It's my understanding that quite a bit of the operation was semi-automated. Additionally, the information contained in Clinton's emails was almost certainly a Russian hack job. What sort of manpower do you think the old USSR would have required to sift through 30,000 communications and find the nuggets? Again, my point about the power the Russian state in this field has to do with efficiency, not efficacy.
And I'm skeptical of this idea that the Soviets could have "manufactured" a sizeable number of traitors. That is indeed very manpower intensive. The Soviets scored significant humint successes, included perhaps climbing a mole to the second chair in the CIA. I don't doubt their skills. But I find the idea that they could have thrown a few million votes the other way a little far-fetched.
Finally, Russia too has enough power-projection to skew American attitudes about global involvement. Syria rings a bell, right?
And I'm skeptical of this idea that the Soviets could have "manufactured" a sizeable number of traitors. That is indeed very manpower intensive. The Soviets scored significant humint successes, included perhaps climbing a mole to the second chair in the CIA. I don't doubt their skills. But I find the idea that they could have thrown a few million votes the other way a little far-fetched.
Finally, Russia too has enough power-projection to skew American attitudes about global involvement. Syria rings a bell, right?
