4 ms·

You have to understand the utter diplomatic and geopolitical incompetence of the current US adminsitration. You're talking about the same administration that l

You have to understand the utter diplomatic and geopolitical incompetence of the current US adminsitration. You're talking about the same administration that literally admitted in the open to be executing cyber attacks on Russia[1]. The fact that they haven't made most of North America glow in the dark is an utter miracle. And to make my point clear, the issue isn't that they're conducting cyber attacks - that's a given. The issue is admitting it, in the open, to the news media. Everyone knows this is happening, but you don't say the quiet part out loud because it's an escalation against a nuclear power and gives them carte blanche to retaliate. --- [1] https://news.sky.com/story/us-military-hackers-conducting-offensive-operations-in-support-of-ukraine-says-head-of-cyber-command-12625139 https://news.sky.com/story/us-military-hackers-conducting-of...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
charles_kaw 4y ago
And yet, we're not glowing. That's because cyber attacks are not viewed the same as physical attacks, especially when it doesn't lead to loss of life. This is literally the US AND Russia's stance, so it's not a completely untoward thing to do. I'm not in support of it, but, that's the reality
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nickff 4y ago
To be fair, I think that admission was probably less damaging than the "minor incursion" comment from January: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-b...
- 7speter 4y ago
  Putin definitely thought the incursion would be minor. He didn’t think the Ukrainians would be (backed with advanced western weapons and intelligence) fighting back with such vigor.
colinmhayes 4y ago
The cold war is over. There's no need to hide that which everyone knows and accepts.
InefficientRed 4y ago
You think that Russia would "make North America glow in the dark" because the US disclosed cyberattacks that were obviously attributable to the US? Like, literally, bringing on nuclear Armageddon over some computer hacking and internet trolling? Actually not even computer hacking and internet trolling, just public acknowledgment about coputer hacking and internet trolling? I judge middle school debate and this still has to be the most wildly insane geopolitical take I've heard in a long time. You must be hot boxing some strong stuff... might be time to roll down the windows of that information bubble and get some fresh air ;)
- klibertp 4y ago
  > over some computer hacking and internet trolling? No, no, "some computer hacking" (because who would worry about not being able to watch funny cat videos for a while? it's not like people do anything important using computers...) won't do much. But the next Stuxnet targeted at Russian infrastructure could well spell the end of us all. Honestly, I'd be quite content in that situation - witnessing, for however short before dying to radiation, the literal end of history (instead of the pseudo-one from the '90s) could be strangely rewarding.
  - InefficientRed 4y ago
    Highly dubious. But okay. Suppose there were a cyber attack sufficient to trigger full scale nuclear war and which also didn't fully disable Russian's nuclear armament. Do you really think that Russia would not launch nukes just because the US didn't publicly declare responsibility for the attack even though Russia knows the US is responsible? Because, to be clear, that was OP's assertion: >> And to make my point clear, the issue isn't that they're conducting cyber attacks - that's a given. The issue is admitting it, in the open, to the news media. Everyone knows this is happening, but you don't say the quiet part out loud because it's an escalation against a nuclear power and gives them carte blanche to retaliate.
riantogo 4y ago
What you think is the "quite part" is actually not. It is standard practice to announce the nature of the military attack, especially against a nuclear power. That is the reason why you see the exact weapons being sent to Ukraine. If you do these things unannounced, and later get caught, that is what gives Russia the carte blanche to retaliate.
jacobolus 4y ago
> gives them carte blanche to retaliate No it doesn’t. Russia has been taking increasing amounts of direct action against other nuclear states for years (including sponsoring cyber attacks and e.g. criminally intervening in US elections). They aren’t going to start a nuclear war over e.g. the USA compromising their military computer networks and distributing the information discovered there. Putin is doing everything he can to prevent escalation to a direct shooting war with NATO because he knows that in a conventional war NATO will wipe the floor with the Russian military, and a nuclear war is mutually assured destruction.
corrral 4y ago
I've actually been pleasantly surprised at how well Biden's administration has walked the tightrope on Ukraine. And though I'm very liberal by US standards, I'm not terribly partisan when it comes to foreign policy—I think Obama's foreign policy was largely disastrous, and have a lot more good things to say about Trump's than I thought I would when his term started (admittedly, more about intentions & gestures than actual effects, and there was still plenty that I didn't like)
- jacobolus 4y ago
  Obama had the problem that he was a young guy who came in with big ambitious promises and good intentions but inherited a complete shitshow from his predecessor (both the wars and an economic crisis). His opposition was intransigent and did everything they could to undermine the USA for their own narrow political interest, and his party got bashed up in the 2010 midterm elections. He then let himself get pushed around by the US military establishment. But if we compare to the Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan administrations (let alone the Vietnam war era), it can’t really be called “disastrous”. Trump’s foreign policy was largely symbolic and incoherent, if anything focused on corrupt self enrichment, breaking up US soft power to aid Russia (he backed out of various treaties, halted diplomacy around the world, wanted to pull the US out of NATO, ...), symbolically opposing China to appeal to anti-Asian racists, making up nonsense about Latin American immigrants to appeal to anti-Latino racists, continuing middle East aggression (and the Muslim ban etc.) to appeal to anti-Arab/anti-Muslim racists. His antics (on top of the Bush Jr. wars) further pissed away America’s global reputation. To the extent things went okay it was largely down to incompetence and uncoordination.
  - corrral 4y ago
    Syria was the worst part, because the fallout from that was really bad. Not sure we'd have had Brexit without the extra pressure that put on Europe. Likely empowered Erdogan somewhat (doubt it made a big difference there, admittedly) and contributed to the rise of far right parties in Eastern Europe. Plus, you know, sucks for the Syrians. Nb. what I blame him for isn't the Syrian civil war itself, but for choosing to get involved in such a way that it's dragged on indefinitely, rather than concluding it one way or the other much faster. This also contributed to destabilization and suffering in Iraq. Continuing to allow Afghanistan to bleed for his entire 8 years while everyone at the top (and probably most folks in the middle, and at the bottom) knew no progress was, had been, or would be made was a straight-up crime (see: the Afghanistan papers). But sure, it's hard to beat Bush II for "foreign policy fuck-ups". Dude's a legend in that regard. I wouldn't be surprised if historians in 2100 will look back at that and see it as America falling on its face at the starting line, for this century, and never really recovering. > Trump’s foreign policy was largely symbolic and detail-free, focused on breaking up US soft power to aid Russia, symbolically opposing China to appeal to anti-Asian racists, making up nonsense about Latin American immigrants to appeal to anti-Latino racists, continuing middle East aggression (and the Muslim ban etc.) to appeal to anti-Arab/anti-Muslim racists. To the extent things went okay it was largely down to incompetence and uncoordination. Pushing NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations ended up being damn-near prescient, even if the rest of his action on NATO was mostly bad. I'd love to see more breaking down of trade relations with China, so that part was fine by me. Lots of his rhetoric was idiotic but at the same time it was refreshing to see anyone in power talking anti-neoliberalism, for once, even if he was either too ambivalent in-fact or too incompetent to accomplish much. Withdrawing from Afghanistan was way overdue and it disgusted me that NPR ran with "it's just too hard to withdraw in more time than it took to put the same number of soldiers and same amount of equipment in-theater" bullshit, in response. All his stuff related to the Southern border was moronic, of course. I'm not saying I think he was great—dude belongs behind bars 10x over, I'd say, including for some of his foreign policy actions. In fact, a lot of it's just that, after his predecessors, accomplishing very little was kinda an improvement.
overtonwhy 4y ago
This same user is concerned about "woke inquisitions" so take their criticisms of the "adminsitration" with a grain a salt.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

