Because Putin is actually actively trying to get Trump elected? Most likely because he has enough dirt on him to manipulate him.
It seems to me that embarassing leaks are best distracted away from the political news cycle by manufacturing a sexy story about Russian interference instead of trying to spin the content of the leaks themselves.
1.) Paul Manafort, Trump's previous manager, received a cash payment of more than $12 million from Pro-Russia party in Ukraine
2) Donald Trump's campaign's ONLY intervention in the entire GOP platform was to remove anti-Putin language from the platform re: Ukraine.
3) Not only that, but just days before the RNC, Carter Paige, one of Trump's foreign policy advisers traveled to Russia and gave a speech attacking America's policies towards Russia, calling America's focus on democratization and fighting inequality "hypocritical."
4) The Intelligence community has confirmed that Russian Intelligence is responsible for the hacking of the DNC, which is an obvious attempt to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign.
5) Furthermore, Donald Trump called on Russia to release/hack any emails they could get their hands on.
6) Trump's campaign manager has ties to pro-Putin oligarchs who were propped up by the Kremlin. This isn't new information. As long ago as 2005, there were calls to McCain's people to try and do something about Manafort because he was working against American interests in the region.
7) Trump has praised Putin numerous times, calling him a far better leader than Obama.
8) Donald Trump has taken an anti-NATO stance.
>campaign ties to the Kremlin
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and...
>speeches in Moscow that benefit the Kremlin
https://www.quora.com/Who-paid-Bill-Clintons-2-5-million-com...
We can play this game all day. Both US major federal political parties are neck deep in Kremlin corruption and ties to each other. Trump has also never taken an 'anti-NATO' stance, he wants to shake down NATO countries for cash to pay for protection, and so did Dubya, who threatened my country into joining the Afghan military adventure with that whole 'you are with us or our enemy' speech.
The question is, is Russia trying to get Trump elected which is hard to believe since they enjoy a pretty good relationship with the Clintons, but who really knows I will concede. I'm also not buying the secret IOCs that "verify" state sanctioned involvement, they verify similar attackers, that use a Russian VPS.
The end result is basically the same, but I feel like the second is easier to prove (By your points)
One, coverage of Trump in Russian media (which is almost entirely government-owned or controlled) is generally positive, and that of Clinton is generally very negative. You can clearly see the political preferences they're trying to push.
And two, it's actually a fairly easy sell to the public, because it plays well into the "degenerate West" narrative that Russian propaganda has been using as one of its lynchpins for several years now. When Trump comes out and says that he's against political correctness and immigration, he becomes a part of that narrative, as some sort of valiant crusader against "degeneracy", and his popular support becomes a "proof" of its existence.
That's not the only plausible interpretation of the intervention. A desire for weak (perhaps particularly in terms of international standing) US leader could lead to efforts to specifically weaken Clinton's standing and nothing against Trump if Trump was seen as either unlikely to win in any case or already weak (or both). Or, perhaps, the overt manipulation on behalf of Russia that favors Trump is, itself, an attack on Trump's standing, while the overt content leaked is an attack on Clinton's.
A desire for Trump to win is not necessary to explain Russian intervention of the type that is alleged and apparent here.
I think it was a timely reminder to Putin that NATO has no interest in playing nice with Russia, and informed his actions in Ukraine and Syria.
And when the massive pro-democracy protests against electoral fraud in 2011 election started 2 months later, he started to take it as a personal threat. The rumor claims that this emotional response was a significant contribution to the course change (towards more authoritarianism) that followed.
Historical & Groundbreaking Endorsements Compiled:
The Chicago Tribune endorsed a Non-Republican for only the 2nd time in 163-years by supporting Johnson
The Atlantic endorsed a Presidential candidate for only the 3rd time in 159-years by supporting Clinton
The San Diego Union-Tribune endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 148-years by supporting Clinton
Detroit News endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 143-years by supporting Johnson
The Arizona Republic endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 126-years by supporting Clinton
Philadelphia endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 108-years by supporting Clinton
The New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Johnson
The Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 100+ years by supporting Clinton
The Desert Sun endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 90-years by supporting Clinton
The Dallas Morning News endorsed a Democrat for the 1st time in 76-years by supporting Clinton
The Tulsa World refused to endorse a Republican or Presidential Candidate for the 1st time in 72-years
The Houston Chronicle endorsed a Democrat for only the 3rd time in 70-years by supporting Clinton
The Richmond-Times Dispatch endorsed a Non-Republican for the 1st time in 36-years by supporting Johnson
USA Today gave a endorsement/non-endorsement for the 1st time in 34-years by opposing Trump
The Dallas Voice endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 32-years by supporting Clinton
Wired endorsed a Presidential candidate for the 1st time in 25-years by supporting Clinton
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Donald-...
so everyone is stupid in your opinion?
