It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Putin's PsyOp Gambit Against Clinton

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 11:08 AM
(Part I of II)

Dear ATS,

I'm going to lay out this CT for you in some detail. It is admittedly still speculation, but I believe it to have the strongest possibility of truth. This is not a Trump thread, and I will not be addressing guilt or innocence of Clinton, especially since we have been promised that future documents will cause her indictment, and she has not been brought up on any criminal charges to date, as much as some people (including Putin) would like her to be.

I would like to submit evidence in this thread for the theory that 1) Putin is behind Assange's obtaining hacked information from the DNC and Clinton Foundation, and his slow-drip of information from Wikileaks, and 2) that the reason for it is simply “tit for tat” revenge in a very psyop and 'KGB' sort of way.

Shall we begin?

Why Putin Hates Hillary - Politico

The theory here is that Putin, a former intelligence officer and long-time near-dictator, is dealing a little PsyOp political payback

Why? Because Clinton, as Secretary of State, offended Putin with a “signal” that his own electoral process was (drum roll please) “rigged,” and the Russian government (i.e. Putin):

With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. “She said they were dishonest and unfair,” Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave “a signal” to demonstrators working “with the support of the U.S. State Department” to undermine his power. “We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs,” Putin declared.

Hillary Clinton is the obvious object of cyberattacks and Wikileak's Assange. That cannot, at this point, be denied. Is this Putin's revenge?
Multiple cybersecurity analyses have claimed Russian hackers are behind the DNC breach and the Clinton Foundation breach.

Russian Government Hackers Penetrated DNC

Russian Hackers Believed To Have Breached Clinton Foundation Computers

What did Clinton do to upset Putin? Why does he hate her so much as to attempt to undermine her candidacy for President?
From the above linked Politico article:

Former U.S. officials who worked on Russia policy with Clinton say that Putin was personally stung by Clinton’s December 2011 condemnation of Russia’s parliamentary elections, and had his anger communicated directly to President Barack Obama. They say Putin and his advisers are also keenly aware that, even as she executed Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, Clinton took a harder line toward Moscow than others in the administration. And they say Putin sees Clinton as a forceful proponent of “regime change” policies that the Russian leader considers a grave threat to his own survival.

“He was very upset [with Clinton] and continued to be for the rest of the time that I was in government,” said Michael McFaul, who served as the top Russia official in Obama’s national security council from 2009 to December 2011 and then was U.S. ambassador to Moscow until early 2014. “One could speculate that this is his moment for payback.”

She’s known to be tough on Russian policy and their leadership:

“Clinton was a more skeptical voice on the reset,” McFaul says. “She was tougher on the Russians. She pushed back. She was a difficult interlocutor with both [foreign minister Sergei] Lavrov and Putin — and I say that as a compliment.”

(It doesn’t hurt that Trump has been soft on Russian and Putin, and that he seems to admire him and his dictatorial ways. But this is not really what I'm discussing...merely a sidebar...)


Interestingly, Paul Manafort, the recently resigned Campaign Manager of Trump, with obvious ties to pro-Russian endeavors, says that Clinton is “soft on Russia.” Ha. The record proves otherwise.


Why does US toughness towards Russia and Putin matter?? Why not “make friends” with Russia and Putin? Why is Russia dangerous?

(to be continued in Part II below)

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 11:19 AM
(Part II)

Why does US toughness towards Russia and Putin matter?? Why not “make friends” with Russia and Putin? Why is Russia dangerous?

1) Crimea and Ukraine. The attempted (and somewhat successful) annexation of Ukraine back into the “fold” of Russia, with Crimea effectively annexed. Empire-building (if it can be gotten away with) is still on the table with Russia, which naturally alarms our allies in NATO, and Russia’s neighboring countries.

2) Russia is Taking A Dangerous Turn

The upshot of this is that Russia is in a very dangerous place internally and pressures are mounting, which may threaten Putin’s supremacy:

Lilia Shevtsova, a Kremlinologist and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues in The American Interest that Russia is exhibiting a funnel logic that is starting to look like suicidal statecraft.
“First,” she points out, “the Kremlin creates a problem and then, in trying to deal with it, provokes even more serious problems.”

