Steps a High Ranking Traitor Would Take
|
Steps a High Ranking Traitor Would Take
|
01-16-2019, 04:28 PM
(01-16-2019, 12:54 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: Not to mention...why do we have to have enemies? I don’t symphasize with Russia but I believe we all have to share this planet and there’s no reason to constantly be in conflict. I get they probably meddled but I’d be willing to bet they aren’t the only country spying on us. Should we also share our state election databases with them? Along with classified intel from our allies? ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
01-16-2019, 04:44 PM
I like the kernel idea behind Nati's thread here. It reminds of how, in the intel services dealing with foreign policy/actors, there used to be something called a RED CAP exercise. Someone on the team would identify with the national interests of a foreign aggressor and try to view a conflict region through those interests to determine what might best serve them and what might best thwart them. Then the "Americans" in the exercise would have a better idea how NOT to further the adversaries interests and how to further the home team's.
Nati's "traitor" exercise is something like that, but maybe a little non specific at the moment. Right wingers will certainly claim Obama is dividing people, etc. just as much as Trump. Better to try the red cap thing so we can get some kind of factual and specific baseline. Imagine the world from Putin's perspective, Russian national interest as HE sees it (not how the few remaining liberal democrats in Russia see it). What are the biggest obstacles to expansion of Russian military, economic and political power? Most would agree these are 1. NATO 2. The EU 3. US/UN sanctions 4. Islamist resurgence in the caucasus 5. China's continuing military/economic expansion--now the second largest economy in the world. There can be more, but that is enough for a start. Would anyone dispute this list? If not, then can't we say that the leader or official of ANY government--France, Great Britain, the US--who weakened NATO or the EU or circumvented sanctions would be in Putin's interest, intentionally or unintentionally? Couldn't we also assume that political dissension--not just any kind, but dissension reducing the resolve to continue NATO and sanctions, and sowing distrust in intel services and democratic institutions--would also be in Russia's interest? Obama and Trump's names have been mentioned. Perhaps we can ask which president's actions have most furthered Putin/Russia's national interests, and which have circumvented it? Then we can talk about facts, specific actions, and not conspiracies. 
01-16-2019, 05:33 PM
(01-16-2019, 04:44 PM)Dill Wrote: I like the kernel idea behind Nati's thread here. It reminds of how, in the intel services dealing with foreign policy/actors, there used to be something called a RED CAP exercise. Someone on the team would identify with the national interests of a foreign aggressor and try to view a conflict region through those interests to determine what might best serve them and what might best thwart them. Then the "Americans" in the exercise would have a better idea how NOT to further the adversaries interests and how to further the home team's. Well Obama did let him pull off the first annexation of territory since the second world war with minimal consequence. I'd say access to a year round warm water port was a bigger coup for Putin than anything he pulls off during the Trump years. 
01-16-2019, 05:34 PM
(01-16-2019, 12:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: This was just a random question, and you automatically thinking it was about Trump, without Trump being mentioned, means you fell right into this clever little trap. He got you gooooood! Nanny nanny boo boo. No "got ya." I was just wondering which of the 7 examples made him think Trump. Made me realize maybe I should take a step back and really examine things. And get up to date on real life. Something people should do every once in awhile. I have heard rumors that he wasnt exactly an honest businessman and he has a pretty lengthy history of screwing Americans over for personal gain. Traitors can come from anywhere. So its best to not be complacent. 
