I have a hard time believing this is anything new.
"Another complicating factor is that taking action against an adversary often requires surreptitiously operating in the networks of an ally, like Germany — a problem that often gave the Obama administration pause."
In the light of the previous administration specifically targeting our ally Germany[0], including Merkel herself, what is that sentence even supposed to mean?
Well, giving pause literally means to think carefully or hesitate before doing something. It doesn't mean it's not ultimately done.
On another note, it's interesting going back in time to read your linked article. It's completely riddled with references to Snowden and Wikileaks. At the time, there'd been controversy around Snowden/Wikileaks as to whether they served the interests of a foreign state (generally levelled by U.S. intelligence and its supporters). It appeared to be debatable, with others making seemingly reasonable claims that Snowden was a patriot, interested in opening the eyes of the American people with regard to "domestic spying".
Knowing what we know now, it is mind-blowing how clear it is that this was all aimed at hurting the U.S. in the interest of a foreign state, going far beyond exposure of domestic intelligence operations to actively underming U.S. relations with its allies and beyond.
Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government by an active, hostile state years before it came to light in more definitively undeniable ways around the 2016 election.
More amazing still that so many people still claim not to see it.
Are you sure Snowden wasn’t a patriot? I mean, even at the time it was sort of odd that Wikileaks didn’t contain a single leak from places like Russia, but Snowden, seemed to have simple exposure in mind.
The result of Snowden hurt America in domestic spying, and by giving up secrets, but as a Dane the NSA can still watch me take a dump through my own smartphone, no questions asked. So it’s not like it changed a whole lot.
They’ve also refused to release documents linking Russian banking with Assad’s regime.
This is of course in addition to the literal tv deal Assange has signed with Putin, if anyone here is of the belief getting paid by someone could be a conflict of interest.
You could say nothing is to be trusted, in which case notning means anything. So, there's no point in even thinking about it.
Or, you can apply logic and decide what makes the most sense and, thus, whose story is most trustworthy. At the end of the day he stole documents and passed them to what is very reasonably claimed to be a cutout for Russian intelligence (logic would agree). You can look at the effect it had on the U.S. and who that advantaged. The claimed purpose was to blow the whistle on domestic spying (the presumed patriotism), however, the documents also contained information that damaged relations between the U.S. and one of its most important European and NATO allies (among other things). Again, who was keenly interested in embarrasing the U.S. and damaging such alliances?
To top it off, he gains asylum in Russia?
It's all just a bit too convenient. At the end of the day, you can appreciate what he did on the domestic spying front, but that doesn't absolve him. He provided aid and comfort to an adversary in ways that undermined his country. There's another word for that and it's the opposite of patriotism.
He first revealed documents to the South China Morning Post, in a failed attempt to gain asylum from the Communist Party. You're right that he didn't intend to become a Russian pawn — that was just a predictable result of his incompetence.
>Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government
What's amazing to me is that anyone ever trusted our government given its endless littany of deception since (at least) the Woodrow Wilson administration. Every US citizen faces far, far more of a threat to their freedom, their privacy, and their safety from domestic agents of the police state than any force outside of our border.
What's truly amazing is how otherwise intelligent people are so easily brainwashed by the DC/CIA media establishment into thinking that our many problems originate from some foreign boogeyman instead of right here at home.
I want my country to be better in living up to its ideals, but as an adult I also realize that it's difficult to achieve perfection in the real world. So, until such time as we do, it's a relative question and on that score the U.S. is far and away better than the lying, murderous, kleptocratic regimes of dictators like Putin.
Your comment encouraging utter mistrust and outright fear/hatred of our own government is, conveniently, exactly what state actors wishing to see our downfall work to promote. It is the perfect weapon to use against democratic nations as it attacks the very foundation of our freedoms. In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy. One would have to be brainwashed or complicit not to acknowledge this.
So, what is your solution? That because we have some internal imperfections, we should let adversarial nations who wish us harm attack us with impunity? We should abandon our ideals and join our adversaries in crippling our own government instead of strenghtening our democratic machinery to continue perfecting our free society and the government that supports it?
