Russian agents used isotopes and nerve gas in GCHQ’s backyard. The sitting US President might have received their help to win the election. Russia just made the only major territory annexation by a superpower since WWII (iirc).
Obviously we didn’t start the fire, as Billy Joel would say, but we certainly live in interesting times.
Exactly. I think the US Govt failed to appreciate that Putin has been waging Cold War 2.0 for some time now. The scary thing is that he is clearly not playing by the old rules and is willing to push far beyond old boundaries.
The fact that he would so brazenly use a nerve agent in an assassination means we're well and truly in uncharted territory.
At the same time, sloppiness has come into play on multiple occasions. They want to project an image of strength but there is a vein of ineptness running through their military and sometimes their intelligence ops. This is why the West needs to slap Putin down rather than appease his aggression. He is a puffed up bully who is trying to push the envelope beyond what he is capable of backing up.
Putin's tactics used in Crimea are quite the same ones used by Stalin's Russia after WW2 in Eastern Europe. You can find all of them in decassified CIA reports. The only difference is the lack of insignia on troops, clearly designed to support the claim that the forces that siezed Crimea were rebels as opposed to Russian military.
I disagree, Putin doesn't need to be slapped down, for this is too risky and could trigger a war. Nato (US) presence in Eastern (Romania) and Northern Europe (Poland, Eastonia, Letonia, Latvia), military and economic cooperation with these states is sufficient to deter his bulying ambitions. Hungary and Bulgaria have been ruled out for being too cosy with Russia.
I don't see that. The raid on Osama was pretty inept too, as it was arming and training any random anti-Iranian person in the region and ending up with IS/Daesh.
It's just that direct action is inevitably brazen and unsubtle, and will often have unpredictable repercussions. You give state-of-the-art anti-aircraft weaponry to Ukrainian biker gangs and they shoot down a civilian plane; you support anti-Ghaddafi groups and they end up burning down your own embassy. You just cannot predict which way the grass will bend under your feet. Any direct action will have its fair share of fumbles, it's just that the world is now so well-connected that they will be ruthlessly exposed pretty much all the time.
Personally, I wouldn't underestimate Putin - like all fascist regimes, his rule has likely cultivated a cohort of inept yes-men, but he's also reinvigorated what was a tremendously dangerous military apparatus that is still capable of triggering a nuclear holocaust. I think our approach should be a bit subtler than "slapping down a bully".
So has the US. Encroaching NATO in Russia's sphere of influence after the US had agreed they wouldn't. Bush at some point just went "actually, we're not going to honour our word any more."
Unless Trump made a deal with them to do so, this looks like business as usual to me.
Sure we don't have proof right now as it would be Top Secret if it exists, but I'm sure we will find out in due time.
I will reserve my final judgement until the special counsel investigation is completed, but it certainly seems to point towards collusion to me, or Trump has something just as big to hide (RICO).
With that ballot we were going to get 4-8 years of this garbage news pandering either way. Obama was an outlier, far cleaner than average.
The problem is, the camp of people willing to reserve judgement until we have verifiable evidence is a very exclusive club.
Respect - is this improper?
Submission - really?
Or am I misinterpreting you? Is there something verifiable that I'm overlooking? Why the particular hostility to Russia? China is a far worse country in most any respect, yet no one bats an eye. I wonder if skin color has anything to do with it.
Right now they're just rolling up the smaller players so they can build a case against the bigger fish. All those plea deals being cut are not because Mueller has a weak hand.
Has he made any statement or indication he’s close to something significant yet? Any special counsel looking for crimes in DC is going to find plenty, but I don’t see where Trump is implicated in any of these. The leaks from the FBI have been so voluminous and the Democrat incentive to leak them I doubt they are keeping secret evidence under wraps at this point.
Nope, but I wouldn't expect that because "collusion" isn't a crime on the books.
> Any special counsel looking for crimes in DC is going to find plenty
Ken Starr spent a lot of time looking for real estate investment crimes and only turned up with an extramarital affair.
> The leaks from the FBI have been so voluminous and the Democrat incentive to leak them I doubt they are keeping secret evidence under wraps at this point.
There have been zero leaks from the SP, which is distinct from the FBI. No one, not Congress, not the President, not the FBI knows what he has.
Mueller isn’t leaking, but those around him certainly are given how much info is coming out about his intentions, indictments, and activities.
My guess is he’ll try to keep digging until he can find something, however minor or unrelated, on Trump. He’ll be looked at as a failure by so many if he doesn’t, so I get the pressure he’s under.
Now if I’m wrong, and he has secret evidence that comes to light and ends Trump, I’ll be his biggest fan. Pence is a bit scary, but like 0% chance of Republicans winning in 2020 if that happens. Seems pretty unlikely at this point though.
