US imposes sanctions on Russia

[FaxModem1]

New York Times

Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking
166

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at the Kremlin on Tuesday.
POOL PHOTO BY ALEXEI DRUZHININ
By DAVID E. SANGER
DECEMBER 29, 2016
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election, ejecting 35 Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services, including four top officers of the military intelligence unit the White House believes ordered the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations.

In a sweeping set of announcements, the United States was also expected to release evidence linking the cyberattacks to computer systems used by Russian intelligence. Taken together, the actions would amount to the strongest American response ever taken to a state-sponsored cyberattack aimed at the United States.

The sanctions were also intended to box in President-elect Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump has consistently cast doubt that the Russian government had anything to do with the hacking of the D.N.C. or other political institutions, saying American intelligence agencies could not be trusted and suggesting that the hacking could have been the work of a “400-pound guy” lying in his bed.

Mr. Trump will now have to decide whether to lift the sanctions on the Russian intelligence agencies when he takes office next month, with Republicans in Congress among those calling for a public investigation into Russia’s actions. Should Mr. Trump do so, it would require him to effectively reject the findings of his intelligence agencies.

Asked on Wednesday night at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., about reports of the impending sanctions, Mr. Trump said: “I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need.”

from “implants” in Russian computer systems, tapped conversations and spies — is expected to remain classified.

Despite the fanfare and political repercussions surrounding the announcement, it is not clear how much real effect the sanctions may have, although they go well beyond the modest sanctions imposed against North Korea for its attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment two years ago.


Starting in March 2014, the United States and its Western allies levied sanctions against broad sectors of the Russian economy and blacklisted dozens of people, some of them close friends of President Vladimir V. Putin, after the Russian annexation of Crimea and its activities to destabilize Ukraine. Mr. Trump suggested in an interview with The New York Times earlier this year that he believed those sanctions were useless, and left open the possibility he might lift them.

Mr. Obama and his staff have debated for months when and how to impose what they call “proportionate” sanctions for the remarkable set of events that took place during the election, as well as how much of them to announce publicly. Several officials, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., have suggested that there may also be a covert response, one that would be obvious to Mr. Putin but not to the public.

While that may prove satisfying, many outside experts have said that unless the public response is strong enough to impose a real cost on Mr. Putin, his government and his vast intelligence apparatus, it might not deter further activity.


“They are concerned about controlling retaliation,” said James A. Lewis, a cyberexpert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The Obama administration was riven by an internal debate about how much of its evidence to make public. Although the announcement risks revealing sources and methods, it was the best way, some officials inside the administration argued, to make clear to a raft of other nations — including China, Iran and North Korea — that their activities can be tracked and exposed.

In the end, Mr. Obama decided to expand an executive order that he issued in April 2015, after the Sony hacking. He signed it in Hawaii on Thursday morning, specifically giving himself and his successor the authority to issue travel bans and asset freezes on those who “tamper with, alter, or cause a misappropriation of information, with a purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.”

Mr. Obama used that order to immediately impose sanctions on four Russian intelligence officials: Igor Valentinovich Korobov, the current chief of a military intelligence agency, the G.R.U., and three deputies: Sergey Aleksandrovich Gizunov, the deputy chief of the G.R.U.; Igor Olegovich Kostyukov, a first deputy chief, and Vladimir Stepanovich Alekseyev, also a first deputy chief of the G.R.U.

But G.R.U. officials rarely travel to the United States, or keep their assets here, so the effects may be largely symbolic. It is also unclear if any American allies will impose parallel sanctions on Russia.


The administration also put sanctions on three companies and organizations that it said supported the hacking operations: the Special Technologies Center, a signals intelligence operation in St. Petersburg; a firm called Zor Security that is also known as Esage Lab; and the Autonomous Non-commercial Organization Professional Association of Designers of Data Processing Systems, whose lengthy name, American officials said, was cover for a group that provided special training for the hacking.

“It is hard to do business around the world when you are named like this,” a senior administration official with long experience in Russia sanctions said on Thursday morning. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence.


But the question will remain whether the United States acted too slowly — and then, perhaps, with not enough force. Members of Hillary Clinton’s election campaign argue that the distractions caused by the leaks of emails, showing infighting in the D.N.C., and later the private communications of John D. Podesta, the campaign chairman, absorbed an American press corps more interested in the leaks than in the phenomena of a foreign power marrying new cybertechniques with old-style information warfare.

Certainly the United States had early notice. The F.B.I. first informed the D.N.C. that it saw evidence that the committee’s email systems had been hacked in the fall of 2015. Months of fumbling and slow responses followed. Mr. Obama said at a new conference he was first notified early this summer. But one of his top cyberaides met Russian officials in Geneva to complain about cyberactivity in April.

