3 ms·
If you're to take the article at face value, I find the following interesting. >"You have to let them save face," he told the group. "escalation will not end w
by hourislate 10y ago
If you're to take the article at face value, I find the following interesting.
>"You have to let them save face," he told the group. "escalation will not end well."
Why is it these so called Russian friends always encourage everyone to do nothing, it's always something like "best not to do anything and just let it go".
Seems like that would just encourage more of the same.
Now who knows what was really said and this is just an article that isn't any official report. Its not like the Administration is going to tell Esquire their plans. Never the less if that is what he said I would be hesitant to trust such a person.
- jessaustin 10y agoI really don't agree. The interests of USA citizens would not be served by going to war with Russia over the pretext of hacked emails.
- Bartweiss 10y ago> escalation will not end well This seems like a good moment to differentiate what we want to do from what we can do. One reading of this is "just ignore the bully and they won't make things worse", which I agree is silly. But the other reading is "holy shit guys, don't set a norm of publicizing state hacking efforts, we will not look good." Granting the claim that Russia did this, it's worth following up with the possibility that the Equation Group auction was done to embarrass the TAO and the US more broadly. A few people I've seen (including the grugq, who is hardly a partisan) have suggested that it was revealed to threaten escalation if the US keeps pushing to embarrass Russia over hacking. In which case, the compliance argument may be totally reasonable. It wouldn't be giving in, it'd just be counseling politicians that maybe they don't want to take the moral high ground here.