Russia offered bounty to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers and Trump knew

[Thekri]

This OP ED comes from an author who poses some interesting ideas.

1) Russians supporting the Taliban against the US could just be payback for what we did in the same country a generation ago.

2) The Russians have been supporting the Taliban for ages. The bounties aren't so much "new" as "different"

3) Even if the Taliban refused the offer, there are other agents in Afghanistan who would happily take Russian money to kill Americans.

4) And finally, the author suggests maybe Russia isn't doing this so much as creating misinformation that they're doing this, specifically to cause disarray in the US -- which would, therefore, be a sign they've squeezed out enough usefulness from Trump and are ready to flush.

Well the author has a somewhat saner idea then most people are feargasming about, apparently he is someone that has actually been there and knows what is going on, but those 4 points are not perfectly accurate.

1) Aside from a sense of poetic justice, the actions of the 1980 war does not form a basis for modern Russian actions. Far too much at stake for this to be about revenge.
2) This is the relevant point many people seem to miss. Russia has been directly helping the Taliban for a very long time. The quantity of support did not change, what is happening here is that they are making aide contingent on violating the peace agreement. It is in Russia's best interest to keep the conflict going.
3) As I have mentioned before the "Taliban" is not any sort of actual organization in the way we think of it. The last leader of the whole Taliban was Mullah Omar, who apparently died in 2013, but remained the "Leader" for another 5 years, even after it was fairly obvious to everyone he was dead. One element of the Taliban turning down the offer has not influence on another cell accepting it. Russia is not negotiating with the "leadership" in Pakistan here, they are negotiating with local leaders on the ground.

A (Very) oversimplified breakdown of what the Taliban is now:
a) Pakistan based leadership cells, or "Shuras". The two most influential are the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar Shura, named for the cities they meet in. These are not really operational leadership cells like a military HQ, they are counsels of Islamic Scholars and Clergy that issue Fatwahs and religious guidance. They are constantly requesting resources and issuing general directions, but nobody actually reports to them directly. These are what the US negotiated with.
b) Foreign militarist fighters. These are loosely speaking Jihadist gangs. They come from all over the Muslim world to fight in Afghanistan. The most numerous are groups of Arabs and Chechnyans, but many other groups exist as well. They are usually better equipped, and occasionally better organized. They typically follow a charismatic leader of that group, who may or may not care what the Taliban Shuras say.
c) Local community leaders. These are the village elders and warlords that care for their family and communities interest. They tend to change allegiances as often as necessary to survive. The are the people in Afghanistan that the Shuras are generally talking too, and they are by far the most common and active of the "Taliban". Most of them are willing to coexist with anyone that has sufficient military power. If the Coalition military has a large enough presence in the area to be the dominate force, these guys will happily be loyal to the afghan government. If IS shows up, they become IS, etc. They are surivors and opportunists mostly focused on caring for their people.
d) "Ronin". These are disposed young Afghan men, mostly from refugee families. They tend to move around, living on the charity of Local Taliban leaders and following the religious guidance of the Shura. They are expendable, and the easiest force to move around and mobilize.
e) The Drug Lords. Dominated by the loose Criminal Syndicate of the Haqqani network, which is as the name suggests, a network more than a solid organization. These are profiteers, business tycoons, and drug peddlers. Extremely wealthy, well connected, and pragmatic. Basically no religious motives here, pure money and power.

[Ashnazg]

But these numbers are made up there's no validity to them just look up how these "elections" are conducted. The opponents running in these elections even say if by some chance I win I will cede power to the dear leader.

How exactly would you know anyway.

Russian opposition isn't exactly a "veritable" source of information.

Are there issues with the election process? Yes - no kidding, democracy is like only 30 years old there, and infrastructure is often not what it needs to be to support that process, especially in the regions. However, there's not really any data to back up claims that these issues are responsible for wide scale deviations from the true proportion of votes in the population.

The fact of the matter is, Putin is and has been popular in the Russosphere for the last 2 decades and there are no runner-up candidates that are anywhere close to his level of popular support. Even if the elections are off by a few percent due to errors, issues and localized fraud, it doesn't make enough of an impact to amount to anything meaningful.

The core issue is that there's no other candidates that can muster popular support, and most Putin opposition supports the other candidates because "they are not Putin" not because they have anything worthwhile to say on their own, and that tends to not work so well.

[Draco-Onis]

How exactly would you know anyway.
Russian opposition isn't exactly a "veritable" source of information

The opposition are literally puppet candidates anyone who would have a chance against Putin magically doesn't make it to the ballot. When some are interviewed they all say the same thing, there's no "opposition" to Putin in these elections.

[Slant]

That's not really true. Putin's record has more to do with the lack of a better opponent than with his actual popularity, to put it in perspective:

1991: Yeltsin wins with 58% of the Vote.
1996: Yeltsin wins with 54% of the vote.
2000: Putin wins with 53% of the vote, he can't even outdo a drunk.
2004: Putin wins with 71% of the vote, this was due to the collapse of the main rival party not a boost for Putin.
2008: Medvedev wins with 71% of the vote, against much more credible opponents than Putin has ever faced, arguably the best result of any Russian leader.
2012: Putin wins with 63% of the vote, yet another mediocre performance.
2018: Putin wins with 76% of the vote, this is a record however it is mostly due to the high anti-Russia rhetoric from the west at the time.

Putin is not as popular as many assume and his staying in power is not guaranteed, this should be obvious from the fact that most of the Russian posters on this forum don't seem to like him, he's very unpopular with their younger generations and that's something that's only going to get worse with time..

