X Close

‘Absolute victory over Russia isn’t possible’ Trump's former advisor on the West's mistakes

'Putin is definitely in it for the long haul' (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

'Putin is definitely in it for the long haul' (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


February 22, 2023   17 mins

Few people better understand the West’s fraught relationship with Russia than Fiona Hill. Born in Bishop Auckland, she went on to study History and Russian at St Andrews before a scholarship at Harvard took her to America. From there, Hill rose rapidly through the ranks to become one of the world’s foremost experts on Putin’s Russia, brought into the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and, finally, Donald Trump.

Then, in 2019, she shot to international fame as the star witness in Trump’s first impeachment hearings, prompting the president to dismiss her as “a Deep State stiff with a nice accent”. Here, Hill gives her candid assessment of Trump’s redeeming features, the West’s historic missteps in Ukraine, and how the war might end.

Freddie Sayers: In 2008, at the Bucharest summit when it was agreed that Ukraine and Georgia would become Nato members, you were advising President George W. Bush. What did you tell him?

Fiona Hill: Well, 2008 was pretty much a low point. It was a pretty bad idea to give Georgia and Ukraine an open door to Nato, but not for the reasons that everybody thinks: which is that the whole expansion of Nato was generally bad. At the time, Nato members were suddenly trying to address a very late request from Georgia and Ukraine, which wasn’t for membership immediately, but for them to be considered over time.

Now, that’s a drawn-out process: when countries apply, it is not automatic — some of them can stay under consideration for a long period. And not only were the majority of Nato members opposed to their accession, but it was also not particularly popular inside Ukraine itself. This was very much an elite project driven by Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian president, as well as the Georgians, who were more supportive about Nato membership because of security concerns with Russia. I and others said it was not a good idea at all. We thought it shouldn’t have even been under consideration.

 

FS: So you said that to George W. Bush’s administration?

FH: We did. And many other people — including Bill Burns, who’s now the Director of the CIA and had served as the Russian ambassador — were against it. Part of the reason was that it wasn’t going to succeed.

There was a question about how to guarantee their security. And there was a decision to say that these countries weren’t going to get into Nato now, but will at some point in the future — which was a bit of a break with precedent. And that outcome was the worst of all worlds. It was Angela Merkel, who helped to broker that arrangement. And it was basically like a red flag to a bull for Vladimir Putin, who had been opposed to Georgia and Ukraine seeking Nato entry.

But this also isn’t the full story. Because Nato has become a red herring in many respects. It’s the thing that everybody looks at. But Vladimir Putin — when he was working in the mayor’s office in St Petersburg in the Nineties, before Nato expansion was even a thing — was part of a group who thought that Ukraine shouldn’t be an independent country and that the Soviet Union should be put back together. So, his views about Ukraine were not shared by Nato early on.

FS: Is it therefore fair to accept that the West could have handled things better?

FH: Yes, the West could have and should have handled things better — but perhaps again, not in the thrust of where the debate has been focused. Because we should have been thinking about how we were going to ensure the security of all of Europe, not just those countries that were in Nato. Part of the issue was that we have always looked at Russia as the only successor state of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union — that all its other neighbouring countries only had contingent sovereignty, while Russia still has a sphere of influence. We’ve always thought of Russia as having a dominant role.

This wasn’t always the case, but when Putin came along, it became evident over time that he had aspirations for making Russia great in its neighbourhood. This shifted in 2007, when Putin made a pretty explosive speech at the Munich Security Conference about wanting to push back against American unipolarity and exert Russia’s rights again. Against that backdrop, it was of course a mistake to casually approach the issue of Georgia and Ukraine getting into Nato in 2008.

FS: Now that we’ve had the invasion, what should the West do next?

FH: We need to have an international diplomatic effort. We need to persuade the rest of the world that this war is not in anyone’s interests. And that’s where it becomes difficult, because this can’t just keep going on the battlefield. If we look at other world wars, there was some decisive moment on the battlefield. We might not get that, even though people talk about it all the time. We need to have a full-on international diplomatic effort where everybody tries to push, not Ukraine, but Russia towards the negotiating table.

FS: At the moment, though, it feels like the only question in the West is over whether we should send jets or more long-range missiles. There doesn’t seem to be any talk of peace negotiations.

FH: There is talk of peace negotiations. But the problem is that the Russians are not interested in them. What Putin has said is that: “Of course, we can negotiate. The war could have been over yesterday. The war would have never started if Ukraine had conceded to our territorial demands.” And that’s where we have a real problem. Because if we cede to Russia’s territorial demands — if Ukraine is forced to capitulate and give up not just Crimea but also the Donetsk, Luhansk and Donbas regions — think of all the precedents for other conflicts, not just in Europe, but around the world. Remember, Greece and Turkey still have massive disputes in the Aegean. We also have them in Cyprus, and in the eastern Mediterranean. So I agree we can’t just have it decided on the battlefield, but also decided diplomatically. These things have to be complementary.

FS: If the opening position from the West is that you can’t have any change of border from pre-2014 Ukraine borders, that’s not realistic. That’s not a peace negotiation. That’s just a sort of demand for complete surrender. What should we be talking about as an opening position in a peace negotiation?

FH: Part of it needs to account for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia coming back. But then if there’s any kind of territorial settlement, it has to be done in an international framework, which makes clear that this can’t be a precedent for other countries just taking territory. At one point, the Ukrainians were willing to contemplate Crimea being subjected to an internationally supervised referendum, 15 or 20 years down the line. That was before all of the incredible violence and atrocities that we have seen there. So it’s going to take some time to get back to that kind of position. There has to be a push to get Russia to negotiate and compromise. But right now, Putin is showing no sign whatsoever of that willingness.

FS: There was a moment earlier in the war when Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, was talking about some kind of peace settlement. It felt like there was some interest in the Ukrainian administration about engaging with him — and that it was actually Western powers, like the UK, who suggested Ukraine shouldn’t go down that road and that we need to have victory first.

FH: Freddie, that’s actually not true. That’s all Russian trolling and basically a disinformation campaign.

FS: Ok — what’s the truth then?