By the time the leadership of the D.N.C. woke up to what was happening, the G.R.U. had not only obtained those emails through a hacking group that has been closely associated with it for years, but, investigators say, also allowed them to be published on a number of websites, from a newly created one called DC Leaks to the far more established WikiLeaks. Meanwhile, several states reported the “scanning” of their voter databases — which American intelligence agencies also attributed to Russian hackers. But there is no evidence, American officials said, that Russia sought to manipulate votes or voter rolls on Nov. 8.

Mr. Obama decided not to issue sanctions ahead of the elections, for fear of Russian retaliation ahead of Election Day. Some of his aides now believe that was a mistake. But the president made clear before leaving for Hawaii that he planned to respond.

The question now is whether the response he has assembled will be more than just symbolic, deterring not only Russia but others who might attempt to influence future elections.

So, who bets that Trump folds like a cheap suit and immediately retracts these sanctions as soon as he is in office?

[The Romulan Republic]

In his case, probably less "folding" and more "doing what his puppet master put him their to do".

[TheFeniX]

Mr. Trump said: “I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need.”

I love it when people with zero understanding of even the basics of these new-fangled doohickies and Interwebs say with certainty that, since "protocol" to them is some kind of nerdy Star Trek technobabble, it's impossible to know what's going on.

Certainly the United States had early notice. The F.B.I. first informed the D.N.C. that it saw evidence that the committee’s email systems had been hacked in the fall of 2015. Months of fumbling and slow responses followed. Mr. Obama said at a new conference he was first notified early this summer. But one of his top cyberaides met Russian officials in Geneva to complain about cyberactivity in April.

Go figure: a bunch of politicians ignored the people paid to know more than they do and let their idiocy allow said idiocy and childish bickering to get aired to the entire developed world.

Fucking morons. All of them.

[Tribble]

You know, if this were the other way around and Trump had been the one hacked and had incriminating emails exposed, I'm sure Democrats would be jumping up and down in delight and praising whomever did the hacking for a job well done.

[aerius]

So, who bets that Trump folds like a cheap suit and immediately retracts these sanctions as soon as he is in office?

Damn right it should be the first thing he does, these sanctions based on absolutely zero evidence are complete horseshit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh look, our local Kremlin apologist has predictably decided to grace us with his presence.

You know, if this were the other way around and Trump had been the one hacked and had incriminating emails exposed, I'm sure Democrats would be jumping up and down in delight and praising whomever did the hacking for a job well done.

Some Democrats would. Some wouldn't. You are painting us with a very broad brush.

In any case, what's your point? That people are hypocrites, so that somehow makes this okay? Its wrong now, and it would be wrong if someone did the same thing to Trump (note that I make a distinction between exposes by whistleblowers and journalists, provided they are genuinely seeking to expose the truth rather than just favour one side, and interference by a foreign government for geopolitical purposes).

Their are also the specific reasons for Russia supporting Trump- they aren't good ones. Its not because noble Russia is standing up to evil American Imperialism and stopping Clinton from starting World War III, the way the apologist camp would have you believe. No, this is them picking a man with close ties to Russian businesses and the Kremlin, who is at best ambivalent to NATO and is therefore their best shot for territorial expansion in Eastern Europe, and backing him in a way that has the side effect of undermining and discrediting western democracies.

[Jub]

I'd say that at least this might finally prompt the US to take a serious look at their information security, but we all know that it won't. Even if it did, good luck getting anybody, from either party, to actually follow the rules.

[aerius]

Oh look, our local Kremlin apologist has predictably decided to grace us with his presence.

Oh my bad, I forgot, Trump and Russia are on double secret probation.
Are you done with your hysterics yet? Do you need a couple more years to get your hate out or would you like a safe space instead?

I'd say that at least this might finally prompt the US to take a serious look at their information security, but we all know that it won't. Even if it did, good luck getting anybody, from either party, to actually follow the rules.

Yup, the problem with information security is always the human factor, you're always going to have dumbasses like John Podesta who click on email links and get their passwords stolen, or idiots using cloud storage, public email services and other forms of data management which can't be secured. Security is a process which requires everyone to take it seriously, and that culture does not exist in government or most other places.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh my bad, I forgot, Trump and Russia are on double secret probation.
Are you done with your hysterics yet? Do you need a couple more years to get your hate out or would you like a safe space instead?

Now you're just trolling, you dumb, morally bankrupt cocksucker, probably because you have nothing to actually validate your position.