Rightist conspiracy theories notwithstanding, there is no "police state" or "deep state" here and our government is the guarantor of our freedoms. To the extent that it is broken, we should be working to address its problems, not working with adversaries to destroy it and, hence, destroy ourselves.
>Rightist conspiracy theories notwithstanding, there is no "police state" or "deep state" here and our government is the guarantor of our freedoms.
I suggest you learn something about history. Especially US history, since you are a US citizen and you clearly know very little, if anything, about the history of our own country.
>In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy.
Which is why we should end our support of dictatorships around the world, and our constant subversion of democracy around the world. We have absolutely no moral authority to point the finger at bad actors when we are, and have been, the worst global actor for decades.
>So, what is your solution?
My "solution" would be for us to stop our amoral, counterproductive pursuit of global hegemony, both military and economic. My solution would be for us to end our illegal invasions, dismantle our police-state, and start solving our own problems, that are many, instead of focusing on telling the rest of the world how to live at the point of a gun. We rank near the bottom of every developed country (and many "third world" countries) on virtually every global metric, from education, to healthcare, to life expectancy, to wealth disparity. People like yourself who think that any of our serious problems are caused by foreign actors are truly delusional and the reason that our country is in such bad shape. Its long past time we put our own house in order.
>you are a US citizen and you clearly know very little
Yet, you've said very little outside of hand-waving about how evil America is and co-signing to deep-state conspiracy theories that plainly make no sense to even the casual observer. But, you love your country, right?
If you really understood history, then you'd know that invoking it is not on the side of the arguments you're making.
You've then gone on to offer a near child-like version of the world wherein the U.S. operates in a magical vacuum and liberal democracy is some guaranteed default mode that simply exists, irrespective of what the rest of the world does. We simply withdraw from the global world stage and the world order just remains as-is, right? Or perhaps you have a problem with the current world order?
And, once the space begins to shrink for the ideal of liberal democracy, how does America fare? OTOH, I can think of some nations that will fare quite well. Can you? If, so, what affect has the amplification of their ideologies across the world vs those of the U.S.?
>People like yourself who think that any of our serious problems are caused by foreign actors are truly delusional and the reason that our country is in such bad shape
This is just mind-numbing and I don't really know where to start. Let's just keep it simple and say that both categories of things can represent really, really big problems that require our attention.
No one is claiming that America is perfect. We have miles to go and no right-thinking American agrees with everything we have ever done. But, those who love our country understand that it is the ideals that we must protect and perfect. Yet, here you are suggesting that we must instead decide between addressing, say, a.) wealth disparity in our country and b.) allowing our democracy to be undermined by hostile adversaries while reducing our global footprint to our own borders.
Please keep your MAGA-style faux uber-nationalism that rests on an infantile view of the way the world works and feigns patriotism, while it surreptitiously promotes the interests of other nations above our own.
You see, your comments reveal that either you have been brainwashed and understand well what you are promoting; or you have absolutely no idea what you're on about and you're utterly lacking in the historical context and logical capacity required to reason about it.
So, just know that any thinking person can see this quite clearly, "Stanislov".
>Yet, you've said very little outside of hand-waving about how evil America is and co-signing to deep-state conspiracy theories that plainly make no sense to even the casual observer. But, you love your country, right?
There is no conspiracy about the century+ of imperialism that we have been engaged in. Nobody with even a passing understanding of history disputes this. At least honest imperialists like David Frum and Max Boot don't embarass themselves with an utter ignorance of history - just an utter lack of morality.
>You've then gone on to offer a near child-like version of the world in which the U.S. operates in a magical vacuum wherein liberal democracy is some guaranteed default mode that simply exists irrespective of what the rest of the world does. We simply withdraw from the global world stage and the world order just remains as-is, right? Or perhaps you have a problem with the current world order?
Everyone informed and intelligent who cares about morality, international law, and the well-being of the people of the United States and the world has a massive problem with the current world order.
