited by Russian independent journalists, highlight Russian officials’ fixation on divisions within American society. “Society there is even more polarized now, and before, there were protests that escalated to an assault on the Capitol,” a source close to the Russian presidential administration told Meduza. “The [main] bet was not so much on the victory of a particular candidate, but on the likelihood that the opposing side would refuse to accept the election results.”

Betting on Division over Victory

Moscow was not just hoping for such an outcome but was actively working to amplify these divisions and making attempts at turning up the heat by fueling contentious issues and inflaming public discontent, hoping to deepen the rift within American society. The logic behind this thinking was that, in the event of a disputed election result, U.S. authorities would be preoccupied with a domestic crisis rather than focusing on confrontation with Russia.

Internal documents from RT, a Russian state-funded and state-run outlet with a global reach, reveal that Moscow’s propaganda strategists were not focused on defending Russia’s image in the United States or backing a particular candidate for their perceived benefit to Russia. An RT blueprint for a “guerrilla media campaign in the United States,” seized by the FBI, lists issues such as inflation and military spending abroad, urging employees to “exploit these issues in the course of an information campaign in/for the United States.”

Incidentally, Chinese media employed a similar strategy. In its coverage of the U.S. election, state broadcaster China Central Television emphasized potential conflicts over the election results rather than policy differences between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. “The US election, which has entered the final stage, has seen unprecedented chaos,” Bloomberg reports a CCTV voiceover saying. “How much chaos awaits during vote counting and power transitioning?”

However, the Democratic Party candidate conceded the election promptly, and any anticipated unrest has not materialized. While Russia invested in amplifying tensions and divisions within American society, the outcome remained peaceful, with no widespread disputes or crises surrounding the vote count or transition of power. 

Mixed Feelings on Trump’s Return

Unlike in 2016, when many Russian officials welcomed Trump’s election win as a potential game-changer in their favor, this time they have been more cautious in their comments on recent developments in the United States. During the campaign, President Vladimir Putin, when asked, remarked that Russia actually benefited from having a Democrat in the White House, referring both to Joe Biden and later to Kamala Harris. Given the established facts of Russia’s attempted meddling in U.S. elections, however, many question Putin’s sincerity in expressing support for either candidate.

Only on Thursday did President Vladimir Putin publicly congratulate Donald Trump on his election to the presidency, doing so during his remarks at the annual Valdai Discussion Forum, which was once an international platform. Putin began by praising Trump for his bravery during an assassination attempt at a rally near Butler, Pennsylvania. “A person reveals their character under extraordinary conditions—and he certainly did. In my view, he showed himself in the right way: courageously, as a man.”

“I don’t want to comment now on what was said during the electoral struggle,” Putin continued. “I think it was said deliberately in the struggle for votes, but never mind. And what was said about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to contribute to the end of the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion, I think it deserves attention at least.”

That said, the Russian establishment holds certain sympathies for the president-elect Trump. “It’s not particularly rational,” Meduza’s source explains. “He’s just a type we understand, a colorful personality, not just a dude—our kind of dude. Talks about conservatism, rich, successful. Doesn’t insult Russia. Normal. [After his sanctions against Russia] optimism has diminished, but the sympathy has not gone away.”

Public Perception and the Impact on U.S.-Russian Relations

Since Trump entered the U.S. political scene in earnest nine years ago, Russian state-run media have covered him more favorably than other American politicians. However, the tone shifted over time, reflecting Moscow’s gradual disillusionment with Trump’s first term, reaching a low point by the end of 2020, as noted by the independent resource Re: Russia. By the summer of 2024, however, positive evaluations once again exceeded negative ones for the first time since 2017. 

Today Trump’s name recognition and “approval rating” in Russia surpass those of any other current U.S. politician. According to a September poll by the Kremlin-linked Public Opinion Foundation (FOM), 26 percent of respondents viewed Trump’s victory as more beneficial to Russia than that of Kamala Harris (with only 4 percent favoring her). An independent poll by the Levada Center found that 37 percent of respondents preferred Trump as the U.S. president, compared to just 5 percent for Harris. About half of those polled by both organizations believed that the identity of the next U.S. president ultimately made no difference.

About half of FOM respondents believed that the U.S. election outcome would not impact U.S.-Russian relations; 33 percent expected relations to improve if Trump was elected president, while 9 percent expected them to worsen. When asked why Trump’s victory would be more favorable for Russia, the most common response among FOM respondents was that “Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine, to stop financing Ukraine, and to halt arms supplies there” (10 percent); another 9 percent cited Trump’s “positive attitude toward Russia and Putin.”

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.