5 ms·

Genuinely curious here. How does this relate to Putin being captured by Russia/Putin? This, to me, looks like textbook ineptitude not foreign interference. I w

Genuinely curious here. How does this relate to Putin being captured by Russia/Putin? This, to me, looks like textbook ineptitude not foreign interference. I want to be clear. I'm not casting doubt on observations that Trump does currently echo Russian talking points. I'm also not trying to argue that he's not captured by Russian interests. I'm merely wondering how this specific piece of information points to that conclusion.

DrNosferatu 2y ago
I understand your question's fairness, but consider what's actually being exposed here: geospatial data on undersea cables, ports, and "critical minerals" - precisely the vulnerable infrastructure points that would interest foreign intelligence services, particularly Russia. This isn't mere incompetence - it's a clear alarming pattern. The Trump administration has consistently mishandled classified information while simultaneously adopting positions that align perfectly with Russian strategic interests regarding NATO, Ukraine, and European security. When a DOGE staffer carelessly exposes sensitive infrastructure data that maps America's strategic vulnerabilities, and does so while the administration pushes policies beneficial to Russia, the connection becomes impossible to ignore. This incident isn't separate from Russian influence - it's another manifestation of how this administration's OpSec is compromised at the most fundamental level, creating opportunities for exploitation by the very foreign powers they seem reluctant to oppose.
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  I remember the anti-interventionist Democrats of the 80s and 90s quite well. They criticized military adventures but never suggested dismantling NATO, abandoning treaty allies, or praising dictators while undermining their own intelligence agencies. Funny how this "anti-interventionism" only applies to defending democracies against Russian aggression, but not to inserting troops into cities to confront protesters or threatening military action against political opponents. The neocons accused the left of being soft. They never had evidence of infrastructure data being leaked while presidential rhetoric perfectly aligned with a specific foreign power's strategic objectives. But please, continue your historical revisionism. It's fascinating how "America First" now means "Russia's interests first."
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > I remember the anti-interventionist Democrats of the 80s and 90s quite well. They criticized military adventures but never suggested dismantling NATO, abandoning treaty allies, or praising dictators while undermining their own intelligence agencies You’re making it sound like they were on board with the general idea of using american power to police the world, but only disagreed on the particulars. That was not the case. For example, a common refrain was to criticize America’s military bases all over the world, or spending 10 times as much on defense as the next 10 countries combined: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili.... You make it sound like they merely objected to use of that infrastructure in particular conflicts for fact-specific reasons. That’s not true. Anti-interventionist liberals opposed the idea of using american military power to defend far-away borders, and the imperialism and military apparatus required to underwrite that commitment. > Funny how this "anti-interventionism" only applies to defending democracies against Russian aggression, but not to inserting troops into cities to confront protesters or threatening military action against political opponents. Shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of americans. Defending far away borders isn’t. The logic is simple.
    - DrNosferatu 2y ago
      Anti-interventionist Democrats criticized military spending but never advocated abandoning treaty obligations that maintained global stability since WWII. (or you would prefer that the US hadn’t even joined the Allies in WWII?) There's a profound difference between questioning military budgets and actively undermining alliances while praising dictators. Your characterization whitewashes the specific nature of Trump's positions, which uniquely align with Russian strategic objectives in ways no previous anti-interventionist movement ever did. As for "shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of Americans" while "defending far away borders isn't"—that's revealing. Democracy only matters within arbitrary geographic boundaries? The same argument justified ignoring Hitler's early aggressions. Strange how this selective "anti-interventionism" consistently benefits one specific foreign power while dismissing democratic values as irrelevant beyond US borders. But I understand—principles are flexible when they're just convenient vehicles for power rather than actual beliefs.
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  Trump literally said Ukraine started the war with Russia, how is that not a russian talking point? https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-trump-war-zelenskyy-putin-7fe8c0c80b4e93e3bc079c621a44e8bb https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-trump-war-zelensky... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5151545-trump-ukraine-zelensky-war-russia/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5151545-trump-uk...
- brookst 2y ago
  It’s funny how you’re in every thread in this topic, defending the indefensible. So Trump saying that “Ukraine should never have started it” [0] is not echoing a Russian talking point? 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9814k2jlxko.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9814k2jlxko.amp