charles_kaw 4y ago

And yet, we're not glowing. That's because cyber attacks are not viewed the same as physical attacks, especially when it doesn't lead to loss of life. This is literally the US AND Russia's stance, so it's not a completely untoward thing to do. I'm not in support of it, but, that's the reality

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nickff 4y ago

To be fair, I think that admission was probably less damaging than the "minor incursion" comment from January: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-b...

7speter 4y ago
Putin definitely thought the incursion would be minor. He didn’t think the Ukrainians would be (backed with advanced western weapons and intelligence) fighting back with such vigor.

colinmhayes 4y ago

The cold war is over. There's no need to hide that which everyone knows and accepts.

InefficientRed 4y ago

You think that Russia would "make North America glow in the dark" because the US disclosed cyberattacks that were obviously attributable to the US? Like, literally, bringing on nuclear Armageddon over some computer hacking and internet trolling? Actually not even computer hacking and internet trolling, just public acknowledgment about coputer hacking and internet trolling? I judge middle school debate and this still has to be the most wildly insane geopolitical take I've heard in a long time. You must be hot boxing some strong stuff... might be time to roll down the windows of that information bubble and get some fresh air ;)

klibertp 4y ago
> over some computer hacking and internet trolling? No, no, "some computer hacking" (because who would worry about not being able to watch funny cat videos for a while? it's not like people do anything important using computers...) won't do much. But the next Stuxnet targeted at Russian infrastructure could well spell the end of us all. Honestly, I'd be quite content in that situation - witnessing, for however short before dying to radiation, the literal end of history (instead of the pseudo-one from the '90s) could be strangely rewarding.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  Highly dubious. But okay. Suppose there were a cyber attack sufficient to trigger full scale nuclear war and which also didn't fully disable Russian's nuclear armament. Do you really think that Russia would not launch nukes just because the US didn't publicly declare responsibility for the attack even though Russia knows the US is responsible? Because, to be clear, that was OP's assertion: >> And to make my point clear, the issue isn't that they're conducting cyber attacks - that's a given. The issue is admitting it, in the open, to the news media. Everyone knows this is happening, but you don't say the quiet part out loud because it's an escalation against a nuclear power and gives them carte blanche to retaliate.

