SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A President Trump thought bubble about the U.S. and Russia collaborating on cybersecurity matters has been dismissed by National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers:
National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers on Saturday rebuffed the prospect for a U.S.-Russia cyber unit, a proposal which has been greeted with incredulity by several senior U.S. lawmakers and which President Donald Trump himself appeared to back down from after initially indicating interest.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking Democrats' emails and distributing online propaganda to help Trump win the election over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
[...] Asked whether it was a good idea to set up a cyber security cell with the Russians, Rogers told the annual Aspen Security Forum: "I'm not a policy guy here. .... I would argue now is probably not the best time to be doing this."
But there's more:
In unusually passionate and stark terms, the head of the nation's top spy agency made clear on Saturday in Colorado that he will stand up to anyone -- even the president of the United States -- who asks him to use the U.S. intelligence community as a political prop. "We are not about particular viewpoints. We are not about particular parties. We just can't work that way," National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers said at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.
[...] Although Rogers has refused to publicly discuss his private conversations with Trump, he has previously vowed to keep politics out of his agency's work. But his remarks today at the annual gathering of senior officials, reporters and others tied to the U.S. intelligence community were noteworthy in their intensity and passion. Punctuating each word -- one by one -- the U.S. Navy admiral said, "I will not violate the oath that I have taken in the 36 years as a commission officer." Rogers' face hardened and his voice cracked as he added: "I won't do that."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:00PM (2 children)
Yes, I can see why you might think they'd bear some grudges after those matters.
"the continued occupation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea"
None of which are actually 'occupied' in the normal sense of the word. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are organized states that fought Georgia for their independence and russian troops are there as part of a CIS peacekeeper force agreed to years ago. Are all the nations with peacekeepers present under occupation or only these two, in your estimation?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:30PM (1 child)
All the nations with CIS "peacekeepers" are pretty much occupied, and Russian law prevails. And its been this way for a Long Time. [rferl.org]
No one is naive enough to believe it is unique to Russian forces. The British, French, and even the Americans tend to leave after a while. Sometimes Far too soon, as both Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated.
Other times you have to wonder, why the hell do we still have bases or at least a presence in Japan and Brazil.
With a maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, there's nothing equivalent to the level of Russian control in CIS "occupied countries" compared to those places where the US or France or Britain have significant troops in another country.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by n1 on Sunday July 23 2017, @10:13PM
RFERL is hardly an independent media outlet, it's official purpose is to spread US propaganda. The source for the article is from the US National Defense university, funded by the Department of Defense, also unlikely to be an independent analysis of Russian influence outside it's borders. Both of these sources view things explicitly from a US influence perspective, so any Russian influence or cooperation is going to be bad by default.
Worthy of note is RFERL's mission to bring news to countries where the free press is banned. Yet the only country in the middle east it attempts to do this is Iran. It has no concerns about repression and lack of free press in nations friendly to US interests, such as KSA or in more recent times, Turkey.
Russia may exert more direct control over CIS states, and any time it does happen we're going to hear about it thanks to our 'free press' ... NATO interests have a much wider array of options to put overt and covert pressure on the smaller states and their governments participating in the defense agreements. Those instances of lobbying and coercion are less likely to be reported and analyzed by the defense and security experts resident at the think-tanks and universities funded by the same interests putting pressure on NATO aligned states.
Finally, there is still over officially 8000 US troops in Afghanistan. There are still thousands of troops in Iraq in various forms.