FH: It’s true that there was a negotiation in February or March, and it was in Istanbul. I’ve talked to lots of people who were there. And there’s a German political scientist called Sabine Fischer, who has reported on the structure of a negotiation which would have involved Russia pulling back to pre-invasion lines. It would have basically left Crimea in Russian hands, which the Ukrainians were then willing to discuss. But since then, all the atrocities in Bucha and Irpin became evident. There have also been a lot of stories from Russia that suggest Putin wasn’t necessarily willing to go down that path. He was trying to see what the Ukrainians were willing to do. I’ve been involved in many negotiations with Russia. And you don’t get very far on your opening gambit, because that’s when both sides are trying to see what the other is willing to do.

So we were in the initial phases of a negotiation. But what happened next, of course, was that negotiations were pushed off-track because Russia started to annex more territory, talk about the expansion of its borders, and basically tell the world that we had better get used to it.

FS: You have sat next to Vladimir Putin on a number of occasions and had dinner with him. You’ve seen him up close. What is the best way to begin negotiations with him? And more generally, does this all mean that the Western position is kind of a posture: that by not mentioning any possibilities of territorial deals, we are making sure not to enter into any negotiations in a weaker position?

FH: Correct. That’s exactly it. This is when it becomes very difficult to lay things out, because Putin always wants to know what your move is. He’s not a chess player, per se. I mean, I think we all know that he played judo. And he was actually very proficient at it: he was a judo champion. And he’s always looking to see what his opponents’ leverage points might be: what their weaknesses are, where their strengths are, and what their opening move might be. And he plays it over a long period of time. He is always sizing us up: are we completely unified? How much are we willing to give up? How far can he go?

FS: So he’s in it for the long haul?

FH: He is definitely in it for the long haul. If we had made a decision early on to push Ukraine to give up Crimea, as well as the Donbas, Putin would have taken that, pocketed it and then tried to figure out how much further he could press on. Because that’s exactly how he operates. He would have pocketed that win, and then tried to figure out how he could extend it further. Because, again, this started a long time ago — not just in 2014 but in 2006, when Russia cut off gas to Ukraine. Ukraine has been under constant pressure, all the way through the 2000s.

FS: But how does this end? I understand that we must appear strong and united. But as the years pass, if proposing a settlement is seen as a sign of weakness, how will we ever reach one?

FH: That’s not the way to look at this. The way to look at this is to try to create the circumstances for a real negotiation, not a capitulation. I don’t think we’re going to have an absolute victory over Russia. But look, it only ends when Russians no longer want to extend territory in an imperial fashion. Leadership matters a lot here. Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev didn’t have this same way of thinking. Gorbachev himself made the decision to end the Cold War; Yeltsin did not want to reincorporate Ukraine or Belarus or any of the other countries. So you’ve got to find a formula where Russia no longer wants to expand.

FS: So what does victory actually look like? Does it mean that we’re not going to push Russia out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea?

FH: Probably not in the short-to-medium term on the battlefield, but one could imagine something different over the longer term. The Baltic states are no longer part of the Soviet Union; they are independent again, so that didn’t last forever. This was one of the points that Angela Merkel kept making: that things change over time.

FS: What should we be doing differently? If you were now the adviser to the US President or British Prime Minister or Nato more generally, what would you suggest?

FH: We basically have to think differently about this. It’s not going to be settled on the battlefield. This isn’t going to be like the First or Second World War, with some satisfying armistice peace treaty. We’re talking a few weeks after the anniversary of the Yalta Conference of 1945, in which Europe was divided up into two spheres. That’s what Putin wants. And that’s not what the rest of Europe wants, so we have to think about a larger framework, about the fact that Russia currently has a UN Security Council vet. We need to rethink these multinational approaches. People have said this is a great power competition. But the United States isn’t trying to expand its borders, or annex anywhere. It might have done in the past. But it isn’t doing this now.

FS: Sceptics might think differently about that.

FH: That’s exactly our problem: we’re justifying what Russia is doing to Ukraine because of our irritation with the United States. Yes, the United States shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Yes, the United States shouldn’t have gone into Afghanistan. The United States does all kinds of things that the rest of the world doesn’t like — but does that justify Russia devastating Ukraine? No, it doesn’t. Unless, that is, the UK wants to live in a world that is only decided by clashes among China, the United States and Russia. That’s not the world I think the rest of the world wants to live in. That’s certainly not the world the Finns, the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch, the Norwegians and others who are really supporting Ukraine want to live in. There has to be some kind of revitalisation of multilateral entities — whether that means the UN or part of it.

FS: If we’re talking about European security, what about the European Union?

FH: It doesn’t just have to be the European Union. It could be different formulations. The UK is not in the EU now. Neither is Norway and Norwegian military posture is very important. In fact, Norway has been very good at managing their relationships with Russia and is a very successful example of a country managing a territorial dispute with Russia (in the Barents Sea). Norway also has a shared sovereignty of Svalbard, and the Russians are still abiding by those international regulations because they weren’t just set by Norway, but by international treaty. All I’m saying here is that we need to have some fresh thinking. Is it sufficient to be just thinking about tanks and planes and the battlefield? No, it’s not. We’re going to have to think long and hard about how we frame an international set of agreements — and it’s not just going to be from the United States side or just from Europe.

FS: Let’s move on to a few specific areas. Who do you think blew up the Nord Stream Two pipeline? Was it the Russians? Do you think there’s a chance that it was the Americans?

FH: Initially, I did think it was the Russians. There was just so much about the whole eruption that reminded me of the kind of sabotage the Soviets undertook during the Second World War, and that Putin’s father was actually engaged in during the siege of Leningrad. He talks a lot about how his father was part of a destruction battalion, going behind enemy lines and getting rid of any infrastructure the enemy could use. And there was just something about the way Putin talked about it that made me think the Russians did this — that they think this will teach the West a lesson.

Now, I’m not so sure. I don’t believe it was the United States. If the United States had done that, by now, somebody would have laid claim to this. The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it. And this isn’t implausible, because they already managed to launch a pretty significant strike on the Kerch (Crimean) Bridge, but I haven’t seen any evidence.

