Any US response will likely be after the elections, and then only after extensive discussions with the right folks in NSA, CIA, State, etc. etc…
The US should privately call for complete suspension of any and all attempts by all states and private entities to ‘hack’ our data or look for weaknesses in our systems. Then, if reassurances are not forthcoming, demonstrate our ability to cripple some part of the offending state or entity’s business – I suggest shutting down the sewer system in Moscow
Okay. Let’s go with your “this is war”. In that case this is Russia attacking the US mainland and destroying a base. Somehow no deaths.
Let’s go with your presumption that they have more pain tolerance too. Is the best response to ask what they want and basically give it to them?
In reality I do not see this as war. It is testing. Preventing war is not served by letting the testing progress until it finally crosses our pain tolerance line. It is served by proportional responses that demonstrate the pain they are risking while offering more mutually beneficial options at the same time.
No, that’s not it at all. This is Russia using a tool that it has to weaken the American political regime, which is what we are in essence doing to Vladimir Putin. We probably have an inherent bias in assuming that our regime operates with more legitimacy and thus their attacks on our political system is more egregious. As someone who values democracy, I’m inherently biased to believe this myself. We can see it that way if we want, but that’s probably not the objective way to look at it. We our tools to pressure their regime, and they’re using tools to apply pressure to ours. We have different tools. It’s a form of war, but it’s on a lower level.
Not necessarily, not in all instances. But we need to understand what this is really all about, and my concern is that we have people in the pentagon and department of state who are more likely to project their own biases and enter discussions with the assumption of having moral high ground and an even worse assumption of having the power to impose our will on a country that could, at minimum, make the U.S. pay a very high price of picking the wrong fight. This is actually West Point and US Army War College type stuff we’re talking about here. I am genuinely worried about the lack of competence among people representing us at the highest levels of the government. They’ve already shown an ability to cavalierly drag us unwisely into numerous conflicts that have turned out to be pretty harmful to America’s long-term interests, based on precisely the kinds of things I am talking about: baseless assumptions about our global adversaries and inaccurate appraisals of our power relative to others.
We really did not see the embargo of 1940 as war. But guess what? Japan did.
We did not see the terms of World War I as war. Germany did.
We can see sanctions against Russia as ‘sanctions’. But threatening the political stability of another country can absolutely be seen as an act of war. Is it an attack on a skyscraper that results in the deaths of 3000 people? Maybe not, but it’s an attempt to assert dominance over another country, which actually plays right into the fears that Old Soviet cold warriors like Putin have had ever since the end of the Cold War.
Maybe rather than playing into the fears of Putin and ordinary Russians on the street, it might be better to propose negotiations (either privately or publicly) that begin with mutual agreement to scale back the attempts to manipulate the other’s regime. This would mean reducing sanctions minimally but immediately in exchange for evidence that they stop hacking with nefarious intentions. That would give us time to get into deeper issues.
The real problem I see is that our media has so invested itself into the idea that we’re right and Russia’s wrong, and that we’ve got such a bitterly partisan political system, that there will be knee jerk dismissal of such measured progressive steps to ease tensions.
Just to be absolutely clear, I’m absolutely no apologist for Russia or its behavior and I think what Putin’s kleptocracy is doing is actually quite dangerous. The irony is, Putin may not have yet realized it, but the attempts to coordinate with Wikileaks and side with Trump are extremely hazardous to its interests for this very reason. By strengthening the fringe elements in American society, he’s not, as he probably thinks, strengthening has hand; he’s actually making the situation more explosive and difficult to walk back because if Putin is even perceived as attacking us to the point of national outrage, he has stoked the desire for an extreme response much more than there would have been otherwise.
To prevent a mistake on either side, extremely skillful negotiators are necessary. Sure, make it clear what our capabilities are and that we do have the desire to defend vital American interests, but we need to drop the fake bravado and start thinking beyond the post-WWII Pax Americana era.
I continue to have no idea why you think negotiating with Russia on strategic issues of security, and the willingness to put on the table things like Russia having more say over the security of Poland, the Baltics, and other NATO members, is an even halfway reasonable thing at this point.
There was a concerted reset effort just a few years ago, and relations have gotten much, much worse since then. There is no basis for horse-trading that serves US or Western European interests at this point. Blaming things on “West Point graduates” or whatever is not a remotely realistic appraisal of how Russia is now conducting its foriegn policy.
And sanctions are an act of war? Good grief. They are the opposite of an act of war.
You mentioned NATO, which was created with the express purpose of defending European countries against the great red menace. What happens to NATO was something that was discussed at great length by Gorbachev and Reagan toward the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union dissolved, but NATO remained.
And after it remained, it was NATO and the American geopolitical military and economic hegemony that dictated much of what happened throughout the world, unchallenged by anyone. The US intervened in the former Yugoslavia. The US invaded Iraq and deposed its leader without international mandate. The US planned putting weapons systems in Eastern Europe. There is also the fact that a unified Germany allied itself with the West. Russia has historical reasons to be concerned about a unified, powerful Germany. The United States, in fact, has an extensive military presence there.
The concern since the end of the war has always been a fear of America and Western powers projecting their power over and to the detriment of Russian interests. Putting missiles in Eastern Europe and invading large swaths of economically and politically sensitive territory with the assumption that Russia (or nobody for that matter) can stop them, raises the alarms. It also invited Russian counter-aggression. And American sanctions confirm their worst fears and suspicions, which is that America is not just a harmless neighbor to the West, but an enemy that cannot be trusted and will use its leverage to weaken Russia.
Again, history suggests that’s not necessarily how everyone sees it.