>And, once the space begins to shrink for the ideal of liberal democracy, how does America fare?
Nobody who knows anything about history would ever consider suggesting that the United States has supported, or supports now, the idea of "liberal democracy". From Egypt to Saudi Arabian to Uzbekistan to countless dictatorships in Africa, to right-wing juntas in Central and South America, we support, and have supported, the most vile dictators alive. From Saddam Hussein to Pinochet, from Guatemala to El Salvador to Honduras to Columbia, the list goes on. Then we can go on to our most recent destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen and our support of Islamic terrorists in Syria to support our "allies" and client states that prop up our global military empire.
Unfortunately your astounding ignorance of history and current events is the standard for people here, which is why the corporate agents of the DC/CIA media establishment have no problem installing all kinds of nonsense in your head. Anyone can see your worldview quite clearly - its the worldview imprinted on the minds of the ignorant by the propagandists who unfortunately run our society. Its easy to fill an empty vessel with platitudes about "liberal democracy" if people don't understand our actual history of overthrowing democratically elected governments around the world, both overtly and covertly, for a century.
In an effort to alleviate a tiny portion of your ignorance, I point you to the person who inspired me to take this handle.
>In an effort to alleviate a tiny portion of your ignorance, I point you to the person who inspired me to take this handle.
Yes, I know who Stanislav Petrov was. Hence, the quotes placed ever-so-carefully around his name. But, you managed to miss it anyway. And, if you still do not see the irony, then there's not a lot I can say here.
But, that you missed that subtlety (really not so subtle) and that you so proudly posted a link to a Wikipedia page to attack my supposed "ignorance" is telling: your deficiency is not in reading Wiki pages or Googling historical information, but in processing and understanding it beyond the ideas that were provided to you by someone else. It's little wonder that you fall prey to such a simplistic worldview and keep berating others about "history": You see value in history as a collection of facts and, absent the ability to think for yourself, you find it difficult to understand how anyone can reach a different set of conclusions than those given to you.
This is why you point out what you believe to be America's mistakes without realizing that what you omitted is even more telling. It's why you fail to see the internal inconsistency with your own arguments from one sentence to the next. It's how you can declare two things to be "bad" without realizing that they both cannot be so--or that perhaps one was less-bad and necessary in any case.
You don't understand or acknowledge how the geopolitical climate changes over time and policies might change accordingly. Thus, you fail to interpret history as a continuum, but rather a set of discrete occurrences wherein you consume others' qualitative judgments about each in isolation and believe that the "final answer" is the sum of those judgments.
It's also why you arrive at this worldview that fails to separate actors from underlying ideals. Thus, if one bad actor does something in the name of democracy, then it's "U.S. bad. Other countries good".
It's why you see things as black or white; perfect or imperfect; good or evil. Though, strangely, you seem to have a blind-spot where other nations are concerned, leaving the U.S. as singularly evil. Did Russia not invade Ukraine? Are they not "propping up a dictator" in Syria? Were these their first misadventures? Did the U.S. make them do it?
It's why your "solution" entails retreating from the world stage and then...well, what exactly? A perfect world suddenly emerges wherein all hostile state actors renounce their world-views and geopolitics, then equally retreat?
It's not about anyone propagandizing liberal democracy or even whether every actor in the U.S. has always lived up to that ideal. It's about whether or not you believe liberal democracy or just plain democracy to be a good thing. Once you've made that decision, then there are hard questions to answer and, unfortunately, those answers are sometimes imperfect.
All of this I say affording you the benefit of the doubt as a hapless victim of propaganda with honest intentions. If that is the case, however, what's most shocking is the utter lack of self-awareness that prompts you to go around beating people over the head for what is, essentially, the breath-taking paucity in your own understanding of the world.
Still, the worst-case scenario is actually that you understand it all and are simply choosing to join the army of propagandists against the U.S. It's no accident or secret that those propagandists will benefit at the expense of our nation, so it makes many wonder how we should think of those who give them aid and comfort.