By the way, exaggerated snide whining about safe spaces (which has absolutely nothing to do with anything else in this thread) is so utterly typical of the Alt. Right playbook that it gives me some very strong suspicions about what your real motives are, and where your real sympathies lie.

[Tribble]

Oh look, our local Kremlin apologist has predictably decided to grace us with his presence.

This is going off thread, but please explain why condemning the US - backed overthrows of various governments over the years and pointing American hypocrisy when they accuse others of doing what they do all the time makes me a "Kremlin Apologist".

There is a difference between supporting a position on an issue (such the idea regime change has generally more harm than good, especially in the Middle East) vs supporting a government. It's not my fault if you are too stupid to understand the difference.

Some Democrats would. Some wouldn't. You are painting us with a very broad brush.

then you go on to say...

By the way, exaggerated snide whining about safe spaces (which has absolutely nothing to do with anything else in this thread) is so utterly typical of the Alt. Right playbook that it gives me some very strong suspicions about what your real motives are, and where your real sympathies lie.

My response is obvious:

Some Alt. Right would follow that playbook. Some wouldn't. You are painting them all with a very broad brush

EDIT: Actually I'll go one step further - Aerius, do you identify yourself as part of the Alt-Right movement? If not, then what evidence is there to suggest that you are? Burden of proof on TRR of course.

In any case, what's your point? That people are hypocrites, so that somehow makes this okay? Its wrong now, and it would be wrong if someone did the same thing to Trump (note that I make a distinction between exposes by whistleblowers and journalists, provided they are genuinely seeking to expose the truth rather than just favour one side, and interference by a foreign government for geopolitical purposes).

Where is the proof that it was a Russian backed operation all along? "US intelligence says so!" is hardly what I would call convincing evidence given their history. Based on what we know so far it's just as likely that the US government is throwing up this smokescreen in a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that it was "legitimate whistleblowing" - what better way to discredit evidence than to discredit the whistleblower and their sources? Wouldn't be the first time. Of course I'm not saying that true either, and Russia may very well have tried to interfere with he election, but I'm not convinced based on the current evidence that this is the case.

In his case, probably less "folding" and more "doing what his puppet master put him their to do".

What evidence do you have that Trump is being directly controlled by Russia and is little more than a puppet? Do you have some knowledge that I am unaware of, apart from speculation? Being friendly with Russia /= being a Russian puppet in and of itself.

[Joun_Lord]

I'm not fan of Putin (or Trump....or Hillary for that matter....not even a fan of Obama) but this seems shortsighted as hell atleast to me. First its based on relatively flimsy evidence that Lootin Pootin actually was the cause of it. I'm not saying its impossible or even unlikely, this is Putin we are talking about, but I'd prefer to not base international politics that affects the lives of millions on a maybe.

Second, to run the risk of victim blaming, we can't exactly give Hillary and the DNC a pass for their part. Their security has more holes then my arms did during my teenage years. And the content of the emails was never what was debated, all the accusations of collusion, of rigging the election against Bernie, of doing some pretty underhanded tactics were never said to be false, to be planted by the pesky Ruskies. As far as I know the actual content of the hacks is real even if the source is shady. So the blame doesn't fall on the Russians only (assuming they did it), there would be nothing to throw the election if Hillary and her team hadn't made the shit in the first place.

Beyond that I think this Cold War repeat garbage is stupid. Maybe it makes me a "Kremlin Apologist" but I'd like to normalize our relations with Russia same as we are normalizing our relationship with Cuba and trying with Iranistan. I've got nothing against Russia or its people even if I think its leadership is garbage. They ain't the Soviet Union, we shouldn't be treating them like its 19 fucking 50. Yeah they have problems but its not like our shit don't stink, its not like our own meddling in affairs in their sphere of influence didn't create some of those problems. For their horribly disgusting domestic problems I think the hand of friendship would do alot more to solve them then making the people more defensive and literally hungry.

If its confirmed the Kremlin actually did it then something should be done but something more measured then slapping them more sanctions and backing them further into a corner. Either way it should be making people try to start plugging holes and maybe, just maybe, not do such shitty shit as cockblock people in your own party that gets people pissed off royally.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, if this were the other way around and Trump had been the one hacked and had incriminating emails exposed, I'm sure Democrats would be jumping up and down in delight and praising whomever did the hacking for a job well done.

Which Democrats?

So, who bets that Trump folds like a cheap suit and immediately retracts these sanctions as soon as he is in office?

Damn right it should be the first thing he does, these sanctions based on absolutely zero evidence are complete horseshit.

Remind me again how you know that Obama is taking his time and energy to talk about, and do things about, this issue, on the basis of "absolutely zero evidence?"