01-16-2019, 05:59 PM
(01-16-2019, 05:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No "got ya." I was just wondering which of the 7 examples made him think Trump. Made me realize maybe I should take a step back and really examine things. And get up to date on real life. Something people should do every once in awhile. I'm curious as to why you are pretending this and your other random thoughts traitor thread aren't about Trump. I only majored in psychology a couple of years before switching out so this is way above my pay grade.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
01-16-2019, 06:44 PM
(01-16-2019, 05:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well Obama did let him pull off the first annexation of territory since the second world war with minimal consequence. I'd say access to a year round warm water port was a bigger coup for Putin than anything he pulls off during the Trump years. A second warm water port. Not sure how Obama "let" Putin annex the Crimea, as if that were simply his call. And Putin does not seem to think the international sanctions he incurred were "minimal consequence" as he has been working actively to lift them--in part through contact with members of Trump's campaign. Viewed through Putin's eyes, looks to me like Obama has been an obstacle to the Kremlin, not a facilitator, if Obama's diplomacy helped engineer these costly sanctions. If Trump has become a Russian asset, mightn't that be a bigger coup--perhaps the biggest in the history of espionage? ................................................................................................................................................................................................ So we have one vote for Obama here, and one action to consider. Anyone out there think Trump's actions or policies have served Russian national interests to the detriment of American? Remember, the key is to view this from Putin's perspective.
01-16-2019, 07:10 PM
(01-16-2019, 05:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm curious as to why you are pretending this and your other random thoughts traitor thread aren't about Trump. I only majored in psychology a couple of years before switching out so this is way above my pay grade. Some people are easily upset and very sensitive (I think there is a popular term for that but it is slipping my mind (speaking of slipping man there is a ton of snow in Cincy)). I wanted to leave names out of it and have a discussion as individuals on the same team considering "a senior Russian official has canceled a planned visit to the United States, claiming he feared a second civil war being waged by opposing political forces there." Going so far as to say "I think that America is actually engulfed by its second civil war now," https://www.newsweek.com/russia-cancel-visit-american-civil-war-1287282 Thought maybe taking out the need to choose sides right away would allow us to examine where a potential internal threat would come from and some actions and motives to consider.
01-16-2019, 07:29 PM
(01-16-2019, 06:44 PM)Dill Wrote: A second warm water port. I haven't caught all the way up on current events. Or I would try to chime in. Did either of these guys lift sanctions on a Russian oligarch in kahoots with their former campaign manager who is in prison for pleading guilty to conspiracy against the US and still under investigation? Or anything like that. I mean if there was very serious Russian aggression (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/russia-attacks-seizes-three-ukrainian-naval-vessels-coast-crimea-black-n939876) rewarded with sanctions relief weeks later (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia-trump.html) that would be pretty weird to see. But that would probably never happen.
01-16-2019, 08:15 PM
(01-16-2019, 06:44 PM)Dill Wrote: A second warm water port. Does he dislike the sanctions, to be sure. Will they go away one day and will Russian still own the Crimea? Yup. Obama's diplomacy wasn't required to engineer these sanctions, sanctions was the bare minimum that was going to happen following the annexation. So Obama's huge diplomatic achievement was to get the bare minimum reaction. Quote:If Trump has become a Russian asset, mightn't that be a bigger coup--perhaps the biggest in the history of espionage? If this was true, absolutely. I see nothing but liberal wishful thinking in this regard. Quote:So we have one vote for Obama here, and one action to consider. I'd prefer to view things from America's perspective, seeing as how that's the country I'm a citizen of and Trump is POTUS of. Some of our actions will benefit Russia, some of them will not. That doesn't mean Trump is "compromised" as you put it. 
01-16-2019, 09:45 PM
(01-16-2019, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Does he dislike the sanctions, to be sure. Will they go away one day and will Russian still own the Crimea? Yup. Obama's diplomacy wasn't required to engineer these sanctions, sanctions was the bare minimum that was going to happen following the annexation. So Obama's huge diplomatic achievement was to get the bare minimum reaction. Serious question: what do you think Obama should have done?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
01-16-2019, 10:51 PM
(01-16-2019, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd prefer to view things from America's perspective, seeing as how that's the country I'm a citizen of and Trump is POTUS of. Some of our actions will benefit Russia, some of them will not. That doesn't mean Trump is "compromised" as you put it. Imagine a team of intel experts (that is the scenario I posited here) working up estimate for adapting our Syrian policy to recent events. One suggests a red cap exercise. "How does Syria look from Putin's angle? Where does he see our strengths and weaknesses? What are his assests? Where might he be willing to challenge us, or not?" And the point of doing that would be to anticipate something overlooked or missed altogether when Syria is viewed solely from the American perspective; it would not be an invitation to somehow just be "Russian instead of American." Then the issue of whether "some policies benefit Russia and some not" would not be left to chance. But one guy in the room says "I prefer to view things from America's perspective, seeing as how that's the country I'm a citizen of," and walks out of the room, apparently ready to leave policy to chance. I'd hardly know what to say. I didn't "put it" that Trump was compromised.I merely suggested an analytic framework in which people could operate with known facts and actions, then asked for input. My Trump question was framed as a conditional.