I think what he's saying is, that's not a coincidence. Modern dictatorship think they are subtle if they fake democratic elections. Oh, the rules are all democratic. Can't blame the godking if there happens to be no other good candidate (Russia) or if somehow the opposition fractures into a dozen different parties (Hungary) or if the shady rules can't be supervised by the judiciary (Poland soon). Heck, you can even fake a coup and as far as I know Turkey hasn't lifted emergency laws until 2 years later. Something I pointed out on the eve of the coup... it's ironic how mindboggingly obvious this shit is if you just carry a little scepticism around with you.

[Breccia]

Politico reports that Team Trump is narrowing down the list of suspects.

"Ah, they're about to catch the Russians hiring the Taliban terrorist hit men?"

No no, the suspects who could have leaked that Trump knew but didn't do anything about it.

[Machismo]

Politico reports that Team Trump is narrowing down the list of suspects.

"Ah, they're about to catch the Russians hiring the Taliban terrorist hit men?"

No no, the suspects who could have leaked that Trump knew but didn't do anything about it.

This is a classic sign of an incompetent and corrupt administration. It's not about fixing the problems, it's about hiding the problems, ignoring the problems, and punishing people who mention the problems.

[Shalcker]

This is a classic sign of an incompetent and corrupt administration. It's not about fixing the problems, it's about hiding the problems, ignoring the problems, and punishing people who mention the problems.

NYT latest articles on the matter already pushed back on their initial claims though.

[DarkTZeratul]

This is a classic sign of an incompetent and corrupt administration. It's not about fixing the problems, it's about hiding the problems, ignoring the problems, and punishing people who mention the problems.

It's also been their MO for the last three and a half years. When something comes out, their primary focus is always on who leaked.

[Machismo]

It's also been their MO for the last three and a half years. When something comes out, their primary focus is always on who leaked.

"I don't take responsibility at all."

[Edge-]

"I don't take responsibility at all."

That's going to be the slogan for the historical legacy of the Trump administration.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...nce/index.html

"The intelligence wasn't proved to me. It was proved enough to worry me. It wasn't proved enough that I'd take it to a court of law. That's often true in battlefield intelligence," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, told a small group of reporters while traveling to the region, according to a transcript provided by the Defense Department.

He has more to say on this, but long story short is if the guy in charge of US troops in Afghanistan is worried about the intelligence, even if it's not conclusively proven, then the White House should have probably been worried about it.

But instead they sat on it.

[Shalcker]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...nce/index.html

He has more to say on this, but long story short is if the guy in charge of US troops in Afghanistan is worried about the intelligence, even if it's not conclusively proven, then the White House should have probably been worried about it.

But instead they sat on it.

If commander of troops in Afghanistan is already aware of it, what more can White House do over unreliable battlefield intelligence?

Worry silently? Watch situation intently?

[callipygoustp]

NYT latest articles on the matter already pushed back on their initial claims though.

Regularly read the times. I seem to have missed this and a search atm isn't turning up anything along those lines. Source?

[Shalcker]

Regularly read the times. I seem to have missed this and a search atm isn't turning up anything along those lines. Source?

I meant this one.

[callipygoustp]

I meant this one.

Heh, you are always so disingenuous. At least you provided a link.

Note: this is not the NTY "pushing back".

[Shalcker]

Heh, you are always so disingenuous. At least you provided a link.

Note: this is not the NTY "pushing back".

Actual information still materially differs from initial claims by anonymous sources.

And i guess now those initial sources might go the way of Reality Winner.

[callipygoustp]

Actual information still materially differs from initial claims by anonymous sources.

And i guess now those initial sources might go the way of Reality Winner.

Not indicative of the NYT pushing back their initial claims, which is what you stated.

[Shalcker]

Not indicative of the NYT pushing back their initial claims, which is what you stated.

How else do you see that exactly?

I look at article in first post and see it as quite different from what we're seeing now.

Old:
American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.

The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.
...
While officials were said to be confident about the intelligence that Russian operatives offered and paid bounties to Afghan militants for killing Americans, they have greater uncertainty about how high in the Russian government the covert operation was authorized and what its aim may be.

New:
A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation’s top intelligence official acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence, according to three officials.
...
The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with medium confidence — meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near certainty — that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U., offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.

But other parts of the intelligence community — including the National Security Agency, which favors electronic surveillance intelligence — said they did not have information to support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower confidence in the conclusion, according to the two officials. A third official familiar with the memo did not describe the precise confidence levels, but also said the C.I.A.’s was higher than other agencies.
...
The memo also emphasized that the National Security Agency did not have surveillance that confirmed what the captured detainees told interrogators about bounties, according to the officials. The agency did intercept data of financial transfers that provide circumstantial support for the detainees’ account, but the agency does not have explicit evidence that the money was bounty payments.

The memo also said that the Defense Intelligence Agency did not have information directly connecting the suspected operation to the Kremlin, officials said. ...

[callipygoustp]

How else do you see that exactly?

Thought I was pretty clear already:

Not indicative of the NYT pushing back their initial claims, which is what you stated.

Edit:
Did you even read the link you provided? Especially in the context of "the NYT pushing back"?

[Shalcker]

Thought I was pretty clear already:


Edit:
Did you even read the link you provided? Especially in the context of "the NYT pushing back"?

I have given quotes above.

[callipygoustp]

I have given quotes above.

The memo is said to contain no new information, and both its timing and its stressing of doubts suggested that it was intended to bolster the Trump administration’s attempts to justify its inaction on the months-old assessment, the officials said. Some former national security officials said the account of the memo indicated that politics may have influenced its production.

This is, once again, not indicative of the NYT "pushing back" its earlier claims.