Does Obama have a track record of randomly accusing foreign nations of attempts to subvert the United States, for no reason, without evidence, just because he got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Or are you just dismissing these accusations because you refuse to believe they could be true? On account of, you know, Donald Trump is such a fine and outstanding character, and the Russians never do things like interfere in foreign countries.

I mean, I don't normally agree with TRR's rhetorical flights, but you really are coming across as "kneejerk Trump/Russian apologist" here. Because the minute you see a thread discussing the Russian hacking allegations, you come in with a zero-substance post attempting to throw poorly supported mockery on the allegations.

There's a difference between "presumption of innocence" and "refuse to take accusations seriously."

I'd say that at least this might finally prompt the US to take a serious look at their information security, but we all know that it won't. Even if it did, good luck getting anybody, from either party, to actually follow the rules.

It's not even clear what "take a serious look at their information security" would mean in this context. Do you have specifics in mind?

Because if I don't know what the US would have to do in order to have tight information security, I am poorly positioned to complain that they haven't done it.

Where is the proof that it was a Russian backed operation all along? "US intelligence says so!" is hardly what I would call convincing evidence given their history. Based on what we know so far it's just as likely that the US government is throwing up this smokescreen in a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that it was "legitimate whistleblowing" - what better way to discredit evidence than to discredit the whistleblower and their sources? Wouldn't be the first time. Of course I'm not saying that true either, and Russia may very well have tried to interfere with he election, but I'm not convinced based on the current evidence that this is the case.

I can respect this question.

However, consider the source of the information that the CIA and FBI regard as evidence of Russian involvement. If this information was obtained through informants or CIA agents in the Russian government, or through Russian communications being intercepted by the NSA or whatever... then the information is inevitably going to be classified. That is how the US government, and pretty much all governments, work.

People who are upset that the evidence of Russian hacking hasn't been immediately released are being extremely unrealistic about how governments operate. I think it should have been released more quickly, but given how the US (and other governments) handle classified information gained through their intelligence agencies... I can't be surprised or disappointed that it hasn't been.

Nor can I treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence, the way aerius is doing, because if there was evidence the odds are very good I would be legally barred from seeing it because of security clearance issues.

Beyond that I think this Cold War repeat garbage is stupid. Maybe it makes me a "Kremlin Apologist" but I'd like to normalize our relations with Russia same as we are normalizing our relationship with Cuba and trying with Iranistan. I've got nothing against Russia or its people even if I think its leadership is garbage. They ain't the Soviet Union, we shouldn't be treating them like its 19 fucking 50. Yeah they have problems but its not like our shit don't stink, its not like our own meddling in affairs in their sphere of influence didn't create some of those problems. For their horribly disgusting domestic problems I think the hand of friendship would do alot more to solve them then making the people more defensive and literally hungry.

If its confirmed the Kremlin actually did it then something should be done but something more measured then slapping them more sanctions and backing them further into a corner. Either way it should be making people try to start plugging holes and maybe, just maybe, not do such shitty shit as cockblock people in your own party that gets people pissed off royally.

I'd like to normalize relations with Russia too, but at the moment it looks like Russia isn't especially interested in normalizing relations with us. Why should they, if adversarial relations with us get them more of what they want than cooperation would? Vladimir Putin isn't the kind of guy who takes other people's hands of proffered friendship out of the kindness of his heart, if it would require him to give up his own objectives to do so.

So maybe the Russians would prefer to engage in "Cold War repeat garbage" themselves. At least, unless we elect a president they like and whom they trust to let them do whatever they want. Which is not a price I'm prepared to accept, especially if said president is likely to be bad for America in other ways.

[aerius]

Where is the proof that it was a Russian backed operation all along? "US intelligence says so!" is hardly what I would call convincing evidence given their history. Based on what we know so far it's just as likely that the US government is throwing up this smokescreen in a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that it was "legitimate whistleblowing" - what better way to discredit evidence than to discredit the whistleblower and their sources? Wouldn't be the first time. Of course I'm not saying that true either, and Russia may very well have tried to interfere with he election, but I'm not convinced based on the current evidence that this is the case.

I can respect this question.

However, consider the source of the information that the CIA and FBI regard as evidence of Russian involvement. If this information was obtained through informants or CIA agents in the Russian government, or through Russian communications being intercepted by the NSA or whatever... then the information is inevitably going to be classified. That is how the US government, and pretty much all governments, work.

People who are upset that the evidence of Russian hacking hasn't been immediately released are being extremely unrealistic about how governments operate. I think it should have been released more quickly, but given how the US (and other governments) handle classified information gained through their intelligence agencies... I can't be surprised or disappointed that it hasn't been.