I have a kneejerk reaction to dislike virtually anything associated with the current administration, coupled with an understanding that escalation of actions associated with war rarely leads to _less_ war.
Yet, knowing that actually defending against a sufficiently determined, skillful, and (crucially) patient network adversary is virtually impossible, I'm unconvinced that this move is a bad one. In fact, it strikes me as the only realistic form of defense short of using actual physical force.
Very important context is that this policy is fits an openly stated shift by the current administration (no matter what you think of them) away from the post-WWII international order, based on the rule of law (the 'rules-based order') and to pre-WWII interstate geopolitical competition. IIRC the quote from Kelly or McMaster, 'Geopolitics is back with a vengence' (they embraced that idea), and I think most people are familiar with the America First policy. Early in the Trump administration, two top officials (McMaster and Mattis?) wrote an op-ed in the WSJ where they said, 'there is no community of nations'; it's everyone for themselves.
The postwar order was built by the victors of WWII, including Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, because they believed that nationalism and geopolitical competition led to wars - remember they had seen WWI, WWII, and the centuries of wars before that, which they saw as the worst scourge of humanity (I'm not sure of Stalin's thinking there). They also thought that, due to the technology of 1945, the next major war could devastate civilization, even without nuclear weapons - look at the devastation in Europe, as an example, from WWII. And IIRC 1/3 of European men (or British men?) died in WWI. Imagine what could be done with today's technology. Would civilization survive? ~200 people million died in WWII; how many would die today?
One effect of acting in this way (i.e., as described in the article) outside the postwar rules-based order is that, especially as the U.S. was the foundation of that order, it actively destroys the order and makes it difficult to return to it in the next administration. It creates anarchy, which undermines the authority of law. The success of that order was overwhelming; the greatest period of peace, liberty, and prosperity in history by orders of magnitude. One thing I don't understand is, who would want to dismantle it? For what ends? The only answer I've seen is that it's the Culture Wars taken too far - they've forgotten what they are fighting for.
Are you asserting that Snowden was explicitly working as a Russian agent in order to weaken / embarrass the US intelligence agencies?
While I believe he probably caused more harm to the US than help, I really don't believe he is / was a Russian agent.
Seems like Russia simply ended up with him due to travel restrictions, and since they have absolutely no reason to turn him over to the US as that might discourage future and actual collaborators, they allowed him to remain. A
Well, the problem with cyber offensive is that while even a minor disruption in network infrastructure in western countries will have a huge impact on both economy and society and could cause significant losses. Whereas even if you completely destroy networks of Islamic state I doubt it will hurt them a lot. Cyber warfare escalation is not really a smart move when your economy really needs IT infrastructure and your opponent does not (or does but to a significantly lesser degree)
I have a hard time believing the U.S. "cyberwarriors" were ever truly interested in defense. It seemed as though the U.S. government was interested in weakening encryption standards and encouraging backdoors that spies, law enforcement, and criminals could all exploit.
edit: didn't the NSA intentionally withheld zerodays to exploit them itself, putting everyone at risk?
Having two objectives (eg, offense and defense) doesn't preclude sometimes making decisions that trade a setback in one of the objectives for an advance in the other.
35 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 89.0 ms ] thread"Another complicating factor is that taking action against an adversary often requires surreptitiously operating in the networks of an ally, like Germany — a problem that often gave the Obama administration pause."
In the light of the previous administration specifically targeting our ally Germany[0], including Merkel herself, what is that sentence even supposed to mean?
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying...
On another note, it's interesting going back in time to read your linked article. It's completely riddled with references to Snowden and Wikileaks. At the time, there'd been controversy around Snowden/Wikileaks as to whether they served the interests of a foreign state (generally levelled by U.S. intelligence and its supporters). It appeared to be debatable, with others making seemingly reasonable claims that Snowden was a patriot, interested in opening the eyes of the American people with regard to "domestic spying".
