DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 I'd argue that back channels are absolutely critical. But why this back channel with this country at that time with their communications facilities? And by a private citizen to boot? Because given the results of the election they were losing their existing back-channel via the Clinton Global Initiative?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Back channels are of course normal and critical. But not for every incoming admin since Kennedy as you stated. Questioning the motivation of a possible Russian source doesn't change Kushner's actions, which display an amateur's understanding of government transfer of power and international diplomacy, at best. Yes, for every incoming administration - just not always with Russia. It's common practice, as you said. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, there have been at least three times since the Cuban missile crisis where Russia or the US almost accidentally launched a nuclear strike and/or misinterpreted radar data saying there was a strike. Back channels save lives. Period. They can end wars, work around red tape (for the betterment of both sides - or the detriment), and otherwise be a stabilizing force. As for the bolded: the story is unconfirmed and comes from unnamed sources. The person saying (through second hand sources) what Kushner did is the Russian spy chief. Yet, you're taking his words as absolute truth because it fits with the narrative you wish to believe - despite him representing what you believe to be a hostile nation. Questioning the story's source is essential if you care about actually understanding what's happening rather than just consuming whatever narrative the MSM or the administration wants to sell. In one sentence you describe Russia as a hostile nation and in the next you're blindly believing what that country's top spy in the US said happened. That's sloppy thinking at best. I'd argue that back channels are absolutely critical. But why this back channel with this country at that time with their communications facilities? And by a private citizen to boot? The quibble I'd raise is that Kushner at the time this conversation allegedly took place was not a private citizen (not really). He was on the president elect's transition team and one of his closest advisers. Had this conversation taken place in October, I'd be with you. But it took place in December. Another thing I'd add, just for the purposes of discussion, is if so many people are convinced the Russians and Trump's team had been colluding during the election - why would they need a secret back channel in December? They must have already had one for that narrative to hold water.
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Yes, for every incoming administration - just not always with Russia. It's common practice, as you said. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, there have been at least three times since the Cuban missile crisis where Russia or the US almost accidentally launched a nuclear strike and/or misinterpreted radar data saying there was a strike. Back channels save lives. Period. They can end wars, work around red tape (for the betterment of both sides - or the detriment), and otherwise be a stabilizing force. As for the bolded: the story is unconfirmed and comes from unnamed sources. The person saying (through second hand sources) what Kushner did is the Russian spy chief. Yet, you're taking his words as absolute truth because it fits with the narrative you wish to believe - despite him representing what you believe to be a hostile nation. Questioning the story's source is essential if you care about actually understanding what's happening rather than just consuming whatever narrative the MSM or the administration wants to sell. In one sentence you describe Russia as a hostile nation and in the next you're blindly believing what that country's top spy in the US said happened. That's sloppy thinking at best. The quibble I'd raise is that Kushner at the time this conversation allegedly took place was not a private citizen (not really). He was on the president elect's transition team and one of his closest advisers. Had this conversation taken place in October, I'd be with you. But it took place in December. Another thing I'd add, just for the purposes of discussion, is if so many people are convinced the Russians and Trump's team had been colluding during the election - why would they need a secret back channel in December? They must have already had one for that narrative to hold water. Well, I won't quibble. He was most definitely a private citizen. While he was serving the president-elect, this was well before the inauguration, before he was named special adviser, and BEFORE his security clearance was granted. I'm also unaware of a back channels previously established using the foreign country's communications in order to bypass any domestic systems. Now my turn to quibble. A cyber attack by a foreign government is considered a hostile act. Edited May 31, 2017 by K-9
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Now my turn to quibble. A cyber attack by a foreign government is considered a hostile act. A cyber attack on the DNC???