And then there’s this…

The United States and Russia are now proposing to drop food and other emergency aid from the air if President Bashar al-Assad of Syria does not allow trucks to deliver supplies to his besieged cities. Airdrops are a risky and desperate move — costly, hard to deliver accurately and, if poorly targeted, a threat to kill or injure the people they are supposed to help.

On the surface the move seems a humanitarian gesture from two nations that are supposedly partners in ending Syria’s bloody civil war. What it really does is highlight, once again, the duplicity of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, in Syria and elsewhere. Mr. Assad remains in power largely because of Russian military assistance. It is hard to believe that Mr. Putin, who fancies himself a man who can get what he wants, could not persuade Mr. Assad to let aid get through to the cities if he chose to try.

NY Times - Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Obsession

And this…

Putin has thus confirmed that his understanding of sovereignty and security takes precedence over any economic logic. He seems to consider it beneath him to deal with lowly economic issues.
One has to be very clear about the kind of building blocks that bolster Russia’s assertiveness: they include the primacy of absolute political sovereignty and the willingness to use force.
These key concepts are brought up by Moscow’s state-controlled news media and top Russian politicians on a daily basis. Russia is building a new credibility on its readiness to use the country’s hard power; not soft power, trade power, or economic competitiveness.
Led by the current political elite, Russia has decided against pursuing economic development or modernizing policies, seeing these essentially as compromises.  

Putin’s Dangerous Plan to “Make Russia Great Again”

To be honest, I don’t want to make Putin into a “bogeyman” or elevate him to some sort of shadowy Cold War monster. Instead, I see a man trying to hold on to power as his nation declines - a very intelligent and ruthless man, at that - and because of this, we should be wary of him, and watchful of actions that are not in the interest of the United States or our allies.

Putin is not "America's Friend" and has acted in ways that are against US and international interests in Syria, against international interests in Ukraine and Russia is in the midst of a downward economic spiral, which seems to cause a tightening of authoritarian rule rather than Putin acting to the economic advantage of his people. NATO nations are nervous.

In other words, Putin is vulnerable. Clinton knows this and is willing to take advantage of this on behalf of US interests, and she holds no real respect for him as a leader. This has greatly offended him and possibly worried him, and Putin is now using his power to undermine hers, in an effort to pay her back and undermine her in return. (Still speculation, here, of course.)

Wikileaks Assange is, in my opinion, a tool of Russia in this, and he enjoys playing power games on a big field, messing with US elections and Clinton, for whom he has his own reasons for hating.


Putin was offended by Clinton and accused her of undermining his power. So as payback he has Russian operatives hack the DNC and the Clinton Foundation. Wikileaks’ Assange is given the data and told to make much of it being the downfall of Clinton. He is told to make it as disruptive as possible, and he gleefully agrees.

The result? Clinton get’s trolled and the hot divisions in our own politics fan the flames of Hillary-hatred, which Trump uses to his advantage with his base and Clinton must defend against (regardless of whether she is actually guilty of anything or not). Her candidacy and her Presidency have their legitimacy questioned, if you let him, Putin wins.

If Clinton does have something she will ultimately be indicted for, Putin still wins. If she is not indicted and gains the Presidency, however, she will be able then to fight back against him.

Your thoughts? Again, this isn't about Trump or Clinton's guilt or innocence, this is a theory about why she is being targeted and by whom.

- AB

An addendum:

Assange Has Previous Ties To Russia
National security expert and former United States counterintelligence officer John Schindler states flatly that “WikiLeaks is a front for Russian intelligence,” and Assange does indeed appear to have a cozy relationship with the Russian government.

Read more at Link

edit on 25-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: addendum

edit on 25-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: accidentally did not use "news content" quote box...

Addendum 2: And this brand new revelation: Russian Hackers Accidentally Post Different Versions of Stolen Docs - Post Steal Editing?
It is VERY important to realize the level of possibility here - LIES may be being told via hacked documents and should be taken with a grain of salt until investigated and authenticated. Hackers have their own agendas, and they are perfectly capable of altering data... A word to the wise.

edit on 25-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 12:33 PM
Not a bad theory.

somewhat believable but,

it sounds just like the Clinton Campaign.

Not much actual proof, just the same old "sources" and "conjecture".

Good effort just the same.