Knowing what we know now, it is mind-blowing how clear it is that this was all aimed at hurting the U.S. in the interest of a foreign state, going far beyond exposure of domestic intelligence operations to actively underming U.S. relations with its allies and beyond.
Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government by an active, hostile state years before it came to light in more definitively undeniable ways around the 2016 election.
More amazing still that so many people still claim not to see it.
The result of Snowden hurt America in domestic spying, and by giving up secrets, but as a Dane the NSA can still watch me take a dump through my own smartphone, no questions asked. So it’s not like it changed a whole lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai
Quick google: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
This is of course in addition to the literal tv deal Assange has signed with Putin, if anyone here is of the belief getting paid by someone could be a conflict of interest.
You could say nothing is to be trusted, in which case notning means anything. So, there's no point in even thinking about it.
Or, you can apply logic and decide what makes the most sense and, thus, whose story is most trustworthy. At the end of the day he stole documents and passed them to what is very reasonably claimed to be a cutout for Russian intelligence (logic would agree). You can look at the effect it had on the U.S. and who that advantaged. The claimed purpose was to blow the whistle on domestic spying (the presumed patriotism), however, the documents also contained information that damaged relations between the U.S. and one of its most important European and NATO allies (among other things). Again, who was keenly interested in embarrasing the U.S. and damaging such alliances?
To top it off, he gains asylum in Russia?
It's all just a bit too convenient. At the end of the day, you can appreciate what he did on the domestic spying front, but that doesn't absolve him. He provided aid and comfort to an adversary in ways that undermined his country. There's another word for that and it's the opposite of patriotism.
You’d be hard pressed to find a less Russian recipient than those beacons of western democracy.
Or is this part of the conspiracy too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Russia
What's amazing to me is that anyone ever trusted our government given its endless littany of deception since (at least) the Woodrow Wilson administration. Every US citizen faces far, far more of a threat to their freedom, their privacy, and their safety from domestic agents of the police state than any force outside of our border.
What's truly amazing is how otherwise intelligent people are so easily brainwashed by the DC/CIA media establishment into thinking that our many problems originate from some foreign boogeyman instead of right here at home.
Your comment encouraging utter mistrust and outright fear/hatred of our own government is, conveniently, exactly what state actors wishing to see our downfall work to promote. It is the perfect weapon to use against democratic nations as it attacks the very foundation of our freedoms. In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy. One would have to be brainwashed or complicit not to acknowledge this.
So, what is your solution? That because we have some internal imperfections, we should let adversarial nations who wish us harm attack us with impunity? We should abandon our ideals and join our adversaries in crippling our own government instead of strenghtening our democratic machinery to continue perfecting our free society and the government that supports it?
Rightist conspiracy theories notwithstanding, there is no "police state" or "deep state" here and our government is the guarantor of our freedoms. To the extent that it is broken, we should be working to address its problems, not working with adversaries to destroy it and, hence, destroy ourselves.
I suggest you learn something about history. Especially US history, since you are a US citizen and you clearly know very little, if anything, about the history of our own country.
>In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy.
Which is why we should end our support of dictatorships around the world, and our constant subversion of democracy around the world. We have absolutely no moral authority to point the finger at bad actors when we are, and have been, the worst global actor for decades.
>So, what is your solution?
My "solution" would be for us to stop our amoral, counterproductive pursuit of global hegemony, both military and economic. My solution would be for us to end our illegal invasions, dismantle our police-state, and start solving our own problems, that are many, instead of focusing on telling the rest of the world how to live at the point of a gun. We rank near the bottom of every developed country (and many "third world" countries) on virtually every global metric, from education, to healthcare, to life expectancy, to wealth disparity. People like yourself who think that any of our serious problems are caused by foreign actors are truly delusional and the reason that our country is in such bad shape. Its long past time we put our own house in order.
>you are a US citizen and you clearly know very little
Yet, you've said very little outside of hand-waving about how evil America is and co-signing to deep-state conspiracy theories that plainly make no sense to even the casual observer. But, you love your country, right?