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 31, 2017 Author Posted May 31, 2017 Yes, for every incoming administration - just not always with Russia. It's common practice, as you said. Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, there have been at least three times since the Cuban missile crisis where Russia or the US almost accidentally launched a nuclear strike and/or misinterpreted radar data saying there was a strike. Back channels save lives. Period. They can end wars, work around red tape (for the betterment of both sides - or the detriment), and otherwise be a stabilizing force. As for the bolded: the story is unconfirmed and comes from unnamed sources. The person saying (through second hand sources) what Kushner did is the Russian spy chief. Yet, you're taking his words as absolute truth because it fits with the narrative you wish to believe - despite him representing what you believe to be a hostile nation. Questioning the story's source is essential if you care about actually understanding what's happening rather than just consuming whatever narrative the MSM or the administration wants to sell. In one sentence you describe Russia as a hostile nation and in the next you're blindly believing what that country's top spy in the US said happened. That's sloppy thinking at best. The quibble I'd raise is that Kushner at the time this conversation allegedly took place was not a private citizen (not really). He was on the president elect's transition team and one of his closest advisers. Had this conversation taken place in October, I'd be with you. But it took place in December. Another thing I'd add, just for the purposes of discussion, is if so many people are convinced the Russians and Trump's team had been colluding during the election - why would they need a secret back channel in December? They must have already had one for that narrative to hold water. As I said back channels are critical to -a sitting government!- But there was a sitting government, a state department, an intel community (Deep State!)...and Kushner bypassed all of them and picked up his phone. That's troubling. Why Russia, given the Russia heat? Who knows. I truly don't think Trump, for all his foibles, is in cahoots with the Russkies. The Russkies may want to be in cahoots with him but it seems like a lopsided love affair. Trump will run off with the Mexican guy if he just shows a little leg. Putin meanwhile loves Don.
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Please elaborate on that. Just how exactly, was our election interfered with? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/russia-election-europe-us/524208/
Gary M Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/russia-election-europe-us/524208/ FTA "There is no proof, for example, that the Brexit vote was marred by foreign cyberattacks" "thousands of attempted hacks of its computer servers and accused Russian state media outlets of spreading slanders about Macron" "The phishing attacks, which seem to have failed"
Foxx Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) ... the Cuban missile crisis where Russia or the US almost accidentally launched a nuclear strike and/or misinterpreted radar data saying there was a strike. ... just a little history here, because our history books and the narrative our overlords paint is, of course, with omissions. which must be so if you are to alter the historical record. does anyone remember exactly why the Cuban Missile Crisis came about? it was in direct response to the US placing 15 Jupiter Missiles in Turkey. but of course, it was the evil Russians who started the whole thing. the Russians were playing a tit-for-tat game of cat and mouse. had we not blinked, we would have had only ourselves to blame for starting the whole conflagration. and to somewhat lead this back into the current discussion... guess what, there were secret back channel discussions that took place to resolve the crisis that we started, even after JFK stated publicly that he would not negotiate with the Russians. a little actual history lesson for the day Edited May 31, 2017 by Foxx
row_33 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 The dominant view on the Crisis now seems that it was retaliation for JFK putting missiles in Turkey. And that an secret agreement to remove them ended it all. And that NOBODY else supported this course of action in JFK's inner circle. NOBODY!!! And the bad result? A public belief that Commies were cowards and would back down if the US was tough enough. I can see how it led to the US thinking North Vietnam for even 1 second was going to change it's mind on eventually taking over South Vietnam and imposing Communist rule on it.
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 A cyber attack on the DNC??? Yes. The targeted entity doesn't matter.
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 just a little history here, because our history books and the narrative our overlords paint is, of course, with omissions. which must be so if you are to alter the historical record. does anyone remember exactly why the Cuban Missile Crisis came about? it was in direct response to the US placing 15 Jupiter Missiles in Turkey. but of course, it was the evil Russians who started the whole thing. the Russians were playing a tit-for-tat game of cat and mouse. had we not blinked, we would have had only ourselves to blame for starting the whole conflagration. and to somewhat lead this back into the current discussion... guess what, there were secret back channel discussions that took place to resolve the crisis that we started, even after JFK stated publicly that he would not negotiate with the Russians. a little actual history lesson for the day I don't think anyone is hiding the fact we had missiles in Turkey, that was Ike's thing, putting missiles on anything anywhere. The Kennedy people were happy to get those things out of there. But the main point is that there is no question to ulterior motives with JFKs back channel. With Trump and the Russians it looks real sinister to say the least.
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 just a little history here, because our history books and the narrative our overlords paint is, of course, with omissions. which must be so if you are to alter the historical record. does anyone remember exactly why the Cuban Missile Crisis came about? it was in direct response to the US placing 15 Jupiter Missiles in Turkey. but of course, it was the evil Russians who started the whole thing. the Russians were playing a tit-for-tat game of cat and mouse. had we not blinked, we would have had only ourselves to blame for starting the whole conflagration. and to somewhat lead this back into the current discussion... guess what, there were secret back channel discussions that took place to resolve the crisis that we started, even after JFK stated publicly that he would not negotiate with the Russians. a little actual history lesson for the day The crisis we started? While the Soviet Union's response to our missile placement in Turkey may have been their motivation, let's not forget that Turkey was a NATO member and the Soviet Union had been in flagrant violation of the Yalta agreement and had been annexing eastern European countries like it was going out of style. I have no problem saying the Soviet Union actually "started it."