FS: Do you believe Ukraine has the capacity?

FH: That’s why I initially didn’t think that it could be Ukraine, because I wasn’t sure they could have had the capacity. But it’s possible that Ukraine could have found a way of doing this: we’ve seen them be extremely inventive. But I just want to make it very clear that I absolutely do not know who carried this out. And I think that we actually should continue to look at this. And I’m certainly ready to concede that my initial suspicion that it was the Russians is wrong.

FS: It’s a strange and worrying world where nobody knows who carried out such a major piece of vandalism. But let’s move on to fighter jets, which Zelenskyy is asking for. Should we say yes?

FH: Look, I think everybody has to remember that between 1939 and 1941, the United Kingdom needed a lot of assistance from the US, which inspired a big debate in America. So we’ve had these kinds of debates before. I think if military experts are looking at the long term, it’s obvious why the Ukrainians are asking for this because we keep talking about escalation. The Russians are continuously escalating, and have or had “escalation dominance”. And the whole point of talking about all this military equipment is to prevent Russia from having escalation dominance, in the hope that we will push them towards negotiations because Putin will only negotiate when he thinks that achieving his current goals is not possible.

FS: Does that mean yes to airplanes?

FH: Yes, I would say potentially yes. But I would say it’s really contingent on our longer-term plan to try to get Russia to the negotiating table. Because look, Russia and Putin right now think that they can win this war by destroying Ukraine and by destroying their own population. Putin is talking about throwing not just the 300,000 people who have been drafted, but another 500,000 people into this campaign. He is willing to sacrifice as many Russians as it takes.

And so part of this is a problem of Putin himself — how to constrain him and how to get the message across to him that he’s ruining Russia’s future, and that Russia’s relationship with Europe will be irrevocably altered. Putin still seems to think that he can get away with all his carnage and brutality and it’ll be back to business as usual. He thinks that is what happened to Assad in Syria. And the more that we talk about the fact that we just need to resolve this, and say “please take Ukrainian territory then we’ll all be back to business”, the more that he will persist.

FS: I wouldn’t say that’s what many people are saying…

FH: I’m not suggesting you’re saying that, but there are people out there who are saying it. I read it all the time. They’re basically saying, look, if we can get a formula here, we get Ukraine to give up territory, then Putin will stop. But he won’t stop unless he thinks that Russia’s interests are going to be imperilled. And right now, that’s not the case for him. I mean, there are still 80-odd countries that allow Russians visa-free access. Only 30-odd countries that have imposed sanctions. And you know, Putin is just replugging the Russian economy by moving from Europe to the Middle East and Asia.

FS: Don’t we know from the last year that Western power is less influential than we thought? Most countries have not taken a side. Putin can now pivot to China, and it feels almost like we’ve pushed Russia into a different orbit when perhaps there was a more intelligent way to go about it.

FH: Well, there certainly should have been a more intelligent way of going about it, but I don’t think that justifies allowing Russia to totally brutalise Ukraine. And I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. I think what we are seeing is Russia gambling that it can create a new division. What we have to do is make sure this new division doesn’t take hold.

We’re actually seeing Russia become more dependent on China. I don’t think that’s in anyone’s interests. Russia and China have had periods of conflict over their border. Russia’s longest border is with China. Russia is also a source of Asia-Pacific security issues as well. Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore all don’t like this situation. So what we have to do is work with other countries to again make it clear that what Russia is doing is unacceptable.

Right now, South Africa is carrying out naval exercises with China and Russia — that’s just not on. It’s one thing to be neutral and sit on the fence but it’s another to be essentially allowing China and Russia to practise drills they can use against other countries. South Africa should be called out on that.

But we have to find a way of making it clear what we’re standing for, which is the violation of the UN Charter and international law. When we play a democracy versus autocracy or frame a conflict around values, it just doesn’t cut it because the United States and the United Kingdom and France and other colonial powers have a lot of baggage and people don’t buy it. But we have to basically find ways of calling out Russia and getting that message to stick.

FS: I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t ask you about Donald Trump. You accepted a job in his White House in 2017. You were there for two years, and then you famously testified against him in 2019. Do you think, had he still been President, Russia would have invaded?

FH: No, probably. Putin would have anticipated that he could get Ukraine handed over without the necessity of invading. If you look back to what happened in the run up to the war, there was the Geneva meeting between Biden and Putin. At that point after the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Putin hoped that Biden would be willing to cut his losses on Ukraine and on Europe as well. Basically, he was trying to figure out whether Ukraine really matters, and was pushing Biden to negotiate away Ukraine — but Biden didn’t. Ukraine is not the United States’s to negotiate away. It’s not going to go over the heads of all the Europeans.

Russia gave all these ultimatums: that the US needs to pull up out of Europe and take its bases and its missiles and leave Russia to its own devices. And Biden wasn’t willing to negotiate on that basis. So Putin assumed that he has to use force. And he literally said afterwards: “Well, the United States won’t negotiate, so we’re invading.” And of course, he didn’t think that he’d end up in a massive war. He thought his special operation would be over in a week or two.

This gets back to where we started about where we’ve always gone wrong. We’ve never signalled that we really care about anything. We allowed Russia to invade Georgia and then Ukraine. So what would have happened with Trump is that he would have likely negotiated. Trump always said that Ukraine didn’t matter. That’s what happened in that first impeachment trial. Basically, Trump had made it very clear that Ukraine didn’t matter to him one bit; that national security didn’t matter, and this was all just about personal favours, and Ukraine was just a plaything. And so, with Trump, the assumption from Putin would have been that none of this would have been necessary.

Now, there is one element, however, one which Trump was somewhat unpredictable. If it looked like Trump was being humiliated in some way by Putin, then there might have been some other more mercurial reaction. Trump was the one who actually did shell Syria. Obama hadn’t done that before. Trump could be, you know, quite complicated on some of these issues.

FS: You’re no fan of Trump. But do you think that his unpredictability is part of the reason why there were no major wars during his presidency?

FH: Well, the situation hadn’t ripened in that way. Putin probably wasn’t ready at that point. There are other factors here. It’s not just always about the United States. I mean, Putin saw weakness in the United States, for sure. But he saw weakness over a whole period of time. Remember, he intervened with an influence operation. That’s why I went into government in 2016. I didn’t go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.