If you really understood history, then you'd know that invoking it is not on the side of the arguments you're making.
You've then gone on to offer a near child-like version of the world wherein the U.S. operates in a magical vacuum and liberal democracy is some guaranteed default mode that simply exists, irrespective of what the rest of the world does. We simply withdraw from the global world stage and the world order just remains as-is, right? Or perhaps you have a problem with the current world order?
And, once the space begins to shrink for the ideal of liberal democracy, how does America fare? OTOH, I can think of some nations that will fare quite well. Can you? If, so, what affect has the amplification of their ideologies across the world vs those of the U.S.?
>People like yourself who think that any of our serious problems are caused by foreign actors are truly delusional and the reason that our country is in such bad shape
This is just mind-numbing and I don't really know where to start. Let's just keep it simple and say that both categories of things can represent really, really big problems that require our attention.
No one is claiming that America is perfect. We have miles to go and no right-thinking American agrees with everything we have ever done. But, those who love our country understand that it is the ideals that we must protect and perfect. Yet, here you are suggesting that we must instead decide between addressing, say, a.) wealth disparity in our country and b.) allowing our democracy to be undermined by hostile adversaries while reducing our global footprint to our own borders.
Please keep your MAGA-style faux uber-nationalism that rests on an infantile view of the way the world works and feigns patriotism, while it surreptitiously promotes the interests of other nations above our own.
You see, your comments reveal that either you have been brainwashed and understand well what you are promoting; or you have absolutely no idea what you're on about and you're utterly lacking in the historical context and logical capacity required to reason about it.
So, just know that any thinking person can see this quite clearly, "Stanislov".
There is no conspiracy about the century+ of imperialism that we have been engaged in. Nobody with even a passing understanding of history disputes this. At least honest imperialists like David Frum and Max Boot don't embarass themselves with an utter ignorance of history - just an utter lack of morality.
>You've then gone on to offer a near child-like version of the world in which the U.S. operates in a magical vacuum wherein liberal democracy is some guaranteed default mode that simply exists irrespective of what the rest of the world does. We simply withdraw from the global world stage and the world order just remains as-is, right? Or perhaps you have a problem with the current world order?
Everyone informed and intelligent who cares about morality, international law, and the well-being of the people of the United States and the world has a massive problem with the current world order.
>And, once the space begins to shrink for the ideal of liberal democracy, how does America fare?
Nobody who knows anything about history would ever consider suggesting that the United States has supported, or supports now, the idea of "liberal democracy". From Egypt to Saudi Arabian to Uzbekistan to countless dictatorships in Africa, to right-wing juntas in Central and South America, we support, and have supported, the most vile dictators alive. From Saddam Hussein to Pinochet, from Guatemala to El Salvador to Honduras to Columbia, the list goes on. Then we can go on to our most recent destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen and our support of Islamic terrorists in Syria to support our "allies" and client states that prop up our global military empire.
Unfortunately your astounding ignorance of history and current events is the standard for people here, which is why the corporate agents of the DC/CIA media establishment have no problem installing all kinds of nonsense in your head. Anyone can see your worldview quite clearly - its the worldview imprinted on the minds of the ignorant by the propagandists who unfortunately run our society. Its easy to fill an empty vessel with platitudes about "liberal democracy" if people don't understand our actual history of overthrowing democratically elected governments around the world, both overtly and covertly, for a century.
In an effort to alleviate a tiny portion of your ignorance, I point you to the person who inspired me to take this handle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
Yes, I know who Stanislav Petrov was. Hence, the quotes placed ever-so-carefully around his name. But, you managed to miss it anyway. And, if you still do not see the irony, then there's not a lot I can say here.
But, that you missed that subtlety (really not so subtle) and that you so proudly posted a link to a Wikipedia page to attack my supposed "ignorance" is telling: your deficiency is not in reading Wiki pages or Googling historical information, but in processing and understanding it beyond the ideas that were provided to you by someone else. It's little wonder that you fall prey to such a simplistic worldview and keep berating others about "history": You see value in history as a collection of facts and, absent the ability to think for yourself, you find it difficult to understand how anyone can reach a different set of conclusions than those given to you.
