Wikileaks proves CIA has no evidence of Russian hacking

Wikileaks proves CIA has no credible evidence of Russian hacking

 

by Don Hank

 

Foreword: My friends occasionally warn me about appearing to be too friendly toward Russia, as if such were possible.

So why do I focus so much on Russia? Five reasons come to mind:

1-I have studied Russian language and literature for most of my adult life, on both the undergraduate and graduate levels. During my studies, I came to love and admire the Russians based on what I have learned about them. They are for the most part courageous, intelligent, sensitive, honest, persevering and long suffering, to mention but a few of their merits.

2-In recent years, I have watched the Western world deteriorate to a situation that by now seems beyond repair. There is hatred between left and right, between the races, between Mexicans and US citizens, between Muslims and Christians, and there is a press and political class that encourage this, and that foments hatred of the more mild-mannered Muslims while embracing the more intolerant and violent ones, as I showed here. The press and politicians constantly stir up wars that we inevitably lose or that destroy whole nations and regions, and the elites are at a loss to articulate why (although it ought to be obvious why they do this, as I explained here). There is no change in sight. In comparison to Russia, the latter seems like a paradise, even to the most objective observer.

3-To keep up with the language, I read almost all the speeches and interviews delivered by Putin in the original Russian. I also have read his biography in his native tongue. It is no exaggeration to say I feel as if I had known him all my life and I know how he will react in each situation. In diplomacy, he seems to be heeding the words of Christ.

4-The most formidable danger facing the world is nuclear war and the media and political class seem hell-bent on starting a war with Russia. From what I have read, partly in the Russian press, I am convinced that either of China or Russia could destroy the entire US in a matter of minutes with their hardware (which is why I posted this).

5-Of all the issues that the msm and politicians lie about and distort, all things touching Russia are by far the most distorted and misunderstood. I would be a bad person if I snoozed through this barrage of lies and false narratives, and, given all the research I have done and my educational background, I simply can’t do that.

After all, why would someone with years of research under his belt in precisely this life or death issue not want to counter the obvious lies about Russia? Should I care that some racist Westerners will think ill of me and call me a pinko or a commie – even though the West is adopting the model of the USSR while Russia has learned its lesson about tyranny the hard way and has backtracked to a conservative, sane and healthy way of life and public policies?

I had told you this before, based solely on an analysis of the inane accusations by the “intelligence” agencies, here and here.

The breaking news about the CIA is that Wikileaks has received a data trove proving they have been using Russian software and malware to create fake “evidence” that the Russians are hacking US officials.

Firstly, the sly press interpreted this, eg, here, as follows:

WikiLeaks’ Attack on U.S. Intelligence

“The release of the CIA’s hacking tools is a victory not for the American public but for Russia.”

In other words, in Slate’s view, making the public aware of the truth is not a victory for the people? So is it a victory for them to be uninformed? I guess so. Moreover, calling it exclusively a victory for Russia implies we have lost something. So clearing the path to a detente with Russia, a nuclear power, is a bad thing – no matter that it might be a step to avoiding a nuclear holocaust?

Wired goes even further, saying that even though the CIA had tools to fake Russian hacking, there is no indication that they used them.
Right. So if a man with a stocking over his head is carrying a bag of burglar tools and is standing outside a freshly-broken window of your home, don’t jump to conclusions and call the police or anything.

But ok, let’s suspend disbelief and say it does not prove the Russians did not hack US officials. But Wired and the rest of the CIA hit men journos omit to tell us what it does prove: That all the hard “evidence” of Russian hacking is now null and void, because the only “evidence” was Russian characters in docs supposedly left by the “hackers” but now we know that this is not proof it was the Russians and not the CIA itself, which previously had given non-credible evidence, such as the scope of the data dump and the “motive” – as if Bernie Sanders supporters had no motive whatsoever to leak this information to the public.  If the CIA has no evidence, how is this undocumented theory of a Russian hack a print-worthy story?

The CIA’s claim that they found Russian “fingerprints” all over the files that were left by the hackers, including characters from a Russian keyboard, was a stupid thing to say because the Russians are a lot smarter than to leave that kind of trail. And the Russians don’t lie to the press in ways that can easily be detected. (If you compare the Russian press with the Western press, you will see that the latter often prints things that are later disproven and presents viewpoints not supported by the facts, as evidenced by the Russian hacking narrative). If you follow the Russian press, eg, Sputnik, Russia Today, TASS, Ria Novosti, etc, you therefore do not see obvious exaggeration and lies. Ask yourself: Why would a country with almost no public debt need to lie about its economy, for example, to a country with a $20 trillion debt? Why would it need to lie about its foreign relations when it does not start color revolutions and create chaos throughout the world?  Why would it lie about its treatment of its citizens when no scandal has ever broken over spying on its own people, or when no riots occur in its cities or when its president has as high as 85% approval in the polls (which never happened in the US, ever!)? Etc. Observant students of Russia and Putin and their modus operandi know the Russians did not hack our officials. So when Putin said several months back that the Russian Federation does not interfere in elections of other countries, he was telling the truth. How did I know? Because, as I explained in my articles Putinology 101 and The Putin Principle, Russia has long stated as part of its public policy statement and publicity program that, unlike the West, they do not meddle in other countries’ internal affairs, for example, as the US did at the Maidan in Kiev, causing a  bloody illegal coup that led to an ongoing civil war and wrecked the country socially and economically. Meddling is exclusively Western MO. Russia must avoid all appearances of meddling, especially in US internal politics, because non-interference is what they have been trying to promote throughout the world, creating a stark contrast to the US and showing the public that their hands-off policy really works by establishing trust and respect in foreign relations. So far this policy has led to excellent relations with even the most difficult states, including NATO member Turkey, which, despite the Turkish shootdown of the Russian fighter over Syria, now has better relations with Russia than with any Western country (Holland just recently refused to let Erdogan’s plane land at a Dutch airport; Merkel refuses to let Erdogan campaign among Turkish residents of Germany). The iron-clad Russian non-interference principle is why Putin was very circumspect in his description of Trump, calling him yarki, which when applied to persons, only means roughly “colorful,” not “bright” as it was wrongly translated in the Western media (BTW, I am a technical translator by trade and Russian is one of my languages). Trump foolishly said Putin had called him a genius. Hardly! Trump’s over-the-top claims have contributed to this own downfall by creating the illusion that Putin supported his campaign, even though Putin repeatedly said he did not support either candidate and will work with either one that is elected.

