11. By early 2017 US officials had collected multiple examples of contacts between "Russians" and Trump "associates." What remains to be seen, as a result of the called-for investigations [there is apparently not enough evidence at present to draw any conclusions even though "conclusions" have been drawn all over the place], is if there is any proof "for potential illegal or unethical entanglement with Russian government or business representatives." [Well, the use of the word "potential" muddies the water as there is always the "potential" for people to collude in improper behavior; the investigations need a stronger resolution such as finding they actually colluded in such behavior. Mixing up governmental activities with private business dealings is also problematic. There is a big difference in working against your own government and engaging in corrupt business practices. Finally, "illegal'' practices and "unethical" practices should not be lumped together. So far, nothing has been proven!]
12. A question is posed by one of Obama's top advisors: Celeste Wallander. The question assumes that there will be some proof of Putin's election hacking. Putin recently stated there can be no proof since he ordered no hacking. The question: "Will Putin expose the failings of American democracy or will he inadvertently expose the strength of American democracy?" [It would have to be inadvertent since it's difficult to see the strength of a "democracy" in which the person with the lesser number of votes wins and the one with the most votes loses.]
13. It seems the Russians were "stunned" by Trump's victory. [Who wasn't?] The authors tell us the "working theory" of the agents involved in the Russian election-interference case is that it wasn't a well thought-out plan but it was improvised. [When all is said and done, I think we will find out it was the US government's charges of Russian hacking and election tampering that was improvised and not well thought out.]
14. Mr. Trump (and Mr. Putin) learns a lesson. Being a candidate and being a President are qualitatively different. Candidate Trump made comments making it seem as if he really wanted to reset the US relations with Russia and move from an offensive hostile approach towards lessening tensions and more respect and cooperation. In other words he would not act as if the US was the world's policeman and other countries could like it or lump it. But this would violate the 70-year-old "world order" set up by a bipartisan Republican/Democratic foreign-policy elite and constructed by the US based on its becoming the only world superpower and whose interests were paramount. The Russians, thinking this was his intention, initially praised his victory over HRC. But the US intelligence community and national-security apparatus went to work blowing up a Trump/Russian electoral conspiracy theory that makes it impossible for Trump to fundamentally change the direction of US foreign policy with regard to Russia. The Russians have realized this and "the Kremlin ordered television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the new President."
15. Next we get some totally unreliable hearsay via Konstantin von Eggert who hosts a television show in Russia. He says a friend told him that he saw an "edict" sent to state-owned media. The friend told him the edict amounted to "no more Trump." Von Eggert then explains what the "implicit" meaning of the edict (which he never saw) means; in fact he tells us what "the Kremlin has apparently decided." [It's fairly obvious that the authors are not too scrupulous with regard to the sources of credible "evidence" of what the "Kremlin" is thinking. So, let's forget von Eggert's speculations and simply report that Russian state media has toned down its uncritical coverage of Trump.]
16. The last paragraph ends the article, not with a bang but a whimper. The editor of the anti-Putin "Echo of Moscow", Alexey Vendiktov, with "deep contacts" in the elite, make some "suggestions" that the authors evidently think we should take seriously. Vendiktov suggests that Putin supported Trump because he upset the traditional [cold-war] elite in the US with his unconventional foreign-policy views. It's also unclear how important a world power Russia really is -- "So, well then we have to create turbulence inside America itself." [So it all boils down to Putin's inferiority complex.] The final suggestion is once America "is beset by turbulence" it will close "up on itself -- and Russia's hands are freed." Freed for what? Our whole problem with Russia is that the US wanted a free hand in Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine (it already has one in the Baltic states and East Europe) and our "free hand" resulted in negative discriminatory behavior against the Russian-speaking minorities in Georgia and Ukraine who fought back and elicited counter-meddling by Russia to our meddling and the same in Syria where Russia intervened to help an ally and to protect its naval base on the Syrian coast. The US wants a free hand to continue its encirclement of Russia with military bases (we are already moving into former Soviet republics in Central Asia) and the sponsorship of anti-Russian governments along Russia's borders. The "New Yorker" may support these foreign-policy objectives of the US and the New Cold War we are launching but they are naive in the extreme to think publishing disinformation articles such as this will dissuade the Russians from defending their legitimate state interests from the machinations of US super-power hegemony.
This is the end of part five and the last part of this article. From reading part five of The New Yorker Article you will not have learned anything at all about whether or not the Russian government or Putin had anything to do with the "hacking" of the DNC or if they interfered with our elections. In fact, there is nothing in the whole article regarding Putin and the alleged hacking of our election process except innuendo and unproven assertions. And this is The New Yorker! Once upon a time, not that long ago, it was a better and more reliable source of information. Seymour Hersh where are you?
(Article changed on May 5, 2017 at 01:44)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
