New revelations come to light every day about the degree and depth of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. One recent bombshell: The FBI is reportedly investigating whether Russia tried to help elect President Trump by funneling money through the National Rifle Association.
The notion — that the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank, who is a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, may have illegally moved money through the NRA — may strike some as strange.
But the Russian banker, Alexander Torshin, is a lifetime member of the NRA who met Donald Trump Jr. at the 2016 NRA convention in Kentucky, when Torshin was also reportedly trying to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. And Torshin himself has been previously accused of money laundering, though he has denied any wrongdoing and was never charged.
The connections between Russia and the NRA go deeper. In 2015, an NRA delegation visited Russia and met with Dmitry Rogozin, a Russian official sanctioned by the U.S. government, as well as with Torshin.
Torshin even helped found a group called The Right to Bear Arms to advocate for Russian gun owners in 2011, even though in Russia, gun ownership is not a political issue with a constituency clamoring for an advocacy group.
Yet the ties between Russia and the NRA stretch beyond personal relationships. The parallels in tone and posture between both sides is remarkable, and telling.
In recent years, the NRA’s messaging has taken a distinct turn. To be sure, the group has never shied away from using harsh and hyperbolic language when it comes to talking about guns. But in recent years there has been a perceptible shift in the content of the NRA’s messaging away from a narrow focus on gun rights and toward broader authoritarian-sounding themes.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2017, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre gave a rousing speech in support of newly inaugurated President Trump, during which he had little to say about gun rights but much to say about the “violent left,” which he described as “an enemy utterly dedicated to destroy not just our country, but also Western civilization.”
He continued, “Many of these people literally hate everything America stands for. Democracy. Free-market capitalism. Representative government. Individual freedom.”
A similar sentiment was expressed in a series of videos released in 2017 featuring NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch. In one, Loesch attacks an unidentified “they” — presumably anyone who voices disagreement with the Trump administration — describing such individuals as “saboteurs” who “drive their daggers through the heart of our future.”
This posture towards political discourse and dissent echoes what we hear from Moscow. Putin has consistently sought to limit freedom of speech and expression. In Russia, the theme of being under attack is persistent, as is placing defense of Putin in civilizational terms.
The former world chess champion and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov eloquently explained why autocrats tend to take this approach: “The democratic leader needs the people. The tyrant, and the would-be tyrant, insists that the people need him.”
These seemingly disparate strands — Russia’s odd love for the NRA, possible illicit financial ties, and the NRA’s shift towards Russian-style political rhetoric — make sense considering the Kremlin’s foreign policy strategy.
Russia seeks to support destabilizing political groups across Europe and the United States. Those reportedly include Texas and California secessionist groups, and most recently even pro-Confederate secessionist propaganda in the U.S. The idea is to try to undermine liberal democracy — which Putin sees as a competitor and a threat to his system of thug-rule — from within.
Whether there was Russian support and infiltration of the NRA, and if so, its full extent, is not yet clear. But the group purports to speak for the millions of American gun owners and markets itself as the country’s “longest-standing civil rights organization.”
Their ties to Russia, and the metamorphosis in their message, force the question: Who are they really speaking for?
Parsons is vice president for guns and crime policy at the Center for American Progress. Lamond is managing director of the Moscow Project and senior policy adviser at CAP.
