This is only an issue because Trump is in office

In that any other president would have seen it in their daily briefing and been able to articulate why they did or did not act on the information. Trump can't do that, so things fly past him and he has no good reason for why he took one action over the other.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 9 2020 12:09pm

This is true. However, I don't like these things turning into a circus like Benghazi did.

Based on what?

Most things that happen in geopolitics have to make sense because intelligence agencies usually employ some pretty smart and calculated people who weigh actions pretty meticulously. It makes infinitely more sense that the Russians were securing favor with the Taliban for reasons such as the heroin trade, anti-IS partnerships, clout, etc.

Like the Taliban was killing and targeting American soldiers for many years before this, why do they all of the sudden they require Russian bounties to do the things they were doing anyways? What does Russia gain from a handful of American soldiers dying in the region? Do you think a few american soldiers deaths somehow benefit Russia more than it hurts them if this was found out? How so? If they were really doing this, why use official wire transfers that are easily traceable instead of getting some Russian spooks to go there wrapped in towels with full grown beards with a briefcase full of dollars?

The blow back is infinitely more damaging than the benefit to Russia.

This reminds me of when Assad was being accused by rebels of using chemical weapons, weeks after he started winning the war and it was crystal clear that the rebels were going to lose that region. In what universe does it make sense for him to use chemical weapons and draw ire from the US when we said we'll take action if he uses chemical weapons. Why would he risk sure victory that's unfolding and draw international military response?

I'm not sure where this unconfirmed intel came from but in my opinion this benefits the Afghani gov't the most. Their power is reinforced by our presence there, they have the most to lose if we abandon them. It also benefits the Intelligence hawk apparatus that is vehemently opposed to Russia and bringing troops home from anywhere honestly. The natural response when things like these are reported is we need to counter Russia, we need to be more hawkish towards Russia, we need to stay in Afghanistan because look! the Russians are moving in!

I always like to look at such things backwards. I think you're much more likely to land on the truth with looking at who are the ultimate beneficiaries of predictable outcomes under certain scenarios.

Based on documented financial transactions...

Sometimes the agency doesn't care that they are getting caught because they want to send a message. Sometimes an agency doesn't want to be caught but they are sloppy. I'm not going to try to understand something when I clearly don't have all the pieces b/c this is spy games level shit. To me, it's not surprising that Russia would do something like this because our relationship is adversarial. I'm not going to be livid about this either because I don't know if this is out of the ordinary. I elect a representative and senators to handle this shit for me. Once we have a clearer picture, then I can take this into account regarding my political beliefs.

We struck a peace deal with the Taliban where they would leave us alone and we'd leave them alone. Again, I don't know enough about internal Russian politics to determine their calculus. Maybe this is revenge for us arming Ukraine. Maybe they want the US to lose face because it will look like we're tucking our tail between our legs. Maybe they know Trump won't do anything because he's weak at home. There are a lot of "maybes." What makes you think there would be blowback against Russia? America looks the other way ALL the time. I do not think this will affect us leaving in any way.

Basically. A fair-minded, reasonable person could give the benefit of the doubt to any normal president had similar reporting come out. That doesn't apply here, because Trump has shown us for 3+ years that he's not a normal president. He's lazy and stupid... he's not interested in doing the actual job.

As Goom pointed out, Russians giving the Taliban money is explained by half a dozen way better reasons. You & plenty of other people that want it to be true are making a pretty significant leap that that money was for bounties.

Countering ISIS and controlling the heroin trade that Russia is a victim of are infinitely more plausible reasons to send money.

And the deal is meaningless. The deal was us conceding we're tired as fuck from fighting them because it's a fight that can't be won. Like a week later the Taliban bombed and killed a bunch of Afghanis, that's how much that deal was worth to them.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jul 9 2020 01:23pm

Why are they necessarily "way better?" Again, I don't think ANY of us are equipped to speculate on Russia's motives. This is why it's so important for this to be investigated by experts in the State department, Congressional staff, and the intelligence committee. According to the NY Times, captured Taliban soldiers stated that the Russians were paying them to kill American soldiers. I suppose you could say that they were lying to cover up something else but I'll let the various agencies decide that. At the end of the day, I'm not going to react strongly one way or another. The real scandal in all this, IMO, is that Trump doesn't read. But we already knew that.

It's way better based on impact. You can say you don't know what Russia's calculus is but that doesn't excuse the irrational behavior you're attributing to them.

Controlling the flow of hundreds of tons of heroin into Russia when they have a massive heroin problem or forming alliances with parties that can keep ISIS in check, a hostile force to Russia which has repeatedly targeted Russia with suicide bombings is infinitely more impactful than killing a handful of Americans. The first two accomplish really important things for Russia while the latter i'v yet to see someone logically explain. Maybe you can't explain the calculus because it's lacking common sense?

Glad you included 'according to NY Times' because literally no official has yet to put their name to corroborate this intel, in fact they've done the complete opposite.

I don't understand why it's irrational behavior. America is an adversary and if you have plausible deniability, what's wrong with aiding in the killing of US troops?

Your explanation is reasonable as well. But yea, no official is going to rubber stamp this as 100% true. This isn't Homeland.

we've been passing around the taliban with the occasional "i'm an independent woman who dont need no superpower" phase for what? 75 years?

we give them arms, they kill ruskies, then turn on us with guns they gave them. and around and around we go.