This is why you point out what you believe to be America's mistakes without realizing that what you omitted is even more telling. It's why you fail to see the internal inconsistency with your own arguments from one sentence to the next. It's how you can declare two things to be "bad" without realizing that they both cannot be so--or that perhaps one was less-bad and necessary in any case.
You don't understand or acknowledge how the geopolitical climate changes over time and policies might change accordingly. Thus, you fail to interpret history as a continuum, but rather a set of discrete occurrences wherein you consume others' qualitative judgments about each in isolation and believe that the "final answer" is the sum of those judgments.
It's also why you arrive at this worldview that fails to separate actors from underlying ideals. Thus, if one bad actor does something in the name of democracy, then it's "U.S. bad. Other countries good".
It's why you see things as black or white; perfect or imperfect; good or evil. Though, strangely, you seem to have a blind-spot where other nations are concerned, leaving the U.S. as singularly evil. Did Russia not invade Ukraine? Are they not "propping up a dictator" in Syria? Were these their first misadventures? Did the U.S. make them do it?
It's why your "solution" entails retreating from the world stage and then...well, what exactly? A perfect world suddenly emerges wherein all hostile state actors renounce their world-views and geopolitics, then equally retreat?
It's not about anyone propagandizing liberal democracy or even whether every actor in the U.S. has always lived up to that ideal. It's about whether or not you believe liberal democracy or just plain democracy to be a good thing. Once you've made that decision, then there are hard questions to answer and, unfortunately, those answers are sometimes imperfect.
All of this I say affording you the benefit of the doubt as a hapless victim of propaganda with honest intentions. If that is the case, however, what's most shocking is the utter lack of self-awareness that prompts you to go around beating people over the head for what is, essentially, the breath-taking paucity in your own understanding of the world.
Still, the worst-case scenario is actually that you understand it all and are simply choosing to join the army of propagandists against the U.S. It's no accident or secret that those propagandists will benefit at the expense of our nation, so it makes many wonder how we should think of those who give them aid and comfort.
Yet, knowing that actually defending against a sufficiently determined, skillful, and (crucially) patient network adversary is virtually impossible, I'm unconvinced that this move is a bad one. In fact, it strikes me as the only realistic form of defense short of using actual physical force.
The postwar order was built by the victors of WWII, including Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, because they believed that nationalism and geopolitical competition led to wars - remember they had seen WWI, WWII, and the centuries of wars before that, which they saw as the worst scourge of humanity (I'm not sure of Stalin's thinking there). They also thought that, due to the technology of 1945, the next major war could devastate civilization, even without nuclear weapons - look at the devastation in Europe, as an example, from WWII. And IIRC 1/3 of European men (or British men?) died in WWI. Imagine what could be done with today's technology. Would civilization survive? ~200 people million died in WWII; how many would die today?
One effect of acting in this way (i.e., as described in the article) outside the postwar rules-based order is that, especially as the U.S. was the foundation of that order, it actively destroys the order and makes it difficult to return to it in the next administration. It creates anarchy, which undermines the authority of law. The success of that order was overwhelming; the greatest period of peace, liberty, and prosperity in history by orders of magnitude. One thing I don't understand is, who would want to dismantle it? For what ends? The only answer I've seen is that it's the Culture Wars taken too far - they've forgotten what they are fighting for.
While I believe he probably caused more harm to the US than help, I really don't believe he is / was a Russian agent.
Seems like Russia simply ended up with him due to travel restrictions, and since they have absolutely no reason to turn him over to the US as that might discourage future and actual collaborators, they allowed him to remain. A
If he’s half as smart as a lot of people give him credit for being, it will take even longer to get to the answer.
edit: didn't the NSA intentionally withheld zerodays to exploit them itself, putting everyone at risk?