FS: My question was more about Donald Trump. I suppose most journalists would push you to condemn Trump in more and more severe terms. I guess I’m interested in the other side: having worked with him for that period, what’s the best thing you can say about him? Do you think some of his instincts were good?

FH: “Good” is subjective, isn’t it? But look, I think he had a lot of instincts where he understood strength versus weakness. He understood that he had to appear strong. He had that kind of strongman idea in many of his interactions with people, which was sometimes misplaced in the way he behaved. But he also asked a lot of hard questions that we weren’t asking ourselves. He was right on a number of issues related to European security. He basically was saying, as he said to Germany: if Russia was such a threat, why are you involved in all of these multibillion dollar deals for energy development? Bloody good question, right.

FS: And he was right on the Nord Stream pipeline.

FH: He was on the money with those ones — basically saying to Nato countries: if Nato is so concerned about Russia, why are you not spending enough on your defence? And why are you always looking to the United States?

Sometimes he would say that Nato is 80% or 100% dependent on the United States. This wasn’t entirely true, but he also wasn’t wrong. During the war in Ukraine, the US has ended up having to be indispensable with its leadership and military provisions again. So, there were lots of things he was right on, including the threat of China.

Although, often what we saw with Trump was that he became somewhat enamoured with the strongmen on the top, because he saw himself reflected in them, when he was much more hard on the relationship with the country itself. He didn’t pull back from some of the actions that were taken against Russia behind the scenes, things that nobody really talks about. Nobody really saw. And the same with China. But he would often undercut himself by pandering to their strongman leader.

Still, there are things where I think he actually deserved more credit than he got. On North Korea, the way that he spoke about things was often somewhat deceptive. At the same time, he recognised that he was going to have to do something non-conventional in terms of dealing with a real threat that he inherited from the Obama administration. I mean, the one thing that Obama told him that really seemed to have sunk in was that we’re on the verge of having North Korea launch a missile at us. And basically, Trump dealt with that head on.

FS: That was an example of this strongman trick working.

FH: That’s right — and a bit of madman theory as well. He came across pretty effectively, in that regard. And sometimes Trump instinctively knew how to play that one. Part of the problem with Trump, which I think everybody knows, is that everything is about him. So, when he said he was really supporting US interests, it was as if they were reflected by his own sense of self-interest. And sometimes that would work. And sometimes it was absolutely disastrous.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. You can watch the full interview here:

 

Fiona Hill is a foreign affairs specialist and former advisor to Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump.

Join the discussion


Rejoignez des lecteurs partageant les mêmes idées qui soutiennent notre journalisme en devenant abonnés payants.

Subscribe

To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

337 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago

My simple comment regarding anything that Fiona Hill says is to simply realize that when she states “That’s why I went into government in 2016. I didn’t go in there to serve Donald Trump. I went in there to deal with a national security crisis after the Russians launched an influence operation to basically subvert the US 2016 presidential election.”, it is evident that she is both delusional and living in cloud cuckoo land. Russian interference in the 2016 election was insignificant. Basically a zero. Now compare that to interference from big tech (google, facebook, twitter, etc…) in the 2020 election. In other words, despite being a so-called expert, she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. And that’s so unfortunate when one has people influencing and making policy decisions not based on reality but how they think the world should be.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Silly. Just because she says things about Russian interference in 2016 that you don’t like, you write off all her experience dealing with Putin and Ukraine. Not very clever.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Oh she just told a massive tangential lie to the subject matter we are supposed to rely on her expertise on. What’s the big deal? Really? I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but much of the support behind United States opposing Russia at all costs is because many resistance liberals still believe Putin hacked the 2016 election to install Donald Trump as president. You know the same people who liked to call people who disagreed with them “Putin puppets” before Ukraine was even invaded? This claim has been proven false several times over now and is still tearing the country apart. Don’t act like it is nothing.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Why is it a lie? Most of things I’ve read suggest that the Russians did try and interfere with the US election. I don’t believe there was any collusion with Trump, or that they intervened to help any particular side but instead inflame the culture wars and sow discord, but it’s still interference

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”

To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?

The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.

The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.

NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today – no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.

Su Mac
Su Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Yep, always looking at the wrong “election interference”

Su Mac
Su Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Yep, always looking at the wrong “election interference”

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Here’s how it works: a “scandal” is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not “leaked” – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to “open an investigation”, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long it’s necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so it’s like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.

Rosie Brocklehurst
Rosie Brocklehurst
1 year ago

Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

While Covid is indeed a flu, the Covid Pandemic was a manufactured panic war-gamed in October 2019 via Event 201: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/
Where do Democrats go when they leave the hands-on political arena? The media. Please.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you for posting that and for that insight into US politics, of which I am blissfully unaware.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

..you are blissfully unaware of almost everything that has occurred since the middle ages Charlie!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you so much, I must admit I’ve missed most of this stuff.
.

Rick Lawrence
Rick Lawrence
1 year ago

Remind me where Steve Bannon came from and went after the Whitehouse.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you so much, I must admit I’ve missed most of this stuff.
.

Rick Lawrence
Rick Lawrence
1 year ago

Remind me where Steve Bannon came from and went after the Whitehouse.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

..you are blissfully unaware of almost everything that has occurred since the middle ages Charlie!

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago

Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

You must be so disappointed that most fat people survived. An infectious disease that very few people die of is not a pandemic.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

You totally, 100% misunderstood my comment. Obese was used as an example, perhaps I should have said Seniors. the fact remains all I was pointing out was that it was not a Pandemic.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

You must be so disappointed that most fat people survived. An infectious disease that very few people die of is not a pandemic.

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

Yep! it appears that many UnHerd readers have become well and truly herded by the propaganda and lies that are the ‘bread and butter’ of the MSM.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Ironic that the Far Right automatically assumes everything they don’t hear on Fox News must be a lie, yet they naively believe everything they see there must be absolutely true. Both the Left and the Right push propaganda, but are blind to the lies coming from their “side”.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

Point taken.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

The clear and obvious solution was outlined by the Gt Barrington Declaration, as indeed I proposed myself, as a world class risk management consultant, from the very beginning, ie isolate the vulnerable (easy) not the virus (impossible).. Of course no one listened.. too much money to be made from Tory slush funds!