These are great days we're living, bros.
I'd much rather that people vote for Clinton because they made up their own mind and decided she was the better candidate, not because "well everybody told me to so I guess I better do what they say". That's scary.
No, I do not think it is a problem for any person or editorial body to share an opinion. I do not see it as a form of mind control to be exposed to other people's worldview. And Trump is exactly as hideous a human being as everyone has pointed out, besides being a deeply flawed candidate who is in over his head and has no capability to deliver on even a fraction of (what little) he has promised.
"Endorsements might taint the objective reporting we were trying to do in the rest of the newspaper. Moreover, [USA Today founder Al Neuharth] felt it was elitist to assume we know better than everyone else when it comes to voting."
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/04/disendorsem...
Or, you know, doesn't want WWIII, like the rest of us.
We already have a deterrent for war with Russia. Russia knows this, I think the US is forgetting it.
Should other countries have a plan in case of USA collapse? At least our codes got upgraded from a string of 0s... But I imagine there are some foreign officials worried. Russia has started calling America "not-agreement-capable" after recent events in Syria and a UNSC meeting.
But it cannot be allowed to dictate the bilateral terms between other countries. If Ukraine or Poland wants to be in NATO, it's not up to Russia to say "no". Especially given the histories of those countries, and Russia's role therein.
And that's basically what that "OMG NATO is surrounding Russia" thing boils down to.
It is if they have the power to stop it. The whole "moral justification" part is for plebes like us. If powers feel threatened by the movements of other powers in neighboring countries, they will act[1]. How they spin it to the public is secondary.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Quarantin...
The Kremlin had operational control of all nukes pre and post the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
There was no negotiations required to get them back except for a procedural "note of record". They would have been taken by force if necessary.
Russia is little more than a petro state whose economic fortunes are almost completely related to the price of oil.
Putin should be focusing on broadening the Russian economic base but is instead engaging in stupid military endeavors that are only kidding Russia friends. The EU would love to trade with Russia but his European tinkering had made it impossible for them to do so. The US is obviously not a fan. Give it a few years and he'll probably piss off China too (or they'll find the US and European relationships more useful) and the Ryssians will have little more to do than reminisce about the time they annexed Crimea.
They neutralised Georgia after Georgia attacked and killed several of their soldiers.
They seized (bloodlessly I might add) Crimea after the new western-imposed government threatened to end the perpetual lease of the Sevastopol naval base. I might also add that 'Maidan' was the 2nd western-sponsored 'revolution' in Ukraine in a decade.
Now Russia is defending a long-time ally in the middle east from western-backed terrorists.
Then there's also NATO advancing all around Russia, the various 'defensive' missile systems being installed by US-allied countries who happen to encircle Russia, etc...
> Could you count how many times in history yielding to bold advances of power hungry ruler served as effective deterrent to war?
The only one making bold advances is the US, and yes, Russia isn't yielding, and the US is making it a problem. But you're right, it is a deterrent to war - if a weak ruler like Yeltsin were still in power Russia would probably be in another dozen pieces right now, with wars raging in half of them...
wow, what universe do you live in where conquering a whole nation is justified by a few lifes lost or stopping a commercial agreement? disgusting
And which whole nation was conquered?
A twice elected democratic government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup, orchestrated from abroad, that used neonazis to do the dirty work.
When this happened, the people of [what was then called] the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" voted in favor of leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed.
Ukraine as a country has only existed for 20 some years. Before that is was a loose territory of different regions. The East was mostly ethnic Russians, the West was mostly other groups. And Crimea was always Russian.
The majority of the force used in Crimea composed of Russian solders that stood outside the gates of Ukrainian military bases, blocking them from leaving, to carry out orders to stop the referendum... Which turned out to be over 95% in favor of rejoining Russia.
> would you recognize the right of any of the Russian regions to vote for their independence?
Has the Russia government been overthrown? When it is, lets talk then, because the answer will depend on the circumstances of the event.
USSR/Russian overthrows/subversions so many it's not even funny. From which year do you want to count? 1917 1920 1964 1991 1993 1996 2012
Perfect example of russian propaganda.
> leaving what was left of Ukraine and rejoining the Russian Federation - which they were originally part of for longer than the US has existed.
Crimea was part of Russian Federation _for longer than the US has existed_???
Dude, stop smoking whatever you're on.
The more probable reason in my eyes is that criminal Hillary is more likely to engage Russia in conflict.