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 01:04 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

What did Clinton do to upset Putin? Why does he hate her so much as to attempt to undermine her candidacy for President?
from the op . Nearly everyone knew and is being confirmed that the Hill was always going to be found out if documents were ever uncovered . Making this a Putin hates the Hill might be true because there are a lot of people in Putins camp on that even if he doesnt give a rats a$$ about her . The system is corrupt run by corrupt politicians . The releases now finally put the nails in the coffin . No press releases and when she does get a soft ball question doesn't even come close to answering it . I can't speak for any Americans but the rest of the world is watching the Hill loose her mojo ,if that is what she had . She makes me puke in my mouth too many times for me to even beging to think about it .

Trump is a charter and that is all but if Hillary is the other choice that Americans are going to foist on the rest of the world then God help us all .

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 01:22 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
Not a bad theory.

somewhat believable but,

it sounds just like the Clinton Campaign.

Not much actual proof, just the same old "sources" and "conjecture".

Good effort just the same.

I think it s a highly plausible argument and sourced from many different articles, quoting many different people. It has nothing to do with "the Clinton Campaign" and I resent the implication that what I'm saying is somehow associated with them. This is my own opinion and research.

Your back-handed compliments have been noted.

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 01:49 PM
I don't know I Think it could be the other way around. If Russia really does have the goods regarding Hillary's activities as secretary of state the amount of leverage russia could bring to bear against her as president is mind-boggling. Either way though Trump or Hillary Putin and Russiaa are sure to find some advantage. reply to: AboveBoard

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 08:13 PM
Hillary Clinton is a dangerous globalist. Do you want to fight wars so George Soros and the Clinton's can enslave the planet and enforce their lack of values worldwide?

From 2009 up to 2013, the year the Ukrainian crisis erupted, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is headquartered in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, a new report claims.

In 2008, Viktor Pinchuk, who made a fortune in the pipe-building business, pledged a five-year, $29-million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative, a program that works to train future Ukrainian leaders “to modernize Ukraine.” The Wall Street Journal revealed the donations the fund received from foreigners abroad between 2009-2014 in their report published earlier this week .


Leaked Memo Exposes George Soros' Plan To Overthrow Putin & Destabilise Russia

And if you want Putin's view on Trump and Hillary

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 10:11 PM
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Hey Doc,

I thought my thread was dead already, so I didn't see your comment.

In the "Hillary is Evil" interpretation of the world, I'm sure you make absolute sense.

I see things differently, as evidenced in my thread post above, but I appreciate you bringing your thoughts here. If I only look at my own way of thinking I can never see outside myself, and so being here at ATS and listening to others is usually a good way to step outside the box, for myself.

I haven't had time to go through your sources yet, but thanks for posting them.

- AB

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 02:07 AM

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:07 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

I enjoyed reading both parts of your thesis about Putin's PsyOp against Clinton. I think you've given us something to take seriously.

People of a certain age (like me) remember Cold War days of spies (lol Mad Magazine Spy vs. Spy) and stories of Soviet disinformation campaigns. Younger generations do not remember these things as well or not at all, and whatever history they receive is probably from movies or tv programs. Nonetheless, with the internet, the disinformation campaigns today do not even need a person on the ground in a country generating disinfo.

What you have laid out about a Putin campaign is not farfetched. Something for people to consider.

From an article in re to disinfo and journalism

The other thing that I’ve seen and it doesn’t get as much discussion is what I’d call the rise of disinformation. And it’s ironic because there’s never been a greater, richer, more information age in history. All of human knowledge is at the touch of your iPhone. Google estimates that basically the amount of information that was created throughout human history till 15 or 20 years ago is now equaled every year. So this is an incredible rise of information, yet at the same time there’s been almost a similar rise in disinformation and in false facts, whatever you want to call it. And one of my heroes being a New Yorker was Pat Moynihan, who was a senior senator from New York, and he used to have a lovely line where he would say, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” And everybody would nod their head.