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

It depends what you mean by ‘real’. As for ‘pandemic’ it certainly was not. To say ‘it was a ‘pandemic for the obese,etc’ ; means it was not a pandemic.

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

Yep! it appears that many UnHerd readers have become well and truly herded by the propaganda and lies that are the ‘bread and butter’ of the MSM.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

Point taken.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Edgar

Covid is a danger to people with damaged immune systems. Elderly, obese, and disabled individuals who did NOT have compromised immune systems mostly were fine.
There were elderly individuals over a hundred years old who survived both Covid and the 1918 flu (antibodies were still present). One characteristic people in those groups had in common was a higher tendency toward Vitamin D deficiency, which is bad for immune response, but not all had this problem. In fact, obese people are a higher percentage of the population now than before Covid. If it had been true that they were uniquely vulnerable just because they’re fat, more would have died.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you for posting that and for that insight into US politics, of which I am blissfully unaware.

Bruce Edgar
Bruce Edgar
1 year ago

Covid is real, and it specifically targeted the elderly, the obese, and those who were chronic or seriously compromised. So it was a pandemic for these individuals–but it was merely a flu like disorder for over 90% of those who got it. In the hands of Fauci and the media, it became a Panic-demic–a dress rehearsal for mass disinformation, violation of individual rights, and herd think. Science–which involves debate and exploration of options–was discouraged. Vaccilnes were promoted as the only solution. The vaccines did not deliver, and we have yet to see the end of the MRNA question.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You Right wingers are as cowardly as the Far Left. You both kiss Putin’s a**, because you’re so afraid of him. All bullies are cowards.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You Right wingers are as cowardly as the Far Left. You both kiss Putin’s a**, because you’re so afraid of him. All bullies are cowards.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

While Covid is indeed a flu, the Covid Pandemic was a manufactured panic war-gamed in October 2019 via Event 201: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/event201/
Where do Democrats go when they leave the hands-on political arena? The media. Please.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

You’re right. The Democrats don’t own the media. The MSM is own by the people who own the Democrats! They also own the GOP btw.. and the Tories in the UK. Governments today are merely well bribed, bought and paid for puppets.. There are a few notable exceptions but even they are slapped down and beaten into line, eg Bernie Sanders on support for the war/MIC.. they soon put him right; the coward.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Yep.. sounds like the rules of the game to me! All you need is 40 million US suckers to believe all that crap.. how hard can that be?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not hard, obviously. I live here. You’d wouldn’t believe what is believed.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I would.. I do.. I’ve had some contact with them.. scary zombies, aaarrgh!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I would.. I do.. I’ve had some contact with them.. scary zombies, aaarrgh!

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not hard, obviously. I live here. You’d wouldn’t believe what is believed.

Rosie Brocklehurst
Rosie Brocklehurst
1 year ago

Covid is real. You are possibly not. And Democrats certainly do not ‘own’ the media -. But people to the left of the Democratic Party do not get their voice heard well.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Yep.. sounds like the rules of the game to me! All you need is 40 million US suckers to believe all that crap.. how hard can that be?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

No I can’t, nor do I care, nor does anyone outside of the US probably..

Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jay Chase
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

With all due respect, we only have the word of the DNC and Crowdstrike that the DNC emals were hacked by the Russians. They never allowed the FBI to look at the computers and do a forensic investigation. So the bottom line is we have a side with a vested interested in claiming Russian hacking, who cooked up the Steele report and the Russian collusion nonsense. That’s hardly reliable evidence. What I can say, given that I live in the US, and I might add close to Washington DC, that I didn’t notice anything that the Russians might or might not have done. Did they broadcast propaganda of one sort or another on Russia Today – no doubt but the viewership of Russia Today is so small and so to be effectively zero. Now compare that to what big tech did in the 2020 election where burying the Hunder Biden labtop story likely swung the election Biden’s way, and where one Presidential candidate, Trump (whether you like him or not) was deplatformed on Twitter and Facebook. Similarly when Zuckerberg messed around with the election in Wisconsin, later deemed to be illegal, although he only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. a minute fine relative to his wealth). Now that’s real interference.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Here’s how it works: a “scandal” is cooked up, lie nuggets are given – not “leaked” – to reliable minions in the media who then publish a shock horror story. Government hacks use said story to “open an investigation”, and media minions have that manufactured fiction to pump for however long it’s necessary. Both side do this, but the Democrats own the media, so it’s like breathing to them. And then, when sh*t dies down, the world finds out that – like Covid – it was all made up.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

No I can’t, nor do I care, nor does anyone outside of the US probably..

Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You need to back up your claims with proven sources. No one should be taking the allegations of neo-con warmongers seriously anymore without concrete evidence.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jay Chase
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

If you knew anything about goverment security, you would not claim that Hilary emails story was “manufactured panic”.
You would be sacked and charged if you did what she did.
If you can explain source of Clinton couple wealth, great. I am all ears.
Otherwise most likely explanation for usage of private email server is concealment of illegal activity….

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I say that was a gross distortion of the truth but it would fall so far short of the mark as to be an understatement of unforgivable magnitude.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I don’t disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled “Witness.” It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, what’s more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendt’s book “On Lying and Politics.”

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

Giuseppe Garibaldi perhaps?

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

What is it about my comment that makes you think I WAS romanticising history?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

Giuseppe Garibaldi perhaps?

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

What is it about my comment that makes you think I WAS romanticising history?

