3 ms·

This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their ow

This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.

grandalf 10y ago
> the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east. All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response. On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation. Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors. And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior. Now, why is that?
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior. I think this statement needs to be flushed out a bit to understand the absurdity of it. What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it, other than a series of PR stunts intended to keep everyone distracted. >ignoring Russia's rhetoric What rhetoric are you referring to? > confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism". There will be a situation where a hack or computer virus unleashed against US interests triggers retaliation in the form of missiles. I think this is going to happen sooner rather than later. The US would rather this happen sooner to avoid a messy ethical debate and the associated delays. Just as it took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam to the point where GWB asking that he step down and being refused seemed like justification for missiles and bombs, it will take a while to create enough consent among the US public to allow our leaders to send strikes in retaliation for hacking. Right now, vague Russian meddling is our "training wheels" phase. We're meant to be indignant, and to align against Russia. The next time there won't be as much vagueness and there will be more obvious harm (not just embarrassment). Leaders of democracies are shackled by the need to convince the people that war is necessary. The widespread apathy that helps our leaders in most cases turns against them when it comes to warmaking, and a lot of effort must be undertaken to turn us against a foe to the point where we'd sacrifice anything. Drone wars, and other relatively inexpensive, indirect war methods are a way to maintain apathy while still projecting force, but an adversary like Russia is powerful enough that techniques like this won't work and the public will have to be engaged and will have to consent. I'm not arguing that this hawkish, war-making stance is against US interests. I'm not making a claim about that.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      >What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it LOL. That would make you the only person on the planet in that category. Whatever your value judgment of the actors, it's completely disingenous to just pretend there are no patterns. >What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Seriously? Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking? I could reply further, but I'm trying to stick to things that actually happened vs. imaginary scenarios. And, in all of this, you keep advocating that it's the U.S.'s responsibility to simply stand down. >Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism". You contradicted your previous statement by now asserting that there actually is a difference that requires propaganda to conflate. >took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam You keep invoking that. FWIW, I and many other Americans disagreed with the Iraq war. That doesn't mean we now believe that we should let any adversary undermine our democracy and attack us with impunity. You don't seem to appreciate the difference. Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do. >We're meant to be indignant Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy. You seem to completely underestimate the resolve of average Americans when aroused. The disinformation campaign has some off-balance. That won't last.

grandalf 10y ago

> the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east. All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response. On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation. Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors. And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior. Now, why is that?
- grandalf 10y ago
  > U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior. I think this statement needs to be flushed out a bit to understand the absurdity of it. What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it, other than a series of PR stunts intended to keep everyone distracted. >ignoring Russia's rhetoric What rhetoric are you referring to? > confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism". There will be a situation where a hack or computer virus unleashed against US interests triggers retaliation in the form of missiles. I think this is going to happen sooner rather than later. The US would rather this happen sooner to avoid a messy ethical debate and the associated delays. Just as it took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam to the point where GWB asking that he step down and being refused seemed like justification for missiles and bombs, it will take a while to create enough consent among the US public to allow our leaders to send strikes in retaliation for hacking. Right now, vague Russian meddling is our "training wheels" phase. We're meant to be indignant, and to align against Russia. The next time there won't be as much vagueness and there will be more obvious harm (not just embarrassment). Leaders of democracies are shackled by the need to convince the people that war is necessary. The widespread apathy that helps our leaders in most cases turns against them when it comes to warmaking, and a lot of effort must be undertaken to turn us against a foe to the point where we'd sacrifice anything. Drone wars, and other relatively inexpensive, indirect war methods are a way to maintain apathy while still projecting force, but an adversary like Russia is powerful enough that techniques like this won't work and the public will have to be engaged and will have to consent. I'm not arguing that this hawkish, war-making stance is against US interests. I'm not making a claim about that.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >What is the objective of Trump's behavior? I see no pattern or strategy in it LOL. That would make you the only person on the planet in that category. Whatever your value judgment of the actors, it's completely disingenous to just pretend there are no patterns. >What is the difference between a missile that takes out a power grid and a computer virus that takes out a power grid? Seriously? Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking? I could reply further, but I'm trying to stick to things that actually happened vs. imaginary scenarios. And, in all of this, you keep advocating that it's the U.S.'s responsibility to simply stand down. >Over the past decade hawks in the US have been honing their propaganda message about cyber "warfare" and cyber "terrorism". You contradicted your previous statement by now asserting that there actually is a difference that requires propaganda to conflate. >took a lot of practice to vilify Saddam You keep invoking that. FWIW, I and many other Americans disagreed with the Iraq war. That doesn't mean we now believe that we should let any adversary undermine our democracy and attack us with impunity. You don't seem to appreciate the difference. Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do. >We're meant to be indignant Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy. You seem to completely underestimate the resolve of average Americans when aroused. The disinformation campaign has some off-balance. That won't last.