- Whether or not US intel agencies (or foreign proxies) will be leaking intelligence to Ukraine.
- Given what I’ve previously mentioned[1] as the unbelievably strong US intel penetration of Russian institutions, the likelihood that sources, and most especially HUMINT sources, will be disclosed to Russia. That would of course be catastrophic at multiple levels, and with enduring consequences.
Russian agent implies he's employed by the Russians and I don't think that is true. They do seem to have a lot of influence on him though. Grok gives him a 75-85% likelihood he is a compromised asset https://x.com/i/grok/share/WQepvCpIJl2EJ0F7tHNbLAhm6
IMO a true agent would 1) announce an unverifiable top secret something-or-another uncovered WMDs-or-similar-boogeymen[1] in Ukraine, then 2) convince Ukraine to capitulate or send in boots. Why not cut to the chase?
Seriously - why then have all the moves against Ukraine were when Trump was not in office?
Russia has been invading Ukraine for _14 years_, first under Obama/Biden then under Biden/Harris. Clinton was secretary of state. And the west continues to buy gas from them, etc.
Maybe there's some 4d chess I'm missing but feels like gaslighting on how tough we've supposedly been on Russia aside from Trump.
I'm addressing the extraordinary claim that "Trump is a Russian agent" and that now we are suddenly now being soft on Russia.
If so, why didn't Putin mount a full invasion in 2016-2020? Why wait until 2022 when the supposedly tough Biden administration (which included veterans from the 2011 Crimea invasion)? It feels like gaslighting that, at minimum, we've been nothing but soft and ineffectual on Russia the entire time.
> If so, why didn't Putin mount a full invasion in 2016-2020?
One possible explanation is that Russia is a petro-state. The average oil price between 2010 and 2014 was about $130/barrel. Then in a few short months it dropped by 50% and stayed there until this day (with a short exception around the start of the invasion when it was above $100 for about half a year).
> why then have all the moves against Ukraine were when Trump was not in office?
In regards to the timing of the two Russian invasions, perhaps Putin felt those were his best chances to make such moves.
The first time when Russia invaded Crimea on February 20, 2014 was because of the Maidan Revolution. At the time Ukrainian government was a mess. The then Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who was an ally of Putin, was to be ousted on the next day of the Russian invasion and eventually fled to Russia.
As for the timing when Russia invaded Ukraine again on February 24, 2022, I think one of the reasons was because of US troops chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan happened a few months ago. And after that, the US would be politically
unlikely to get itself involved directly in another overseas war so soon; and Putin hoped this time it would be a blitzkrieg coup, and then he could replace Zelensky with a puppet president.
I am not saying that Putin intentionally invaded Ukraine at a time when Trump was or wasn't in office; I only feel that these are two very opportune moments for Putin to seize, which both happened to be at times when Trump was not in office.
You’re giving Trump too much credit. He simply admires Putin as the authoritarian leader of a world power, and neither sees the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine conflict, nor does he feel moral/ethical repulsion towards what Russia has done there.
I'm not swayed by the arguments that the white house is compromised. But I do appreciate the significance of the question "find the daylight between the actions of the white house and the actions of an ideal agent".
You're a physician, your patient is running a fever of 42°C, that's very quickly going to become fatal. Do you administer antipyretics and cold compresses now, or do you debate the likely causes, and attempt the root cause analysis?
First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C. Faulty instruments or clerical errors could have lead us to believe the patient was 42C.
The fist thing the doctor would do would likely be place their hand on the patients forehead and then take additional readings to confirm the prognosis.
Last thing you would want to do is cold plunge a patient when instrumentation has extreme bias.
> First we would have to agree that the patient is actually 42C.
This is known as rejecting the hypothetical. The only time it's a good faith argument is after you've agreed with the conclusion.
If you do agree with the argument, you should cite something verifiable that the white house has done that's incompatible with the original assertion. Which is the actions are indistinguishable from an ideal agent. Do you have any provable examples?
> too many things would have to fit perfectly for it to make sense
things like immediately reversing course on military support for the only country at war with Russia? things like torching relationships with our closest allies we've spent decades, if not centuries building?
things like repeatedly and publicly praising Putin? things like both ex-KGB officers and current UK legislators publicly stating the possibility?