Nor can I treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence, the way aerius is doing, because if there was evidence the odds are very good I would be legally barred from seeing it because of security clearance issues.

Here's your problem. Thanks to Edward Snowden and various others, we have a decent picture of the technical abilities that US intelligence agencies have. Consortiumnews had a nice article about this a couple weeks ago.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/u ... ng-claims/
To summarize, we can track the packets and if there was a hack we can find out where the data went, thanks to Snowden these are not super-duper top secret capabilities. If the Russians did it, the US can trace it from the DNC servers to Russia and then the Wikileaks servers. The US accuses Russia of organized state sponsored hacking that was personally directed by Putin in co-operations with Trump, and they can't even say "yeah, our evidence is we traced the data flow to Russia" even though that would reveal nothing about US intelligence capabilities that isn't already known.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is going off thread, but please explain why condemning the US - backed overthrows of various governments over the years and pointing American hypocrisy when they accuse others of doing what they do all the time makes me a "Kremlin Apologist".

First off, that comment was directed at aerius, not at you. However, I can see how my post might have been unclear, albeit unintentionally, on that point, so my apologies for any misunderstanding.

Mind you, your comments above, and subsequently, make me wish I had directed it at you.

I did not bring up misconduct by the US or any criticisms you made of it, and I certainly did not defend such misconduct. But this tactic should not be surprising: almost invariably, if you criticize any action by the Russian government, you are accused of being a defender of US atrocities- as if their are only two positions, pro-US and pro-Russian, and no one could possibly take issue with Putin's actions without being a rabid US nationalist, or as if America's misconduct somehow constitutes a defence for Russia's. Its a cowardly red herring and a blatant attempt at deflection and ad hominem, but it is seemingly invariably used whenever this topic comes up.

There is a difference between supporting a position on an issue (such the idea regime change has generally more harm than good, especially in the Middle East) vs supporting a government. It's not my fault if you are too stupid to understand the difference.

Again, I never brought up US misdeeds or your position on them, because I do not consider them relevant to weather Russia is guilty. I can only conclude that you are simply trying to misrepresent me as a US nationalist hypocritically defending US atrocities, in order to discredit my position without actually addressing it.

I will also ignore any such diversions in the future, unless you can explain why they are relevant to the discussion at hand.

then you go on to say...

By the way, exaggerated snide whining about safe spaces (which has absolutely nothing to do with anything else in this thread) is so utterly typical of the Alt. Right playbook that it gives me some very strong suspicions about what your real motives are, and where your real sympathies lie.

My response is obvious:

Some Alt. Right would follow that playbook. Some wouldn't. You are painting them all with a very broad brush

You may think that's clever, but the Alt. Right is pretty much defined by being a bigoted backlash against perceived political correctness, while the Democratic Party is not defined by support for stealing elections.

EDIT: Actually I'll go one step further - Aerius, do you identify yourself as part of the Alt-Right movement? If not, then what evidence is there to suggest that you are? Burden of proof on TRR of course.

I don't have a clue what he identifies as, and don't much care. I was correct, though, when I said that harping on this issue (when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, no less) is typical of the Alt. Right.

Where is the proof that it was a Russian backed operation all along? "US intelligence says so!" is hardly what I would call convincing evidence given their history. Based on what we know so far it's just as likely that the US government is throwing up this smokescreen in a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that it was "legitimate whistleblowing" - what better way to discredit evidence than to discredit the whistleblower and their sources? Wouldn't be the first time. Of course I'm not saying that true either, and Russia may very well have tried to interfere with he election, but I'm not convinced based on the current evidence that this is the case.

Well, essentially we have two options here:

1. Pretty much the entire US intelligence community under the direction of Barrack Obama (who's Presidency has generally leaned more towards cooperation than extreme partisanship), as well as multiple other sources, are falsely making very serious and explicit claims of Russian involvement (risking both an international and domestic political crisis in the process), presumably to discredit Trump.

In which case even the much harped-on Iraq War debacle (which occurred under a different Presidency) is not really comparable.

Or...

2. Russia did what both the US and Russia have done to other countries' elections in the past, only on a bigger scale.

You tell me which you think is more credible.

What evidence do you have that Trump is being directly controlled by Russia and is little more than a puppet? Do you have some knowledge that I am unaware of, apart from speculation? Being friendly with Russia /= being a Russian puppet in and of itself.

I didn't say he was a knowing puppet. I will allow for the possibility that Trump is merely a very stupid tool.

[Joun_Lord]

I'd like to normalize relations with Russia too, but at the moment it looks like Russia isn't especially interested in normalizing relations with us. Why should they, if adversarial relations with us get them more of what they want than cooperation would? Vladimir Putin isn't the kind of guy who takes other people's hands of proffered friendship out of the kindness of his heart, if it would require him to give up his own objectives to do so.