01-16-2019, 10:55 PM
(01-16-2019, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Does he dislike the sanctions, to be sure. Will they go away one day and will Russian still own the Crimea? Yup. Obama's diplomacy wasn't required to engineer these sanctions, sanctions was the bare minimum that was going to happen following the annexation. So Obama's huge diplomatic achievement was to get the bare minimum reaction. How do international sanctions happen? Does anyone organize them? Can one' country's diplomatic efforts make them stronger--or lack of effort leave them weaker?
01-16-2019, 11:08 PM
(01-16-2019, 07:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I haven't caught all the way up on current events. Or I would try to chime in. Interesting point. Seems it would clearly be in Putin/Deripaska's interests to have the sanctions lifted. The argument is the sanctions hurt others, including Americans. I doubt that Obama or Hillary would back lifting sanctions in this case, even if they also hurt others a bit, even Americans. But Trump is clearly ready to lift them. And this came on the same day that Trump announced the US was unilaterally pulling out of Syria. Putting on my red cap, I'd say that also was good for Putin.
01-17-2019, 12:35 AM
(01-16-2019, 06:44 PM)Dill Wrote: A second warm water port. Didnt i hear one of these guys sided with Putin over US Intel Agencies on the global stage. A president siding with Putin in front of the world and saying he is more trustworthy than the work of thousands of dedicated American Citizens working to protect us would be really bad. I figured that was just fake news. http://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/628973563/trump-putin-to-meet-after-new-charges-over-russias-2016-election-interference
01-17-2019, 01:51 AM
(01-16-2019, 09:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Serious question: what do you think Obama should have done? As you actually posit serious questions I will answer. To begin one must understand one's opponent. Putin respects only strength, he views western leaders as weak willed and unwilling to risk much, if anything, to achieve their aims. Putin annexed the Crimea because he, correctly, deduced that Obama would take no action other than the diplomatic, and temporary. Worst case scenario he traded temporary sanctions for a land grab unparalleled in modern history. Putin knew Obama would never risk direct military action, even for a brazen annexation of territory from a sovereign nation. The answer is simple, disprove him of his theory or reinforce it. Obama, predictably, took the easy way out and let Putin have his way while being able to, superficially, save face with the, ultimately, empty consequence of sanctions. This is exactly what totalitarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran and others depend on when dealing with the western democracies. They are superficially willing to risk total war because they know that is something the west will never countenance. In this regard they mirror Hitler and his constant, until Poland, emasculation of western diplomatic efforts. What people like Obama, and some on this board, fail to realize, is that regimes like this only respect force and the willingness to use it. Yes, in so doing you risk broader, and escalated, conflict. The alternative is slow capitulation to an opponent who knows you are unwilling to risk what they are willing to risk. An opponent that knows you like the fortitude and willpower to confront their aggression in any meaningful way. In short, one must decide to be Chamberlain or Churchill. The choice made thus far is rather clear.