I don't know why you think it's quite so far fetched. it's not a certainty but at this point I would say the preponderance of evidence calls it "likely"
> things like immediately reversing course on military support for the only country at war with Russia
America has a tremendous interest in not being at war with the world’s second largest nuclear power. We also have no interest in sacrificing good relations with Russia for the sake of Ukraine.
We should definitely go back to the good relations we used to have. Maybe if we're nice to them again they won't be running around with polonium, forcing migrants through Belarus, sending in little green men to their neighbors, and generally trying to destabilize the entire West. They're just misunderstood - it's not a country of thugs, they just want to live in peace and pump oil. Hey maybe if we have good relations we'll even be able to benefit from their recent invaluable contributions to science and technology.
That was bad, and this is bad. Iraq was bad, and this is bad. Brilliant.
We should care because it's an easy way to make friends and remain the most powerful country in the world. Well, was easy, when you could trust the US to not change their tariffs on you every three days. Art of the deal!
What is the relevance of “bad” versus “good?” Would the U.S. do anything differently today if Mexico was taken over by hardline communists? Why should we build a foreign policy around expecting other countries to behave differently than we do?
Considering we currently have a foreign policy solely based around giving 48 hour dopamine hits to the most newsmax-brain addled 25% of the population, that would be a significant step up.
Democrats would not want to invade Mexico or plot a coup, because we're not morons. Trump doesn't have a consistent policy about getting involved or not in foreign countries no matter how much you want to convince yourself that he's the second coming of George Washington.
You guys have been peddling this “Russian agent” nonsense for going on a decade. There was a whole Mueller investigation and report.
Disagreeing on where America’s substantive interests lie is not “being a Russian agent.” The U.S.’s involvement in Syria led to Al Qaeda taking over the country. Its involvement in Iran led to the Ayatollah taking over the country. Is the U.S. captured by radical islamists? Or does it so happen that in various conflicts U.S. interests happen to align with those of Islamists against some counter-party?
This argument relies on false equivalence and a straw man. It compares accusations of being a "Russian agent" to U.S. alignments with Islamists, but the two are not analogous. It also presents a false dilemma by asking if the U.S. is "captured" by Islamists, ignoring more complex geopolitical factors. Additionally, it implies causation (U.S. involvement leading to Islamist takeovers) without considering other historical influences. While the argument raises a valid point about shifting alliances, it does so using misleading rhetorical techniques.
It's an extraordinary claim. I think the reason I dismiss it as unlikely as when I look back at the steel dossier and muler investigation 1) if there was something, it's very likely they would have found it then 2) in hindsight both investigations were completely discredited and shown to be largely a institutional response to the shock which was 2016. This current re-emergence of 'trump is a Russian agent' is kinda surprising in that context. 3) I think the current behavior can be explained by a desire to end the conflict, while feeling no particular allegiance to Ukraine.
I mean theres lots one could say here. Probably the most straightforward is igor danshenko, who was the primary source for the steel dossier, stating that he never intended for the claims to be taken seriously.
Ceasing assistance is a bit different than providing assistance to the enemy.
The US helped support Ukraine for several years. That was nice. Someone else can now redirect domestic resources to that cause. We've had our turn.
The real question is who benefits from the tall apocalyptic tales told to taxpayers that if families part with their dollars to at least equally corrupt foreign lands, they will be safer from the evil russians. It's not clear to me that the international meddling of the US this century has performed the claims of the war cries, and we're exhausted of servicing them.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.
Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?
International trade is largely irrelevant to the US.
Yes, Washington used its navy to keep international trade safe during the Cold War, but that was mainly a bribe to get nations to consult with Washington on security matters.
I think you're mistaking globalist foreign policy for the free market with this one. Intetnational trade is the lifeblood of every significant American business.
- Whether or not US intel agencies (or foreign proxies) will be leaking intelligence to Ukraine.
- Given what I’ve previously mentioned[1] as the unbelievably strong US intel penetration of Russian institutions, the likelihood that sources, and most especially HUMINT sources, will be disclosed to Russia. That would of course be catastrophic at multiple levels, and with enduring consequences.
________________________________
Notes:
1. For example <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31480538> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41273077>.
reply