So maybe the Russians would prefer to engage in "Cold War repeat garbage" themselves. At least, unless we elect a president they like and whom they trust to let them do whatever they want. Which is not a price I'm prepared to accept, especially if said president is likely to be bad for America in other ways.

I think the Russian people do want to be friends. The problem is with the West acting like dicks its easy for Putin to get support on having a adversarial relationship. Putin does what he does by will of the people, if the Russian people did have reason to buy his bullshit about America trying to fuck them over he'd not be able to get away with it. The fact is the Russian people do have reason to worry about the West. Things like interfering in Ukraine and all the economic sanctions after that. By their point of view the West is against them.

And I don't want a President who will bend over and give them everything they want just to be pals with them. I want Russia to be our friends but not as that cost. However we need to not think they will give us everything we want too. Our dickery in Ukraine was the impetus for this current bout of stupidity. The West dicked about in a country right next door to Russia, a country that used to be part of Russia, attempted to sway internal politics to turn their ally into ours. Imagine some trying to do that to Mexico or Canada? It would be like that but worse.

That is condoning Russia's response, the invasion and annexation of Crimeariver, but I do understand their reasons for doing so. America and the West is not blameless in the mess either. America cannot go around sticking its diseased dick in everything, it needs to respect spheres on influence and national sovereignty. People are much more likely to respect our own if we do so. Do you think the Kremlin would have been down with hacking, with interfering in our affairs, if we hadn't interfered in their affairs before?

We need to have mutual respect, not America doing whatever it wants.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd like to normalize relations with Russia too, but at the moment it looks like Russia isn't especially interested in normalizing relations with us. Why should they, if adversarial relations with us get them more of what they want than cooperation would? Vladimir Putin isn't the kind of guy who takes other people's hands of proffered friendship out of the kindness of his heart, if it would require him to give up his own objectives to do so.

So maybe the Russians would prefer to engage in "Cold War repeat garbage" themselves. At least, unless we elect a president they like and whom they trust to let them do whatever they want. Which is not a price I'm prepared to accept, especially if said president is likely to be bad for America in other ways.

I think the Russian people do want to be friends. The problem is with the West acting like dicks its easy for Putin to get support on having a adversarial relationship. Putin does what he does by will of the people, if the Russian people did have reason to buy his bullshit about America trying to fuck them over he'd not be able to get away with it. The fact is the Russian people do have reason to worry about the West. Things like interfering in Ukraine and all the economic sanctions after that. By their point of view the West is against them.

And I don't want a President who will bend over and give them everything they want just to be pals with them. I want Russia to be our friends but not as that cost. However we need to not think they will give us everything we want too. Our dickery in Ukraine was the impetus for this current bout of stupidity. The West dicked about in a country right next door to Russia, a country that used to be part of Russia, attempted to sway internal politics to turn their ally into ours. Imagine some trying to do that to Mexico or Canada? It would be like that but worse.

That is condoning Russia's response, the invasion and annexation of Crimeariver, but I do understand their reasons for doing so. America and the West is not blameless in the mess either. America cannot go around sticking its diseased dick in everything, it needs to respect spheres on influence and national sovereignty. People are much more likely to respect our own if we do so. Do you think the Kremlin would have been down with hacking, with interfering in our affairs, if we hadn't interfered in their affairs before?

We need to have mutual respect, not America doing whatever it wants.

Though I'm of the opinion that Putin is more to blame for the Ukrainian mess, this is otherwise a very reasonable and balanced post, much more so than I usually see on this topic.

[Tribble]

First off, that comment was directed at aerius, not at you. However, I can see how my post might have been unclear, albeit unintentionally, on that point, so my apologies for any misunderstanding.

Mind you, your comments above, and subsequently, make me wish I had directed it at you.

I did not bring up misconduct by the US or any criticisms you made of it, and I certainly did not defend such misconduct. But this tactic should not be surprising: almost invariably, if you criticize any action by the Russian government, you are accused of being a defender of US atrocities- as if their are only two positions, pro-US and pro-Russian, and no one could possibly take issue with Putin's actions without being a rabid US nationalist, or as if America's misconduct somehow constitutes a defence for Russia's. Its a cowardly red herring and a blatant attempt at deflection and ad hominem, but it is seemingly invariably used whenever this topic comes up.

You were the one that immediately started accusing people of being "Kremlin Apologists", which you have now reinforced by wishing the comment had been directed specifically at me, and I am fully justified in refuting your claim.

