Sounds like a legitimate grievance if they're going out and recruiting people to steal secrets. In fact if they can prove a money link, they just look like a branch of the FSB.
for anyone who disagrees with US policy and considers it hostile, abusive, hypocritical (and hence a threat to their own values) ... their view could be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so it doesn't matter where the money comes from as long as they work on the same goal (e.g. stopping the war mongering hypocrisy that is US foreign policy). The current (dire) state of Russia after all is a failure in US foreign policy (the biggest tragedy and a massive lost opportunity in how the US handled the crumbling USSR).
In Europe we have a refugee-crisis and constant debates about what to do with them. In that debate we forget that it was the US that invaded Iraq, Lybia - they are responsible for it. Sure the Wagner group is there now as well profiting the same way as US contractors. But Africom, Blackwater and every yank in a uniform are a much larger threat to peace than Russia & China combined. (regardless what nutter occupies the whitehouse)
Europe is far from blameless in any of this. Frontex and their deal with Turkey and everything surrounding the management of the crisis is absolutely infuriating. "We" are as bad as the US for not making a stand and even enabling them.
When is Europe going to finally recognize it has agency? Blaming the US for waves vaguely things while being mostly stagnant for decades isn't a good look, especially when you've been either an active participant or wholly complicit in those things.
I hope EU stays a trade-bloc and everyone else considers de-escalating. I also don't trust the EU with too much power. the solution (imho) has to be peaceful - not forcing parties to spend more on defense and grandstanding.
UK has always been a voice of reason throughout the years which gave a good balance to the Franco-German domination. The spanners seem to have many times been a blessing in disguise. (I'm pro European).
Libya has an elected government that is recognized by UN. The coup attempt by Hafter is supported by France, Russia, UAE, and Egypt. Rule of (international) law is broken by these countries blatantly.
> On September 27, 2018, Yale's Program in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and the Poynter Fellowship for Journalism hosted Vladimir Pozner, the acclaimed Russian-American journalist and broadcaster. Pozner spoke on the impact of US foreign policy towards Russia after the Soviet Union has been disbanded, and shared his opinions on a range of issues raised by the audience, from the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, to Skripal poisoning, to the state of independent media in Russia and the US.
personal attacks aside ... My claim is based on what nuclear defense experts have been warning for many years: US nuclear strategy is entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike:
anyone who thinks current (even combined) Chinese / Russian military capability would stand a chance against US power in a kinetic war is deluding themselves. (List of United States military bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military...)
How on earth do minor effective yield updates from burst timing tweaks indicate that US nuclear strategy is "entirely based on a pre-emptive surprise strike"?
Anything involving nukes could be framed as "undermining strategic stability." Even disarming them.
Also: the doomsday clock group has a credibility problem from their metaphor holding them accountable for prior alarmism.
The target will not see it as a "friendly attack with only a low-yield device" (and the US can't count on a measured response). If my country gets nuked what would justify my _trust_ that the next attack won't be a big one?
> "Hey all you nuclear powers out there. We’re just going to trust that you recognize this is “just a little nuclear weapon” and won’t retaliate with all you’ve got. Remember! The US only intends to nuke you “a little bit.”" -- https://twitter.com/mhanham/status/1089648491616448514
It doesn't matter the yield when the target is also a nuclear power - it was still the first strike and the correct response would be escalating (in case your adversary is many times stronger your only move would be to inflict max damage on your enemy in as little time as possible - you might not have much, or risk losing it all - that means very high chance of nuclear escalation).
edit:
for those interested, some further reading on why this is a problem:
see also parent comment where there are 2 more links under "edit: ..." that support the argument that new fuze capability means higher risk of US using it preemptively. I agree with you that preemptive strikes aren't the only options, but all the research I've seen since the Bush era point to that scenario being _very_ likely (and thanks to fuze capability even more likely than unlikely. why wouldn't they use it especially during a preemptive strike. this way they get to say "look it was only a small nuke!")
from the article:
> Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.
...
> This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.
...
> Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability—a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack—even when an attack has not occurred.
The increased capability of the US submarine force will likely be seen as even more threatening because Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack.
Whistleblowing is not stealing (literally, in the legal sense, you’d have to prove it’s not whistleblowing in order for it to be possible to be stealing).
Jumping straight to a phrase like “stealing secrets” completely skips past due process to determine if it’s whistleblowing and presumes guilt instead of innocence.
Nonsense. The law is extremely complex on these points and you’re trying to play semantic games with the terms “theft” and “stealing” to pretend like it’s black and white.
Taking evidence due to a statutory duty to your government (reporting crimes) is not theft. You can’t just magically invoke the term “theft” and invoke tautologies like “stealing is stealing” - that’s not how any of this works.
It literally does depend on whether the taken documents reveal a crime, along with other factors about how your job or normal access would bring you in contact with the materials and also if the materials taken are over broad (i.e. you wanted documents to show a pattern of sexual harassment but also took a bunch of unrelated private client data).
Given that in the case of Manning & Wikileaks, the crimes being reported (which were proven beyond all doubt) included criminal murder perpetrated systematically by US military and federal agents, as well as grand scale deception and rigging of the Democratic Primary in 2016, and shitloads of illegal torture and illegal imprisonment across Europe, the Middle East and Guantanamo, it’s also beyond dispute that the moral duty (and statutory duty for Americans involved like Manning) to release the materials was undeniable and the crimes were so sweeping and severe that no part of the taking or publishing of the documents can be considered over broad.
Taking evidence of a crime that you have legal access to is not a crime. Breaking into someone's house and taking evidence of financial fraud is still stealing. It's not complicated. Recruiting people to steal, i.e. hack into information stores they do not presently have access to, is being an accessory.
Nonsense. For example, making copies and exfiltrating classified documents from the government office where you work is an example of illegal theft (and other crimes).
Except not if the taken documents reveal criminal behavior that you have a higher statutory duty to report.
You are just creating a lazy false dichotomy between situations that are black and white, but you’re just talking into the wind and your point is still straight up wrong from a legal standpoint.
Whistleblowing is not stealing - literally, in the legal sense. Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.
>For example, making copies and exfiltrating classified documents from the government office
It depends on what you do with them. If your copy is in service to whistleblowing to the proper authorities, then it is not illegal. If you are dumping them on wikileaks, its still illegal even if the act is revealing illegal acts.
>Actions which might be illegal if they don’t result in the revelation of a greater crime can become literally legal actions if they are performed due to a higher statutory obligation to blow the whistle.
Yes, for people who have legitimate access to the information to begin with. Show me a single case where someone performed an illegal act to access information that happened to reveal criminal acts, and show me how whistleblower protection laws absolved the initial illegal access. This is different than the crime revealed being comparatively so egregious that no one had any interest in prosecuting the individual for the initial illegal act.