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I don’t disagree. My point was a factual one. Alger Hiss was a member of the CPUSA. He also worked for the State Department. Whittaker Chambers was also a member of the CPUSA and came to know Hiss in that capacity. Chambers would in time come to doubt the Soviet cause and to expose both Hiss and himself as agents of the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s, Hiss was tried, and convicted, in the US senate, of espionage. The lawyer who prosecuted Hiss was a man named Richard M. Nixon, who would become vice president of the USA in 1952 and president in 1968. Chambers wrote a book about the trial entitled “Witness.” It is, if I may say so, a great read. Chambers makes clear in the book just how deeply integrated the CPUSA was many aspects of American life (labor unions, education, the arts, politics, the military, etc.). There is a photo in the book of Hiss standing with Rosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. It is no great secret that many in the USA at the time, and not only at that time, saw the Soviet way as the great hope of mankind. My point is that the Soviets not only endeavored to influence American elections but to transform American life altogether and, what’s more, that many in American applauded this cause. This does not mean that I look upon Pres. Nixon with rose colored glasses. He lied relentlessly about the war in southeast Asia, and caused untold suffering and death in the process. I would point here to Hannah Arendt’s book “On Lying and Politics.”

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

That’s controversial, actually. There is some good evidence to suggest that it was Herbert Hoover’s measures that set the basis for the post-1929 crash recovery, but the benefits arrived too late to save his presidency. There is evidence in the economic data, too, that many of Roosevelt’s measures did lasting economic damage that would have become unavoidable if the second world war hadn’t justified a further massive increase in state spending, which in turn then was only saved because the US dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1944.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Under Roosevelt the US was a near dictatorship run by a strongman! We still suffer today under the burden of administrative state programs which his narcissism prevented him from sundowning. Don’t romanticize history. There are damned few real heroes.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I say that was a gross distortion of the truth but it would fall so far short of the mark as to be an understatement of unforgivable magnitude.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago

Actually, Roosevelt saved American capitalism. Without him, the U.S. would have become a dictatorship run by some strongman, whether socialist or fascist. If Roosevelt hadn’t created all the public works projects and other government programs to help starving people, there would have been a revolution that would have swept democracy away.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

And why are so many resolutely looking back at the days of the Russki under the bed phobia? Is this retro fixation possibly being “influenced” by a far more malign and dangerous power farther to the East?

Rosie Brocklehurst
Rosie Brocklehurst
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.

This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.

I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.

The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

I “forgot” the Far Right simply because it’s not part of the context of this particular thread. I am defending the notion that Fascism is a left-wing extremism alongside Communism and the other traditional variants. The common factor they possess is belief in a large, powerful, expensive State. No right-wing ideology shares this, and since Fascism does support a large powerful State, it cannot be right-wing.

This is not to say that right-wing extremisim does not exist of course, merely that it has nothing to do with what I’m describing here.

I take issue, too, with the idea that the modern Right “loves Russia” as you put it. What draws the modern Right to oppose the West’s Ukraine War involvement is more based upon a defective libertarian assessment that it is not the West’s problem. I say this as a libertarian myself, I just reckon that on this case many of my fellow libertarians have got this one wrong, and that there can be no way this isn’t our problem.

The view is more extreme in America, where the libertarian position is that America should abdicate entirely its role as world’s policeman, so you can see why European libertarians in NATO countries are not about to agree with that idea.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

You forgot the Far Right. Extremists on both the Left AND the Right hate democracy and freedom of speech. It’s only because Russia turned fascist with Putin that the Right suddenly loves Russia. That and they are afraid of him.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago

Of course, it would be nice to hear one (‘all sorts of reasons’, that was both truthfull and correct factually.
PS I note they never do.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

Liberal fascism is a fairly well defined concept and it does apply to large parts of the modern Left. That’s controversial obviously – left-wingers themselves are usually furious at the designation – but that that doesn’t mean that the concept is wrongly applied or is meaningless.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago

Of course, it would be nice to hear one (‘all sorts of reasons’, that was both truthfull and correct factually.
PS I note they never do.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Try this: did the US (via the CIA and €5bn) try to influence Ukraine’s politics? lol.. get a grip Fiona!

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

It can’t.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

It can’t.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

Once again I read an appeal to the sentimental. Given, that Ukraine is well within Russia’s sphere of influence, and that Putin, whatever else he is (I leave it to the Almighty to weigh his soul) is a nationalist. Given that the current Ukrainian state is in violation of the Minsk accords, corrupt, undemocratic and suppresses dissent and religious freedom. Given that a certain percentage of the Ukraine thinks of themselves as more Russian than “Ukrainian”. Question: How can the UN justify its expensive existence if it isn’t to solve such conflicts? Obviously a rhetorical question.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The people of Ukraine and other countries that suffered under the former Soviet Union still remember well how horrific it was, and need no other motivation to resist Putin’s dictatorship. They have recently had a taste of freedom and will now fight to the death to keep it. That and the brutal reality that Putin has already mass murdered thousands of Ukrainians, so it is either win or die as a people for them.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

In fact, ad campaigns and other interference in U.S. elections by foreign powers is, and has been, highly illegal for decades (22 USC § 2708(k)(4) . It’s still illegal, whether or not it convinces people. American elections are only for American citizens.
You never had to select candidates from a list, and you still don’t. You can write in whoever you want, but I wouldn’t bother writing in Mickey Mouse like way too many do. It even works occasionally: Lisa Murkowski won re-election through a write in campaign.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lillian
CLARE KNIGHT
CLARE KNIGHT
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I seem to remember they didn’t just verbally complain that Trump supposedly lost an election. That’s minimizing something that was far from benign. There was among, other things awful things, an insurrection, loss of life, and a lot of trauma and suffering. And, two years later the “complaining” is still going on.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

‘Almost no influence’ is probably an exaggeration. The manufactured panic about those Hilary mails did help Trump a lot, and the leaks gave some of the ammunition. One could argue that relying on a foreign intelligence service to hack your opponents mails is going a bit too far – much like bugging the campaign headquarters of the opposition actually. But OK, Trump won. You cannot claim that he stole the election.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Why do we forget that the Soviets influenced elections in the US for decades and did so masterfully? And not only elections, but wide swaths of US domestic policy, from marriage, the rearing of children, trade union formation, sexual mores, and you name it. Why do we forget that Alger Hiss stood behind Rosevelt at Yalta? Why do we forget, most all, that the political left in the US applauded the Soviets as they did these things, even dug in behind them? How is it that all this hypocrisy does not get noticed?