Mueller is not playing. Have you seen the man's bio? You think this is a game? Like he is one to bend to political pressure? From who and to what end?
Every indication points to this investigation gaining more steam as it moves along. There is no indication of any slow down. Mueller is wasting a lot of people's time for what?
What could possibly be his motivation outside of some "deep state" conspiracy that is being peddled?
A SC investigation follows evidence, and uncovers wrongdoing in the process. Sure, Mueller has a broad scope, but I doubt the events that lead to a stained dress was anywhere near the original purview of Ken Starr.
> Mueller isn’t leaking, but those around him certainly are given how much info is coming out about his intentions, indictments, and activities.
Anyone who has anything to say about Mueller's intentions, indictments, and activities is offering their own opinion. Anyone who has spoken with Mueller is free to give their account of the meeting, but that's not exactly a "leak". Mueller's team is air tight. How many knew that Papadopalous was cooperating with the SC months before his indictment dropped (which was also a surprise). How many knew Flynn would be indicted? Sure we knew he was on the radar, but that was a surprise as well. How many forecast the indictment of 13 Russian nationals?
> My guess is he’ll try to keep digging until he can find something, however minor or unrelated, on Trump.
My guess? We'll see Trump personally up for obstruction of justice, money laundering, and conspiracy against the United States.
Yes, the very first charge made public, the charge against, and guilty plea and statement of the offense by George Papadopolous are specifically about lying to investigators about his collusion and attempted collusion with Russians connected with, and whom he believed to be connected with, the Russian government, on behalf of the Trump campaign and with ongoing coordination with higher campaign officials.
Your comment doesn't pass a basic test of moral decency, which is that there is no reason to point fingers. Actions should be judged based on their own merits, not what others are doing. That is just deflection.
I doubt you meant it that way, but that is how it came across.
And of course it is a very big deal and not at all palatable to interfere with the internal politics of another country to destabilize it, regardless of how often it has been done, the roles of its internal members, or their cooperation with you.
I do suspect we only disagree on the degree of influence.
You are quite possibly correct. Much of "sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and the promise of lifting those measures for the preferred candidate/party" would fall under what I meant by "openly setting out the country's position", and is qualitatively different from the (alleged) Russian interference and how the US (and others) have historically influenced elections.
I think much of the difference comes down to attributability (giving the country/government's opinion and how they will deal with any particular winner is fine; making claims that appear to come from other/in-country sources, or misleading the population of that country is not) and whether you are directly taking actions within the country/working with a particular political party (what is a small amount of money to the US could very easily skew the election massively in some countries, and lead to the US de facto deciding the result).
I also assume CIA / NSA sourced intel on politicians (criminal and otherwise) is routinely leaked when in our interest to local sources through embassies and whatnot. Do you agree with that type of interference?
Further, I'd also say the CIA/NSA monitoring of potential politicians is concerning in itself -- there is the potential that they will allow the election to go ahead normally, but then use that information for manipulation after the fact once they are in a position of power (of course this buts up against the more legitimate spying against foreign governments, but there they would expect some monitoring/scrutiny and be trained in OPSEC so irrelevant but blackmailable information is less likely to come up -- like I said, it's very hard to draw an actual line of what is legitimate activity and what is meddling in another country's internal affairs)
I'd also said it grants disproportionate power to the US, as they have the greatest ability (not necessarily strictly greatest, but few other countries would come close) to find such information (through networks of people/global surveillance access and just raw resources).
Edit: I also don't think just any improvement would morally justify interference in another country's sovereignty. There must be a significant evil that must be overcome so that the interference becomes the lesser evil - a hard test to pass.
I don't think this is a clear moral line in international politics.
If your primary motivation is to improve the life of those within your own country, it can be justifiable to get involved in another country's politics. And that's what is done. Ostensibly to prevent war, enhance regional stability, etc.
Even just looking from Russia's perspective. If the world's leading country is so weak that a few phishing attacks can swing the election away from a less favorable candidate, is it really morally wrong to do that to benefit your people?
There is no such thing as "a little phishing" in another election. It is the equivalent of calling something a little hand gesture without mentioning you shoved your hand into someone's vagina first.
The autarky of self-governance is sacred, and should be respected as such. The modern world has completely lost its moral compass on these issues, and I have previously denounced harder lines by the EU and the US interfering in smaller countries elections / forcing laws down their throats (Eastern European and Balkan) countries). But as I alluded to in the beginning of this thread: Just because everyone's doing something does not make it right.
Hillary Clinton was openly calling for a "no fly zone" in an area where Russian planes were flying. A "no fly zone" is a public declaration that you will shoot down planes that you don't think should be there. That could have started WW3, which is not in Russians' interests.
