Yes. The political payoff can be cumulative: repeated disruption makes everyday life feel less reliable and institutions look less capable.
There are - in addition to that - examples of Russian financing and influence operations alongside this. Take for example France’s Front National that received a €9.4 million loan from the First Czech Russian Bank in 2014. Separately, the US DOJ’s 2024 Doppelganger case alleged a Kremlin-directed operation using fake news sites and social-media accounts to influence elections and weaken support for Ukraine.
Those are different mechanisms, but they illustrate why the damage from an influence campaign cannot be measured solely in immediate economic losses. My concern is the feedback loop: disruption creates grievances, propaganda amplifies them, and political actors can turn those grievances into support.
That does not establish who was behind this particular refrigerator attack. Attribution still needs evidence. But “the direct damage was small” is not enough to conclude that an operation has no strategic value.
So agree with you. Just more shit flooding the zone.
Btw. there is also a separate interesting stream if one asks the question about wealthy technology investors’ attitudes toward democratic constraints.
Like Peter Thiel explicitly wrote in 2009: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
My concern is that concentrated private power and foreign interference can both weaken democratic accountability, even when their motives differ. The results are a win for both by weakening democracy.
There are - in addition to that - examples of Russian financing and influence operations alongside this. Take for example France’s Front National that received a €9.4 million loan from the First Czech Russian Bank in 2014. Separately, the US DOJ’s 2024 Doppelganger case alleged a Kremlin-directed operation using fake news sites and social-media accounts to influence elections and weaken support for Ukraine.
Those are different mechanisms, but they illustrate why the damage from an influence campaign cannot be measured solely in immediate economic losses. My concern is the feedback loop: disruption creates grievances, propaganda amplifies them, and political actors can turn those grievances into support.
That does not establish who was behind this particular refrigerator attack. Attribution still needs evidence. But “the direct damage was small” is not enough to conclude that an operation has no strategic value.
So agree with you. Just more shit flooding the zone.
Btw. there is also a separate interesting stream if one asks the question about wealthy technology investors’ attitudes toward democratic constraints.
Like Peter Thiel explicitly wrote in 2009: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
My concern is that concentrated private power and foreign interference can both weaken democratic accountability, even when their motives differ. The results are a win for both by weakening democracy.