01-17-2019, 09:33 AM
(01-17-2019, 01:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As you actually posit serious questions I will answer. To begin one must understand one's opponent. Putin respects only strength, he views western leaders as weak willed and unwilling to risk much, if anything, to achieve their aims. Putin annexed the Crimea because he, correctly, deduced that Obama would take no action other than the diplomatic, and temporary. Worst case scenario he traded temporary sanctions for a land grab unparalleled in modern history. I get what your position is, here, but I don't think that was our fight to get in. As someone that is a bit tired of us deploying our military to make other countries play nice with each other, I don't want to see us interfere with force in a situation like this without the backing of the UN and a coalition going in. I think that is one of the reasons why Obama didn't take that military action, because the public mood in this country is on that side. He could have gone in for the short term, 60-90 days at most, but that wouldn't have resolved the conflict and the Congress he was facing would not have supported an extended stay. All-in-all, I agree with Obama's actions, even though they were weak. There was essentially a CBA done on the situation and the benefits weren't worth the costs. As he put it during an interview: “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do." To quote the interviewer of the article, "Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there." That's exactly right, in my opinion. We had, and have, military focuses to tend to that are more pertinent to our country. Re-initiating not just the Cold War, but making it hot, would have been a losing gambit for the long-term.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
01-17-2019, 01:08 PM
(01-17-2019, 09:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get what your position is, here, but I don't think that was our fight to get in. As someone that is a bit tired of us deploying our military to make other countries play nice with each other, I don't want to see us interfere with force in a situation like this without the backing of the UN and a coalition going in. I think that is one of the reasons why Obama didn't take that military action, because the public mood in this country is on that side. He could have gone in for the short term, 60-90 days at most, but that wouldn't have resolved the conflict and the Congress he was facing would not have supported an extended stay. Good answer, and the quote you selected is spot on. There is not much any rational president could have done, beyond organizing a sanctions regime, with UN/EU backing, as Obama did. The value of doing that is that sanctions may deter future aggression, if it is clear there will be a high cost and the world/UN/EU sides with the US. Even now, the cost appears to be rather higher than Putin anticipated, but as your source points out, the Ukraine is a core interest and Putin might have been willing to sacrifice even more to retain control over an important border region. Ukrainians clamoring for NATO membership and European states like Germany actually listening was the real trigger here, not just the fall of Yanukovych. Bush was presented with a similar challenge when Russia invaded Georgia while it was applying for NATO membership. His response was to send warships into the Black Sea and return a Georgian brigade fighting in Afghanistan. He also stopped backing Russia's entry into the WTO. But no sanctions, so far as I know. In retrospect, that response was considerably weaker than Obama's. To be fair what happens in Georgia is much less important to US national interest than the Ukraine. Still, it was a chance to set a sharp precedent. One wonders here what Trump might have done in either of these cases. He knows nothing of diplomacy, viewing international politics simplistically in terms of "strong" and "weak" actors, regarding Obama as weak and Putin as strong. His GOP would demand a "strong" response, but likely stop short of war. However, given Trump's weak response to the Russian attack on our election--the homeland itself being a CORE US INTEREST--I would not be surprised if Trump acquiesced in the Crimean annexation, perhaps even "understood" or otherwise defended Putin publicly. I do not see him leading an international regime of sanctions like the one concocted by "weak" Obama, targeting Putin's oligarch friends personally.
01-17-2019, 01:23 PM
(01-17-2019, 12:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Didnt i hear one of these guys sided with Putin over US Intel Agencies on the global stage. A president siding with Putin in front of the world and saying he is more trustworthy than the work of thousands of dedicated American Citizens working to protect us would be really bad. I figured that was just fake news. Advantage Putin there, certainly. No US president has ever done anything like that. Now that it has been revealed that the FBI opened an investigation into whether Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian asset, the private meeting with Putin Trump had during Helsinki has taken on new importance. Trump trashed his translator's notes and ordered his silence. Everything we know about that meeting now comes from either the Russian press or our own intel collection. That is an astonishing situation. No public division like this has ever existed between a president and his own intel community--to the advantage of a foreign power. And to the dismay of our allies. 
01-17-2019, 01:26 PM
(01-16-2019, 04:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Should we also share our state election databases with them? Along with classified intel from our allies? Just as long as they are helping Trump.... Let them help a Dem (or was helping Hillary) and you'll see the sudden change of this sudden endearment towards Russia by Trump supporters and Republicans. Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous
01-17-2019, 01:30 PM
(01-17-2019, 01:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: Just as long as they are helping Trump.... LOL perhaps, but if we keep doing our red cap exercise, and view US actions from Putin's perspective, there is no incentive to help Hilary or any Dem. Just Trump. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