But now more and more, we see people feel like I’m entitled to my own facts and I dispute those facts. There’s no consensus anymore about what’s true even though the tools for fining out the truth, for finding out the reality, for finding out the facts, are better than any time in history. And around the time that I came into office was the time we saw the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea, and one of the things I saw even though I had been in journalism and media my whole life, I saw the rise – I saw the extent, the power of Russian disinformation and Russian propaganda. And that’s something that we’re seeing in lots of different spaces around the world and it is, I would say, an existential threat to freedom. It’s a threat to our security and it’s a threat to this very, very basic idea that we have that there’s a reality, there’s a truth out there, which is something that journalists hold dear. That is under threat in a way that we haven’t seen– ever, I don’t think.

Someone said this about the Russian space, but it’s true in general on this disinformation piece. It’s not so much an information war but a war on information, a war on the idea of truth.
One of the things I always tell my folks in the field is that there aren’t two sides to a lie. With the rise of disinformation and propaganda, there is not just small manipulations of the truth; there are actual lies, made-up facts. And one of the things that they depend on is journalists who feel that to be objective you have to balance two sides. And there’s a false equivalency if you balance a lie against the truth. I believe journalists have to call out the lie. One of the things I always told my folks at Time was, “You’re an expert in this. You know what’s wrong. You have to state your point of view.” And I do believe that one of the aspects of 21st century journalism and all the tools that are at the disposal of 21st century journalism is that people have to be able to expose those lies. They can’t balance something that is false against something that is true.

The old USSR is gone, but Putin in Russia still carries on.
Inside the Kremlin’s hall of mirrors

The deployment of information weapons, it suggests, “acts like an invisible radiation” upon its targets: “The population doesn’t even feel it is being acted upon. So the state doesn’t switch on its self-defence mechanisms.” If regular war is about actual guns and missiles, the encyclopedia continues, “information war is supple, you can never predict the angle or instruments of an attack”.
Where once the KGB would have spent months, or years, carefully planting well-made forgeries through covert agents in the west, the new dezinformatsiya is cheap, crass and quick: created in a few seconds and thrown online. The aim seems less to establish alternative truths than to spread confusion about the status of truth. In a similar vein, the aim of the professional pro-Putin online trolls who haunt website comment sections is to make any constructive conversation impossible. As Shaun Walker recently reported in this newspaper, at one “troll factory” in St Petersburg, employees are paid about £500 a month to pose as regular internet users defending Putin, posting insulting pictures of foreign leaders, and spreading conspiracy theories – for instance, that Ukrainian protestors on the Maidan were fed tea laced with drugs, which led them to overthrow the (pro-Moscow) government.
the decline of trust in national governments. At moments of financial and geopolitical uncertainty, people turn to outlandish theories to explain crises. Was this the “invisible radiation” that the Russian information-psychological war encyclopedia had referred to? Once the idea of rational discourse has been undermined, spectacle is all that remains. The side that tells better stories, and does so more aggressively – unencumbered by scrupulousness about their verifiability – will edge out someone trying to methodically “prove” a fact.

Whatever else might be said of the Kremlin’s information strategy, it is undoubtedly in tune with the zeitgeist: one that is also visible in America and Britain, where what Stephen Colbert memorably called “truthiness” can run roughshod over fact-based discourse.

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:54 PM
a reply to: desert

The US didn't twiddle their thumbs while the big bad USSR did their thing.

We were just as guilty.

Sure there's Russian disinformation.

There's US disinformation too.

Heck every nation is doing it to some degree.

The difficult part is looking through both sides propaganda and disinfo BS to find the truth.

Is it possible it's Russian disinformation? Sure. It's possible the other side is US disinformation.

It's hard to say without cold hard proof one way or the other.

Especially as the best lies are hidden among piles of truth. Is the best way to slip them in there.

Is completely possible to find proof of lies and disinformation on both sides of an issue, while having bits and pieces of both sides also being littered with truths and half truths.

The fact that you find an example of some disinformation on one side of an issue does not discount the whole issue. If it did, then all you would need to do is disinformation in the form of forged disinformation to prove.

Now we end up in war of disinformation disinformation of disinformation of disinformation of disinformation to infinitude.

Which brings us back to square one, looking at each piece of information, seeing what proofs we can find, and discarding any proven disinfo we find.

Since disinformation can itself be disinformation... #... I give up there's no way of determining overall truth other than using your best damn judgement cause this rabbit hole gets really damn trippy and goofy.

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 06:15 PM
Hillary and her bloody quest for demonhood..

The dark forces are slowly gathering their strength.

new topics


log in