So sanctions are appropriately viewed as an act of war, NATO’s continued existence is an act of aggression, developing partnerships with independent countries is “invading large swaths of economically and politically sensitive territory”, and the countries of Europe and the United States responding to a military invasion of independent country in response to its planned agreement on free trade with the EU with targeted sanctions rather than force confirm Russia’s worst fears and suspicions.
Okaaay.
Anyway, your position that the proper response to Russia using cyber-espionage to attempt, albeit somewhat clumsily and ineffectually, to impact our electoral process towards the candidate they see as more easy to manipulate and who would give them a free hand, is to ask them what they want and to see how much of it we can give them, because they have wicked weapons yo, is noted.
Some of us disagree.
Meanwhile I do love me some Biden.
Yeah, and the bizarre interpretation of history is just so off that it isn’t worth going into.
If Russia or China is doing the hacking and the election doesn’t turn out to their satisfaction … then what?
Nothing, right? But if the election is turned to the right (aren’t they suppose to be on the left)?
Then what? Headline after headline that it was the hackers fault, right?
Does this mean you can hack, but not hide?
There’s no point in discussing this with you, as you’ve clearly stuffed yourself on a steady diet of American propaganda.
p.s. I asked somewhere up-thread:
What was the Cuban missile crisis?
How did it end?
Nobody answered the questions, which tells me all I need to know. Most Americans know fuck all about real history. They play with GI Joe action figures but don’t have a goddamned clue about anything that doesn’t happen on a reality TV show.
It’s not bizarro except to someone who really has no idea of history beyond what they watch on the “History” Channel. I’m guessing that Americans are too busy watching Pawn Stars to have a true understanding of Russian history.
It’s worth mentioning that Kiev, which happens to be the capital of “Ukraine,” is regarded as the birthplace of “Russia.”
Asahi is right about sanctions, mostly. While not technically an act of war, sanctions can be regarded as an act of war by the target. Not that we still shouldn’t use them as a policy tool, but ANY retaliatory action can result in escalation. Nothing is risk-free.
And that’s especially true if a country believes that it has conceded its empire only to find that its imperial adversary has used its power to increase its influence in a region with significant historical, economic, political, and military value. I can say with certainty that people who are commenting on this thread really have no idea what they’re talking about, but rather are just parroting what they hear on CNN.
Clearly there is no point in discussing further with asahi.
adaher, of course you are correct that “ANY retaliatory action can result in escalation” as can any provocation as of course a lack of response can, and often does, result in escalating provocative actions. If there is any applicable lesson that one hopes was learned from the Cuban missile crisis it is that having measured and graded responses, all sides avoiding disproportionate provocation, coupled with the tools of diplomacy and creating both predictability and interdependence, is vital.
That’s true as well. Appeasement carries risk, non-action carries risk. But aggressive actions like sanctions do carry more risk, since aggressiveness by its nature involves more risk(but greater reward).
Where I think asahi goes wrong is in judging Russia’ motives. Russia’s historical concerns involve continental invasion threats(Mongols, Turks, Germans). Russia has only come into conflict with the US when their global ambitions are checked by us. I think Putin is motivated by national ambition, not by traditional Russian fears. If Russia was truly motivated by fear they’d be looking East, towards China. They are looking West because the first step in restoring Russian power is re-establishing their old sphere of influence. We’ve drawn a line at the Baltic Republics, Turkey, and Poland.
The thing I find confusing here is that asahi’s point as to Putin is basically: He and his deplorables have been mistreated by ham-handed American aggression and encirclement. So we have to stop that and appease him.
As I understand it, asahi’s points in the various Trump threads as to Trump amount to: Trump and his deplorables are deplorable and must be stopped by any means fair or foul. We deny the validity of any of their grievances.
Those are not logically consistent perspectives.
The only way I see to square that circle is to say that Trump is still small enough to squash, but Putin is so big that the only move we have left is to mostly surrender.
As with DSeid, I disagree that Putin or Russia is *that *formidable.
International Relations is like college wrestling. You’re in contact with the opposition and pulling and pushing and tugging & counterbalancing every second of every match. It’s not like NFL Football where the teams square off then play for 10 seconds then spend 2 minutes standing around and regrouping.
We’ve been grappling with the Russians since the turn of the 20th century. Sometimes more up close and personal, sometimes less. It will end when we’ve converted the relationship to something more like our relationship with Germany. One based on a mostly-shared idea of how states operate internally and co-exist externally.
Because the average, everyday Chinese or Russian applying for a tourism, student, or work visa has some link to the hacking? Sounds more like it would alienate the average person more, and give their governments a way to garner support from their peoples.
That always seems to be the answer, though, to offenses committed by one government against another; let’s make things miserable for the citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with it.:mad:
That’s the nature of group conflict. Having each sides’ foot soldiers slaughtering each other while their Kings stand around and watch or hide in a basement is the time-honored way of warfare.
One clear alternative approach is decapitation: simply assassinate the other sides’ leader. Much quicker and less total blood is shed. If we ever get all the proles in all the countries on board with this new tradition the militaries of the world will be much smaller.
I think we agree that this change would harm the open societies such as ours much more than it would harm the prison-societies such as NK, Saddam’s Iraq, etc.
The other alternative are actions that specifically impact leadership and the immediate circle. This was a major part of the approach in the Ukrainian crisis approach:
Covert cyber operations that* relatively* just annoy but demonstrate that major damage to that sort of list is in fact possible at any time are the order of the day. Ideally they should be ones that the targets can not publically admit even occurred but which cause just enough pain that they feel it.
I have a graduate degree in 20th century diplomatic history, and it isn’t from Trump University, so I don’t think your assumptions are valid.