riantogo 4y ago

What you think is the "quite part" is actually not. It is standard practice to announce the nature of the military attack, especially against a nuclear power. That is the reason why you see the exact weapons being sent to Ukraine. If you do these things unannounced, and later get caught, that is what gives Russia the carte blanche to retaliate.

jacobolus 4y ago

> gives them carte blanche to retaliate No it doesn’t. Russia has been taking increasing amounts of direct action against other nuclear states for years (including sponsoring cyber attacks and e.g. criminally intervening in US elections). They aren’t going to start a nuclear war over e.g. the USA compromising their military computer networks and distributing the information discovered there. Putin is doing everything he can to prevent escalation to a direct shooting war with NATO because he knows that in a conventional war NATO will wipe the floor with the Russian military, and a nuclear war is mutually assured destruction.

corrral 4y ago

I've actually been pleasantly surprised at how well Biden's administration has walked the tightrope on Ukraine. And though I'm very liberal by US standards, I'm not terribly partisan when it comes to foreign policy—I think Obama's foreign policy was largely disastrous, and have a lot more good things to say about Trump's than I thought I would when his term started (admittedly, more about intentions & gestures than actual effects, and there was still plenty that I didn't like)

jacobolus 4y ago
Obama had the problem that he was a young guy who came in with big ambitious promises and good intentions but inherited a complete shitshow from his predecessor (both the wars and an economic crisis). His opposition was intransigent and did everything they could to undermine the USA for their own narrow political interest, and his party got bashed up in the 2010 midterm elections. He then let himself get pushed around by the US military establishment. But if we compare to the Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan administrations (let alone the Vietnam war era), it can’t really be called “disastrous”. Trump’s foreign policy was largely symbolic and incoherent, if anything focused on corrupt self enrichment, breaking up US soft power to aid Russia (he backed out of various treaties, halted diplomacy around the world, wanted to pull the US out of NATO, ...), symbolically opposing China to appeal to anti-Asian racists, making up nonsense about Latin American immigrants to appeal to anti-Latino racists, continuing middle East aggression (and the Muslim ban etc.) to appeal to anti-Arab/anti-Muslim racists. His antics (on top of the Bush Jr. wars) further pissed away America’s global reputation. To the extent things went okay it was largely down to incompetence and uncoordination.
- corrral 4y ago
  Syria was the worst part, because the fallout from that was really bad. Not sure we'd have had Brexit without the extra pressure that put on Europe. Likely empowered Erdogan somewhat (doubt it made a big difference there, admittedly) and contributed to the rise of far right parties in Eastern Europe. Plus, you know, sucks for the Syrians. Nb. what I blame him for isn't the Syrian civil war itself, but for choosing to get involved in such a way that it's dragged on indefinitely, rather than concluding it one way or the other much faster. This also contributed to destabilization and suffering in Iraq. Continuing to allow Afghanistan to bleed for his entire 8 years while everyone at the top (and probably most folks in the middle, and at the bottom) knew no progress was, had been, or would be made was a straight-up crime (see: the Afghanistan papers). But sure, it's hard to beat Bush II for "foreign policy fuck-ups". Dude's a legend in that regard. I wouldn't be surprised if historians in 2100 will look back at that and see it as America falling on its face at the starting line, for this century, and never really recovering. > Trump’s foreign policy was largely symbolic and detail-free, focused on breaking up US soft power to aid Russia, symbolically opposing China to appeal to anti-Asian racists, making up nonsense about Latin American immigrants to appeal to anti-Latino racists, continuing middle East aggression (and the Muslim ban etc.) to appeal to anti-Arab/anti-Muslim racists. To the extent things went okay it was largely down to incompetence and uncoordination. Pushing NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations ended up being damn-near prescient, even if the rest of his action on NATO was mostly bad. I'd love to see more breaking down of trade relations with China, so that part was fine by me. Lots of his rhetoric was idiotic but at the same time it was refreshing to see anyone in power talking anti-neoliberalism, for once, even if he was either too ambivalent in-fact or too incompetent to accomplish much. Withdrawing from Afghanistan was way overdue and it disgusted me that NPR ran with "it's just too hard to withdraw in more time than it took to put the same number of soldiers and same amount of equipment in-theater" bullshit, in response. All his stuff related to the Southern border was moronic, of course. I'm not saying I think he was great—dude belongs behind bars 10x over, I'd say, including for some of his foreign policy actions. In fact, a lot of it's just that, after his predecessors, accomplishing very little was kinda an improvement.

overtonwhy 4y ago

This same user is concerned about "woke inquisitions" so take their criticisms of the "adminsitration" with a grain a salt.