It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.”
“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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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
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 .
What did Clinton do to upset Putin? Why does he hate her so much as to attempt to undermine her candidacy for President?
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.
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 .
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 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.