Russia has in Vladimir Putin one of the most gifted diplomats and statesmen who ever lived.  The US is at best in the hands of bungling amateurs. And that is putting it diplomatically. After all, I would not want a Russophobic Neocon saying I am a Kremlin stooge.

 

Related:

http://laiglesforum.com/analysis-shows-us-intel-agencies-inventing/4034.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-latest-fake-story-from-us-intel/4038.htm

 

 

 

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

The elites are doing an about face

 

by Don Hank   August 25, 2015

 

George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, seems to be following the lead of other prominent Neocon elites. Recently, Kissinger and Soros both warned against taunting the Russian bear or escalating the Ukraine conflict. This was remarkable for them, because they had always generally supported, at least by their actions and words, the Wolfowitz doctrine of encircling Russia, and indeed, Soros even admitted that one of his foundations had aided in the Maidan coup, as I pointed out here.

Now comes George Friedman and joins them in backtracking, reluctantly admitting here that maybe attacking the Russian ally Iran was never such a brilliant idea. He says the problem with this idea is that the plan might fail and thereby strengthen the Iranian position while weakening Israel’s position. No kidding.

I wrote to George via his Stratfor site and asked why no one ever mentions Daniel Greenfield’s famous speech on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle, which that author skillfully demonstrates would effectively prevent a nuclear power (he doesn’t explicitly mention Iran) from attacking another. Israel is known to possess a nuclear arsenal.

I had mentioned Greenfield’s comments on MAD here in the context of the rush to war against Iran – which, nota bene, even the Israeli military leaders knew to be an unnecessarily risky idea.

So when you say “I stand with Israel,” are you saying you stand with these wise military leaders who oppose war with Iran or with the minority who want to take that needless risk?

See the problem with that slogan?

Below is my response to George:

 

Thank you for this report.

I find it intriguing that no commentator ever mentions, in the context of Israel vs Iran, Daniel Greenfield’s speech on the MAD principle, which prevents nuclear powers from attacking each other. The Israeli government is aware of Greenfield’s writings and certainly, many have read this speech and know this theory makes common sense. Since it is known that Israel and the US are nuclear powers and that neither would sit back and let Iran attack Israel, Iran, in the real world, would never nuke Israel. Further, any nuclear explosion in Israel would kill and harm millions of Palestinians and other Arab neighbors. The whole world would turn against Iran and that would end Iran’s ability to ever trade with any country again. It would, in a word, be suicide. In other words, the war hawks in Israel are directing an inordinate and unjustified amount of time and energy at preventing an impossibility.

It is obvious to me that the only reason Israeli war hawks keep beating the drums in Iran’s direction is that they want to stay on the good side of the Saudis, who they perceive as having the power to crush them via their protégés like ISIS.

Why not address this side of the story some time? It would not hurt your credibility and would almost certainly boost your readership.

END OF LETTER

 

When you see the elites distancing themselves from their past strongly held positions, it’s not because they had a change of heart or “saw the light.” It’s because an external force or forces have made it impossible to sustain those positions and they woke up to this reality.

Despite all the setbacks that Eurasia (mostly Russia and China) have suffered (such as the recent collapse of the Chinese stock market), this region has so far avoided, for the most part, the extravagance of Western Keynesianism – unbridled money printing, borrowing more than they can ever pay down or back to pay for reckless spending – and despite the “socialist” tag, neither of them spends, as a percentage of GDP, even a fraction of what Western “developed” countries spend on welfare or social programs. The Neocons haven’t a leg to stand on, and now the upper echelons aren’t in fact standing.

Further, Eurasia has managed to demonstrate the vast potential of its economic power and prestige, for example, via the new investment bank, the AIIB, to most of our “allies,” over 50 of which became founding members, as I pointed out here.

On top of that, Russia and China have been doing impressive joint military exercises lately, demonstrating not only that they possess the hardware to back down any opponent, but that they are a team. I am amused at analysts who discuss Russian military capability in great detail without ever mentioning that there is in fact no such thing as the “Russian” military. In today’s world, there is only a joint Russian-Chinese military that we must contend with – and get along with, like it or not. And while there are still US “allies,” most are only reluctant and leaning away from the constant wars made in USA.

I say all that to remind you of why the elites, like Soros, Kissinger and Friedman, are changing their tune. They simply have no choice. Reality is facing them like a brick wall, foiling their schemes of world dominance. I say this cautiously, but it would seem that Neoconservatism is dead for all practical purposes.

The elites, who had everything to lose, were the first to notice the tectonic plate shift in geopolitics.

The rest of America needs to pay attention.