DrNosferatu 2y ago

I understand your question's fairness, but consider what's actually being exposed here: geospatial data on undersea cables, ports, and "critical minerals" - precisely the vulnerable infrastructure points that would interest foreign intelligence services, particularly Russia. This isn't mere incompetence - it's a clear alarming pattern. The Trump administration has consistently mishandled classified information while simultaneously adopting positions that align perfectly with Russian strategic interests regarding NATO, Ukraine, and European security. When a DOGE staffer carelessly exposes sensitive infrastructure data that maps America's strategic vulnerabilities, and does so while the administration pushes policies beneficial to Russia, the connection becomes impossible to ignore. This incident isn't separate from Russian influence - it's another manifestation of how this administration's OpSec is compromised at the most fundamental level, creating opportunities for exploitation by the very foreign powers they seem reluctant to oppose.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

DrNosferatu 2y ago
I remember the anti-interventionist Democrats of the 80s and 90s quite well. They criticized military adventures but never suggested dismantling NATO, abandoning treaty allies, or praising dictators while undermining their own intelligence agencies. Funny how this "anti-interventionism" only applies to defending democracies against Russian aggression, but not to inserting troops into cities to confront protesters or threatening military action against political opponents. The neocons accused the left of being soft. They never had evidence of infrastructure data being leaked while presidential rhetoric perfectly aligned with a specific foreign power's strategic objectives. But please, continue your historical revisionism. It's fascinating how "America First" now means "Russia's interests first."
- rayiner 2y ago
  > I remember the anti-interventionist Democrats of the 80s and 90s quite well. They criticized military adventures but never suggested dismantling NATO, abandoning treaty allies, or praising dictators while undermining their own intelligence agencies You’re making it sound like they were on board with the general idea of using american power to police the world, but only disagreed on the particulars. That was not the case. For example, a common refrain was to criticize America’s military bases all over the world, or spending 10 times as much on defense as the next 10 countries combined: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili.... You make it sound like they merely objected to use of that infrastructure in particular conflicts for fact-specific reasons. That’s not true. Anti-interventionist liberals opposed the idea of using american military power to defend far-away borders, and the imperialism and military apparatus required to underwrite that commitment. > Funny how this "anti-interventionism" only applies to defending democracies against Russian aggression, but not to inserting troops into cities to confront protesters or threatening military action against political opponents. Shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of americans. Defending far away borders isn’t. The logic is simple.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    Anti-interventionist Democrats criticized military spending but never advocated abandoning treaty obligations that maintained global stability since WWII. (or you would prefer that the US hadn’t even joined the Allies in WWII?) There's a profound difference between questioning military budgets and actively undermining alliances while praising dictators. Your characterization whitewashes the specific nature of Trump's positions, which uniquely align with Russian strategic objectives in ways no previous anti-interventionist movement ever did. As for "shutting down riots is good for the vast majority of Americans" while "defending far away borders isn't"—that's revealing. Democracy only matters within arbitrary geographic boundaries? The same argument justified ignoring Hitler's early aggressions. Strange how this selective "anti-interventionism" consistently benefits one specific foreign power while dismissing democratic values as irrelevant beyond US borders. But I understand—principles are flexible when they're just convenient vehicles for power rather than actual beliefs.
CyberDildonics 2y ago
Trump literally said Ukraine started the war with Russia, how is that not a russian talking point? https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-trump-war-zelenskyy-putin-7fe8c0c80b4e93e3bc079c621a44e8bb https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-trump-war-zelensky... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5151545-trump-ukraine-zelensky-war-russia/ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5151545-trump-uk...
brookst 2y ago
It’s funny how you’re in every thread in this topic, defending the indefensible. So Trump saying that “Ukraine should never have started it” [0] is not echoing a Russian talking point? 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9814k2jlxko.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9814k2jlxko.amp