Again, I never brought up US misdeeds or your position on them, because I do not consider them relevant to weather Russia is guilty. I can only conclude that you are simply trying to misrepresent me as a US nationalist hypocritically defending US atrocities, in order to discredit my position without actually addressing it.

Same as above. If you are going to make general accusations at people before ranting at them, be prepared to defend those accusations or concede.

I will also ignore any such diversions in the future, unless you can explain why they are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Do you concede that I am not a "Kremlin Apologist" and withdraw your claim (which you reinforced by mentioning that you wished the comment had been specifically directed at me)? If not, defend your positon. Ignoring my points against the claim you started is poor play, and you should not be surprised that I am calling you out on it.

You may think that's clever, but the Alt. Right is pretty much defined by being a bigoted backlash against perceived political correctness, while the Democratic Party is not defined by support for stealing elections.

Seeing as you have now made a further assertion (that the US election was stolen) I would like to see the evidence proving it so.

I don't have a clue what he identifies as, and don't much care. I was correct, though, when I said that harping on this issue (when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, no less) is typical of the Alt. Right.

Again, you were the one that made the accusation, and once that accusation is made it is fully justifiable to defend against that accusation or refute it. Concede that you were wrong or defend your viewpoint.

Well, essentially we have two options here:

1. Pretty much the entire US intelligence community under the direction of Barrack Obama (who's Presidency has generally leaned more towards cooperation than extreme partisanship), as well as multiple other sources, are falsely making very serious and explicit claims of Russian involvement (risking both an international and domestic political crisis in the process), presumably to discredit Trump.

In which case even the much harped-on Iraq War debacle (which occurred under a different Presidency) is not really comparable.

Or...

2. Russia did what both the US and Russia have done to other countries' elections in the past, only on a bigger scale.

You tell me which you think is more credible

Third option (which I admit I did not initially consider)- the US intelligence is wrong, in one way or another. Again, wouldn't be the first time.

I didn't say he was a knowing puppet. I will allow for the possibility that Trump is merely a very stupid tool.

Again I would like to see evidence that Trump is, in fact, a Russian plant. Merely wishing it was the case is not enough.

Though I'm of the opinion that Putin is more to blame for the Ukrainian mess, this is otherwise a very reasonable and balanced post, much more so than I usually see on this topic.

Russia certainly is part to blame for the Ukrainian mess, I have just been pointing out that the US and the EU aren't exactly angels either.

And, for the record, I do concede your earlier point - only some Democrats would jump for joy if a similar scandal happened to Trump, not all.

[aerius]

Though I'm of the opinion that Putin is more to blame for the Ukrainian mess, this is otherwise a very reasonable and balanced post, much more so than I usually see on this topic.

"Putin is more to blame for the Ukrainian mess"



Do you have any idea how stupid you are? We have fucking phone calls on tape of US diplomats planning out the coup in the Ukraine and how to best exploit it for US interests, which included such gems as "fuck the EU".

[The Romulan Republic]

Though I'm of the opinion that Putin is more to blame for the Ukrainian mess, this is otherwise a very reasonable and balanced post, much more so than I usually see on this topic.

"Putin is more to blame for the Ukrainian mess"



Do you have any idea how stupid you are? We have fucking phone calls on tape of US diplomats planning out the coup in the Ukraine and how to best exploit it for US interests, which included such gems as "fuck the EU".

I'm not saying America's hands are completely clean here (though I will demand a source from you just because I can), but I don't feel that that excuses the extent of Russia's belligerent and provocative actions, including the outright armed invasion of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Though I will say that if it were up to me, I would be inclined to let Russia have the Ukraine if it comes down to that, not because I think that their cause is more just, but simply because I don't feel that its worth the risk of another Cold War.

[Simon_Jester]

Here's your problem. Thanks to Edward Snowden and various others, we have a decent picture of the technical abilities that US intelligence agencies have. Consortiumnews had a nice article about this a couple weeks ago.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/u ... ng-claims/

To summarize, we can track the packets and if there was a hack we can find out where the data went, thanks to Snowden these are not super-duper top secret capabilities. If the Russians did it, the US can trace it from the DNC servers to Russia and then the Wikileaks servers. The US accuses Russia of organized state sponsored hacking that was personally directed by Putin in co-operations with Trump, and they can't even say "yeah, our evidence is we traced the data flow to Russia" even though that would reveal nothing about US intelligence capabilities that isn't already known.

For one, it's not clear whether that was the method by which the Russian government's involvement was discovered.

For another, proving that the data trail passed through Russia wouldn't prove Russian government involvement. If the US government released that information, it would simply be dismissed as being either an outright lie, being circumstantial evidence that doesn't point at Putin, or both.