But that's a bit of a stretch. Suppose she had openly advocated for war with Russia. Would it still be immoral for Russia to deceptively access and share with Wikileaks e-mails from her campaign and party to shift support away from her?
Or are there truly no circumstances where one can morally interfere with another country's election?
The decision would be easier (but not easy) to make if their own government was deceiving them grossly, in which case your interference could bring more truth than it obscured. Any moral choice remains predicated on the lack of availability of better, more direct and honest methods. And of course these are practical decisions with all the obscurity and uncertainty they entail.
Between the characteristic of an attack on civilians and the potential of actually bringing in more truth than is obscured if their own government is sowing lies, I first pointed to helping the citizens of the country as the only moral option. Without making a decision (I would have to think about it further), there might be drastic circumstances where there was no other viable course of action - but again within the context of acts of war and significant collateral damage.
This is called speech. I personally have zero problem with speech, no matter who is engaging in it. And I support the market place of ideas.
Everyone should have the right to engage in speech. Yes, even political speech.
This is especially true in America, where the founding fathers put in protections for speech in the constitution. (ESPECIALLY for political speech).
If you don't like the speech or airguns that someone else is making, then you should make better arguments yourself.
Actions shouldn't be considered within the context of what's normal? That sounds a bit like.....deflection.
I'm sure they're 95% genuine, we just don't know which 95% all we have is some KGB guy's word on it
If you are a political party, I am not going to give you the benfit of the doubt. If you POINT to something and say "specifically this email is untrue", then I'll believe you.
But if you stay silent, then I am just going to assume that you believe everything is true.
Innocent until proven guilty is for the court system.
Political parties do not get that benefit from me. All they have to do is counter claim (about a SPECIFIC, point of fact, email, ect) , and I'll listen to them.
If you think that American politicians are more corrupt than Russian spies then you probably too biased to rationally discuss the issue anyway.
Podesta had the same argument about tampering IIRC.
Ask yourself if you would be questioning RNC leaks by a foreign power the same way. I would.
And no, vague insinuations of "It could have been doctored!" do not count as a claim. I will believe them if they point to a specific email or fact that they believe to be untrue. But so far they have made so such claims, so there is nothing for me to believe them on.
Given access to almost anyone’s email, it’s not a difficult task to selectively pick out emails to paint an unflattering picture.
There's a big difference between 'influencing' an election and committing a concerted campaign of espionage, propaganda, disinformation, hacking, and potentially extortion in an effort to subvert the the government of another nation. The scope and aggressiveness of Russia's actions are quite a different animal than normal statecraft.
The fact that several members of the Trump campaign have been indicted and made plea deals indicates that there is a lot of criminal activity there to unpack. Most definitely not business as usual.
It was most definitely business as usual. DC is dirty at every corner and most administrations are overflowing with it, including the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Obama's was cleaner than both of those, based on what we know so far.
You also need to look at what those Trump campaign members were indicted for: absolutely nothing to do with colluding with Russia to rig the election. They got them on rather routine political corruption charges, which you can probably get half of DC for given the way it operates, if you look. It's the Xi premise of cleaning up China's corruption: they're all doing it, you can get any of them if you want to investigate closely enough.
This is false.
How many members of Clinton and Bush's campaign staff or senior national security staff were ever accused of collusion with or corruption involving hostile/iffy foreign governments? Because there's nothing comparable to NSA Flynn plotting to execute an extraordinary rendition on US soil on behalf of a foreign power (Turkey), or campaign manager Manafort indicted for financial crimes involving hiding money received from a foreign government under active sanctions, or deputy campaign manager pleading guilty to similar charges.
> absolutely nothing to do with colluding with Russia to rig the election
Reminder: Paul Manafort was indicated for being a paid agent of and conspiring with the Russian government and 13 Russian nationals have been indicted for interfering with the 2016 elections.
The closest you get to this is Iran-Contra in 1987 and the rumored 1980 "October Surprise", where George HW Bush -- allegedly -- negotiated with Iran to delay releasing American hostages until after Reagan defeated Carter. (They were released on Inauguration day 1981.) However, I would argue that nothing in modern US history comes close to this. No American president has been credibly accused or even remotely tied to foreign government attempts to manipulate the US electorate the way the Trump campaign and White House have been.
Doesn't change the fact that it is very much not business as usual for Russia to attempt to subvert the US Govt like this. They've crossed several lines in the sand, which is why expulsions, Interpol warrants, and sanctions have been levied against Russia and individuals involved.
One can make the argument that this is just Cold War stuff again, but the tactics being employed are in several ways a step above the old Cold War in aggressiveness.
To me this and the trade war with China suggest that the US is losing it's status as pre-eminent super power. The crown is slipping and the vultures circle.
Worrying times really.