Foxx Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 The crisis we started? While the Soviet Union's response to our missile placement in Turkey may have been their motivation, let's not forget that Turkey was a NATO member and the Soviet Union had been in flagrant violation of the Yalta agreement and had been annexing eastern European countries like it was going out of style. I have no problem saying the Soviet Union actually "started it." yes, Russia violated the agreements made in Yalta by not allowing free elections in nations that effectively were their buffer from/to the West. missiles capable of carrying nuclear tips is a whole 'nother ball of wax though, imo.
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Yes. The targeted entity doesn't matter. Well, good news then. NATO considers a cyberattack sufficient cause to invoke Article 5. yes, Russia violated the agreements made in Yalta by not allowing free elections in nations that effectively were their buffer from/to the West. missiles capable of carrying nuclear tips is a whole 'nother ball of wax though, imo. They did not, however, violate Stalin's side agreement with Churchill.
/dev/null Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Well, good news then. NATO considers a cyberattack sufficient cause to invoke Article 5. Does this mean NATO will declare war on all those Nigerian princes?
Foxx Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) ... They did not, however, violate Stalin's side agreement with Churchill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=990N6pXv3UQ The Churchill-Stalin Secret "Percentages" Agreement on the Balkans, Moscow, October 1944The Percentages agreement (also known as the "Naughty document") was an agreement between Soviet premier Joseph Stalin and British prime minister Winston Churchill about how to divide southeastern Europe into spheres of influence during the Fourth Moscow Conference, in 1944. The agreement was made public by Churchill. No confirmation has ever been made by the Soviet Union or Russia, or from the American side, which was represented in the meeting by Ambassador Averell Harriman. A draft document of the agreement, which was yet to be made in 1944, appeared under strange circumstances when it was supposedly intercepted in 1943 and fell into the hands of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco's secret service. This was mentioned by General Jordana, in a famous speech he gave in April 1943 in Barcelona. On October 8, 1944 Churchill and Stalin met at the fourth Moscow Conference. Churchill's account of the incident is the following: Churchill suggested that the Soviet Union should have 90 percent influence in Romania and 75 percent in Bulgaria; the United Kingdom should have 90 percent in Greece; in Hungary and Yugoslavia, Churchill suggested that they should have 50 percent each. Churchill wrote it on a piece of paper which he pushed across to Stalin, who ticked it off and passed it back. If this agreement was true, then Stalin did keep to his promise about Greece, but did not keep his promise for Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, which became one-party communist states with no British influence. Yugoslavia remained a non-aligned state in line with the Percentage agreement, though it was a one-party communist state, with very limited British influence. Neither did Churchill keep his promise about Greece, which became a one-party junta with no Soviet influence. Britain supported the Greek government forces in the civil war but the Soviet Union did not assist the communist partisans. However, doubts were raised[by whom?] regarding the accuracy of Churchill's account, which seems to serve political purposes at the time. First, it seems odd that the negotiating a matter of such importance takes place without the direct involvement of the Americans. They are represented only by their ambassador, Averell Harriman, perhaps as an observer. Second, the agreement note, which Stalin is supposed to have read, is written in English. Finally and most importantly, Russia appears on it instead of Soviet Union. This is a matter that would have been hard for Stalin to endorse since the Soviets were very sensitive in keeping appearances. Edited May 31, 2017 by Foxx
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=990N6pXv3UQ I have Churchill, Bellamy, Erickson, Glantz, and Berezhkov within arms' reach of me right now. That's three reputable historians and the memoirs of two of the participants (Churchill, and Berezhkov, who was the interpreter) in the meeting who say it happened. I'll take their words over a youtube video and a half-assed wikipedia write-up every day of the week. And yes, during the Great Patriotic War, Stalin - and by extension, everyone else in the Soviet Union - referred to the country as "Russia." It was a conscious decision made in late June of 1941 to appeal to the sense of Russian nationalism and history, of which there was none when it came to the USSR.
GG Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Does this mean NATO will declare war on all those Nigerian princes? Does this bring back Capt McCillucuddy?
Chef Jim Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Does this bring back Capt McCillucuddy? I wonder how the old man is and if Kittenpaw is still afloat.
/dev/null Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Does this bring back Capt McCillucuddy? Washington, Grant, Eisenhauer, and now McGillicuddy. Old soldiers do truly never die
Recommended Posts