Indeed, people on this forum have already done this dismissal pre-emptively!

So given that releasing such evidence by itself would be largely ineffective, I am not surprised it hasn't been released, even assuming that it is the type of evidence the US actually possesses.

[aerius]

I'm not saying America's hands are completely clean here (though I will demand a source from you just because I can), but I don't feel that that excuses the extent of Russia's belligerent and provocative actions, including the outright armed invasion of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Every time I think you can't get any dumber, you do. You need to get your head out of Hillary Cuntface's snatch more often.

"Outright armed invasion of the Crimea", seriously? They held a referendum where something like 96% of the voters chose to join Russia, and the Russians were peacefully welcomed into the region. Let me guess, you're gonna tell me that the referendum was rigged and it's all Russian propaganda.

As for sources
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/t ... land-made/
By the way, that's the person who broke the Iran-Contra stories back in the day. Don't even bother trying to discredit the source.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying America's hands are completely clean here (though I will demand a source from you just because I can), but I don't feel that that excuses the extent of Russia's belligerent and provocative actions, including the outright armed invasion of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Every time I think you can't get any dumber, you do. You need to get your head out of Hillary Cuntface's snatch more often.

Oh look, misogyny.

And yeah, I'm totally a die-hard Clinton partisan. That's why I vocally defended Bernie's campaign until June.

This is just par for the course deflection and ad hominem tactics, which form the basis of pretty much all Russian apologist arguments. You can't defend Russia's actions, so you try to accuse me of supporting American atrocities, or supporting Clinton, or whatever other slur you think will turn the debate into a referendum on my character rather than the issues (because obviously no one could possibly criticize Russia's actions for any reason other than partisan bias).

"Outright armed invasion of the Crimea", seriously? They held a referendum where something like 96% of the voters chose to join Russia, and the Russians were peacefully welcomed into the region. Let me guess, you're gonna tell me that the referendum was rigged and it's all Russian propaganda.

A referendum that occurred after Russia had already sent its troops in, as I recall.

As for sources
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/t ... land-made/
By the way, that's the person who broke the Iran-Contra stories back in the day. Don't even bother trying to discredit the source.

I'm not familiar with the site you linked to, but other than that, I have no particular reason to doubt it.

[Raj Ahten]

Well so far the evidence the US agencies are willing to provide is pretty slim (a fucking 13 page report with a lot of lay person explaining to it). The rules dealing with what can be officially disclosed are beyond retarded. Saying it was revealed by Snowden so it wouldn't really be revealing anything new could very well be accurate, but is also irrelevant to what the US releases publicly. I remember back when Wikileaks was putting out its early stuff the government told people with a clearance not to read what was now available in the public realm or they would risk their credentials. Given that level of bureaucratic nonsense I doubt enough evidence to convince the skeptics will ever be produced officially. That's a real damn shame too because this is a way the Intel community could rebuild some credibility after Iraq and other fuck ups over the decades.

[mr friendly guy]

I wonder if Trump will reverse this when he becomes PoTUS. In which case will this just add more fuel to the fire of Trump is Putin's bitch claims. Which makes this move by Obama pretty sly.

[aerius]

Every time I think you can't get any dumber, you do. You need to get your head out of Hillary Cuntface's snatch more often.

Oh look, misogyny.

Have you looked up the definition of "cuntface" recently? You should. Because it's a very accurate way to describe Hillary.
I'll even be nice and link you to it

This is just par for the course deflection and ad hominem tactics, which form the basis of pretty much all Russian apologist arguments. You can't defend Russia's actions, so you try to accuse me of supporting American atrocities, or supporting Clinton, or whatever other slur you think will turn the debate into a referendum on my character rather than the issues (because obviously no one could possibly criticize Russia's actions for any reason other than partisan bias).

ALLEGED actions, get it right you dumb fuck. What the US did to the Ukraine is an action since we have proof of it in the form of taped conversations among senior US diplomats. What Russia supposedly did to the US is based on oh, that's right, NOTHING.

I wonder if Trump will reverse this when he becomes PoTUS. In which case will this just add more fuel to the fire of Trump is Putin's bitch claims. Which makes this move by Obama pretty sly.

It's among the best work that Obama's done in politics in terms of walking others into a trap. It's kind of an interesting pattern I've noticed, ever since Trump was elected, the outgoing administration has been setting as many traps as possible to ensure that Trump's presidency will be a failure. They've damaged relations with Russia as much as possible, screwed up relations with the EU by keeping Victoria Nuland over there to throw tantrums at everyone the US isn't sucking up to, and putting in fiscal policies which pretty much guarantee the US federal budget and economy will implode.