Rosie Brocklehurst
Rosie Brocklehurst
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

A somewhat better argument although I don’t agree with the term self righteous liberal-fascist. Its a nonsense phrase -just a way of expressing your deep irritation at sanctimoniousness perhaps? I for my part loathe Trump for all sorts of reasons.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Try this: did the US (via the CIA and €5bn) try to influence Ukraine’s politics? lol.. get a grip Fiona!

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

This is accurate. Democracy means respecting the will of the people as expressed through elections. Complaining about the electoral college and stating that Trump lost the popular vote is a very democratic criticism. Whining that a dishonest ad campaign from a foreign power unduly influenced voters is disrespectful to the process and dehumanizing to the voters. If you only support democracy when people elect leaders from a list of ‘acceptable’ candidates, you do not actually support democracy.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

And the US is not at the same thing all day every day?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

But it is really isn’t it? A passionate devotion to wealth beyond all other considerations such as morality, truth, decency, humanity etc.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Often a fan, but that bit of sweeping generalization did not do justice to the subject, nor to your wit. Bear in mind, that today’s US is far less homogenized than in earlier times. I do agree with your remarks as applied to our chattering classes and imperial administrators in Versailles-on-the-Potomac. No, let me amend: Versailles-on-the-Cloaca-Maxima. You might find that Flyover America is stubbornly attached to the values of civilization. Are they undereducated? Sadly … I pine for the days when I thought Idiocracy was dystopian future fiction.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

But it is really isn’t it? A passionate devotion to wealth beyond all other considerations such as morality, truth, decency, humanity etc.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!

Boris Kartoshkin
Boris Kartoshkin
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Yanis Varoufakis was asked if he thought Russia had tried to influence the US 2016 election and his response was “Yes of course it did, but then again so did I. So what?”

To have a balanced view you have to also ask how much influence did Russia have, was the 2016 US election the only election they tried to influence, do other people and nations also seek to influence elections, and most of all does the USA do this to other nations on a routine basis?

The answers, respectively are “almost none”, “no”, “yes” and “obviously yes”.

The only real significance of the 2016 US election is that Trump got elected and this pissed off a bunch of self-righteous liberal-fascist arseholes who think they own the American government. Had that not happened, none of them would be throwing accusations about like a baby throwing its toys out of the pram. It’s nothing more than a proxy for complaining about democracy itself without officially admitting that that’s what it really is.

NB – I am not a Trump supporter, just someone who nonetheless recognises that Trump does annoy all the right people. As a president, despite a small number of notable successes, he was a failure.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

And the US is not at the same thing all day every day?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I’m afraid you continue to be delusional and are eating far too much pie in the sky. Try a little commonsense and logic instead.. you’ll see things very differently!

Boris Kartoshkin
Boris Kartoshkin
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

There is nothing new here – cccp-russia has interfered for decades. What is new here is that dems used russia’s business as usual as an extraordinary attack on US democracy in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Dems didn’t stop there and continued to sabotage and slander the legitimately elected president for all 4 years, weakening the state, pushed the country to a bloody anarchist isurection, adopted the strategy “power at all costs” and rigged elections with the help of big tech, leftists maisnstream media and offended European governments, because Trump demanded to spend money ontheir own millitary and be careful with russia. But this time, Fiona Hill decided that everything was in order.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It has very little to do with that, which is why Sens. McConnell and Graham, not to mention people who, like me, never bought into Trump Derangement Syndrome are supportive of Ukraine. So maybe it’s not “nothing,” but it isn’t all that much, either.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Indeed, the people in the State Dept are but dupes of the Merchants of Death.

They’ve even hypnotized the vast majority of entrepreneurs who don’t make money off of arms.

Why worry about complicated historical explanations when the phrase “Merchants of Death” explains everything?

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

No doubt you would have also surrendered to Hitler to avoid war. More fool you to surrender to mass murderers and become one of their victims without even fighting back.
Today, Putin is the REAL “merchant of death”. The mass graves of thousands of innocent people in Ukraine were on his orders.
People who rely on simplistic slogans, and are too lazy to learn anything, also know nothing. They repeat the same mistakes that caused the death of millions not so long ago.

Rosie Brocklehurst
Rosie Brocklehurst
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Correct and accurate.. as can be guaged from the downticks.. on UnHere the more downticks the closer to the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I pride myself on my downclicks!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I pride myself on my downclicks!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Indeed, the people in the State Dept are but dupes of the Merchants of Death.

They’ve even hypnotized the vast majority of entrepreneurs who don’t make money off of arms.

Why worry about complicated historical explanations when the phrase “Merchants of Death” explains everything?

Rosie Brocklehurst
Rosie Brocklehurst
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

For individuals with shares yes. It is costly to the nation and far more costly to the world if they simply do nothing about China and Russian hegemony in their claimed modern day ‘spheres’ which grow larger every moment & only curbed by resistance. Listen to Fiona Hill’s message about ultimate diplomacy required.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Correct and accurate.. as can be guaged from the downticks.. on UnHere the more downticks the closer to the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.

Mo Brown
Mo Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

If only. Putin’s military is second rate on a good day. The Nazi military was something else entirely.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

The U.S. doesn’t need to fight Putin at all, and many of those who suggest it does, are invested in the growing power farther to the East and wish to distract. For a segment of the political-industrial clique, Ukraine represents their money laundry and bioweapons shenanigans, and their support of it is self-interested. Ironically, the “war” in Ukraine has improved Russia’s economic picture considerably! Personally, I doubt very much that Putin has a grand scheme of conquest. He is in his home stretch and would very much like a solid accomplishment to his legacy before he hangs up the Tsar’s crown, which, I am told, he uses as a tea cozy on most days.

Mo Brown
Mo Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Robin Lillian

If only. Putin’s military is second rate on a good day. The Nazi military was something else entirely.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Lindsay Graham has never known a war he doesn’t like, and McConnell can see the money flowing in from the military-industrial complex. The US is laughing all the way to the bank on this war.

Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

McConnell and Graham want Republicans to win, so why would they object when it happens? They support Ukraine, because it is in U.S. interest to let Ukraine fight Putin there, so we don’t have to fight Putin here. We’re getting a bargain deal from Ukraine. We only have to send them a few extra weapons (a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget), and they do all the fighting and dying. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he won’t stop there any more than Hitler stopped with Austria.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

‘Proved false’? Where? When? AFAIAC it is proved that Russia *did* run an influence operation, because they preferred Trump to Hilary. Otherwise, who leaked those Democrat emails? Did it swing the election? Most likely not. Did it make Trump’s victory invalid? Definitely not (alas). Did Trump collude or collaborate ahead of time? Well, there was no sufficient evidence that he did, and quite likely he was innocent of that – at least within the rather wide bounds of what people from both sides are usually able to get away with in US elections. But the claims of a Russian influence operation have not been proved false, any more than it has been proved who killed OJ Simpsons wife.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Even the New York Times admits the whole thing has no substance.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

What do they admit, exactly? Some accusations against Trump are thoroughly discredited, such as the cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow. Other claims I’d consider proved. Again, who did leak those Democrat emails? Sorry to be repetitive, but if you could give me a link I could check just what the NYT is and is not admitting.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Rasmus, Julian Assange said Wikileaks did not get the emails from Russia (CNN interview 4th Jan 2017) – text from Washington Post here. A single definitive source who would know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/
Now it would be great if the world could double-check with Mr Assange over the whole affair, but he’s been incommunicado in Belmarsh prison for nearly four years – unconvicted, yet living through an inhumane and tortuously slow extradition procedure – a journalist imprisoned for doing journalism. What could you read into that?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Well, Bill Clinton said he did not have s–x–l relations with Monica Lewinsky. Assange, like Bill Clinton then, has every reason to hide or distort the truth. Do you take him at his unsupported word? If he, or someone else ,can say who *did* leak those mails, and provide some convincing evidence, then we can talk about it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Your bias and complete inability to think logically really shines through. Frankly, it seems to that you are a CIA or MI5/MI6 bot. Now go prove me wrong! That’s the sum total of your logic. Further, I would venture to say, that since you live in the UK, your knowledge and direct experience of american politics is close to zero. In other words you have no idea what you’re talking about but you’re very good at repeating the “approved narrative” whether this be Russian interference in the 2016 election or Covid policy.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Following on your logic about “not living in USA etc”, why do you comment on Ukraine when you claim to live in USA?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Following on your logic about “not living in USA etc”, why do you comment on Ukraine when you claim to live in USA?

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Why does Assange have a reason to hide or distort the truth? He’s not a politician, or a spy or secret agent, or anonymous commentator. Wikileaks published document troves that they took great pains to validate and check that they were true. Assange built his reputation on his veracity.
This is in contrast to the mass of fake and false reporting on Russian collusion promulgated by people connected to the Clinton campaign.
So, turn it around, why would you choose to believe them over the persecuted journalist with a stellar track record?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

If he did get that material from Russia, either directly or indirectly, admitting it would put him in a very bad light, and might make him more likely of ending up in an American prison. If he got it in some other way he could reveal his sources to prove it, but then he is not going to do that. Bayesian reasoning: his denying that the material came from Russia is worthless, because he would say that whether it was true or not.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

..funny you get do many downticks from such a blindingly obvious observation isn’t it? Astonishing! None so blind as those who will not see, eh?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

..funny you get do many downticks from such a blindingly obvious observation isn’t it? Astonishing! None so blind as those who will not see, eh?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yep.. and pigs might have wings! If the US propaganda machine tells me pigs have wings I’m gonna believe ’em! Dah dah dah..

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Now you’re deep in conspiracy theory generation territory to keep your narrative alive (nothing but a might-have). We know lots of the Russia-did-it stories were fake and deliberately spread for political gain. We also know Assange has a history of veracity. So we have a witness statement from a credible witness with a history of truth telling versus a ‘might have’ from dubious sources. I could be wrong, but when I weigh both pieces of data, I know which way my priors shift.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yep.. and pigs might have wings! If the US propaganda machine tells me pigs have wings I’m gonna believe ’em! Dah dah dah..

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Let us get a bit more Bayesian, here. Assume he got those data from somewhere else. He would say he did not get them from Russia, because it would be true. Now assume that he *did* get those data, directly or indirectly from the FSB. Would he say so? I strongly doubt it. It would ruin his image as an independent and honest voice, reduce him to a tool of Russian interests in the public eye, and weaken the people, legally and politically, who are trying to keep him from being extracted to the US. If those data came form the FSB he would have nothing to gain and much to lose by admitting it. You seem to think Assange is very reliable and the data could not possibly have come from Russia. That may or may not be the case (though I obviously disagree), but whether you believe that or not, his denial has no value as evidence.

Mo Brown
Mo Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

False Bayesian reasoning. Denying Russia provided it, does not say anything about where it did come from – it just removes Russia from the list of possibilities. Assange was already locked in the Ecuadorian embassy, being pursued by the Americans (including a subsequent CIA assassination plot), saying it was Russia wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference.
At the time (2017) information from Russia was not an issue in any way legally, Steele supposedly (later proven untrue) got information from Russia, or the FBI’s connections to Deripaska. If you’re trademark is truth, why say something false?
I think you’ve heavily bought into the narrative, without enough background. Remember when you confused Hillary’s emails with the DNC or Podesta dump? Or took a joke as a demand? The actors pushing this stuff for political gain are not reliable sources.

Mo Brown
Mo Brown
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Oh, “admitting it” “would put him in a very bad light” (somehow), as opposed to where he is now, bathing in glory and not at all under threat from the US security establishment.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Yep, spot on! Odd isn’t it.. these mouthpieces lie over and over and over again but the suckers continue to believe in their lies, distortions and propaganda.. how stupid can these guys be?

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Robin Lillian
Robin Lillian
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Simple reason: M O N E Y

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Saul D

Stellar track record?
Yes, of avoiding justice by skipping bail and hiding in Ecuadorian embassy

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Justice. Now there’s an idea. Unfortunately you use the word to mean ‘legal process’ which is too often something completely different.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Justice. Now there’s an idea. Unfortunately you use the word to mean ‘legal process’ which is too often something completely different.