The Big Four Reasons Russia does not want Trump:
- Military Build-up
- Oil
- Hillary easier to roll
- Blow-back complications no matter who favored (below graphic)
Let’s say Russia did the hacking, and did not release the information. The 3AM congratulations from Putin to Hillary.
It continues throughout the dominant liberal media, the repetition of Obama’s CIA “findings and conclusions,” based on anonymous sources and undisclosed evidence, that Russia tried to impact the US elections in favor of Trump.
None of those media types want to talk about what was revealed, its veracity, only who did it. The implication most desired from the liberal scapegoating narrative is that, but for Putin alone ,Hillary would have been elected president. Never mind her horrendous appeal and screwy campaign strategy. Never mind about the impact of the FBI recovery of Hillary’s e-mails, what was on them, how she lied about what she illegally tried to destroy, her treasonable hazarding of US war-time diplomatic security, etc.. That is to be ignored by raising the Russian boogeyman. It is done to keep Americans from looking under the bed.
We don’t think it was likely a Russian government promoted operation that hacked into the limited scenario presented by the DNC and John Podesta’s computers, which is what all the hubbub is about. We think it was insider stuff, ticked off at the treatment of Sanders, as revealed in the e-mails. Our reasons as to why we do not think Russia (Putin) did it is that it (he) had more to lose with Trump, and the blow-back from being found out, even plausibly suspected, whoever they “chose” to help out, was not worth the risk. Those points will be fleshed out a bit more but this writer does not hesitate to say, if it were true, I would consider it a favor from the Russian people to the American people, to expose political corruption (DNC) in our political process
The Big Four Reasons
The Military build up promised by Trump, in no way were believably matched by Hillary. Trump in that respect presents shades of Ronald Reagan all over again. Putin’s predecessors could only capitulate to Reagan’s strategic initiatives. As it stands now U.S. military capability is so thin that provocations go unresponded to, the ability to field responses is so weak, that malcontents like China and Russia can exercise much hegemony. Plus Trump is intent on the force multiplier of insisting “pre-deployed” NATO do more to reduce US costs, freeing up resources. Plus Trump is surrounding himself with capable military advisers (he made it a big point of promising to do so). That they will be realists but not patsies, be competent war fighters should it come to that and not saber rattlers means Russia has more to fear from serious intent.
This excerpt from an article by Victor Davis Hanson earlier in the week helps establish some of this while making the point that domestically, the American people are freer from war with the inclusion of competent and involved military advisors as a part of a presidential cabinet. Traditionally they are not war hawks per se, they are defense capability hawks, which helps insure peace.
Has Trump Nominated Too Many Military Leaders — or Not Enough?
“The chief complaint about Trump’s appointments is that too many generals will mean too great a likelihood of war. Historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Generals were not the proverbial ‘best and brightest’ who argued for military intervention in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the bombing of Libya in 2011. … Traditionally, retired generals and flag officers have no desire to see their own troops killed in what they see as optional wars abroad. Their occasional harangues about building up military power are predicated on notions of peace-through-strength deterrence: The more powerful the military is perceived abroad, the less likely it will be need to be used. Far more worrisome is the tired presidential custom of relying on ex-senators and politicians with law degrees to fill important executive positions despite their lack of outside-the-Beltway administrative experience. … We are currently nearing $20 trillion in national debt, stagnating under nonexistent economic growth and near-zero interest rates, and suffering from record labor nonparticipation rates. We are seeing a failed health care system, a discredited IRS and VA, and the worst racial relations in half a century. Generals did not compile that record. Lawyers and lifetime Washington politicians did.”
Oil
This Marl Mills article at Real Clear World makes the point well (excerpts) Our Frackers Beat Their Hackers
First, the price of oil matters to Russia. Half of Russia’s gross domestic product and more than 70 percent of its export revenues come from selling oil and natural gas. That money not only powers the Russian economy, it is key to that nation’s ability to finance expensive foreign adventurism from the Middle East to Ukraine. Today’s low prices are depriving Russia of more than $150 billion every year; even in Washington, that’s real money. But in equivalent terms, that would be like wiping $1.5 trillion from the U.S. economy
Second, America’s private-sector shale industry was the direct and indisputable trigger for the global petroleum price collapse. Thousands of small and mid-sized companies — it was not “big oil” that created the shale revolution — added more oil (and natural gas) to global markets in a shorter period than at any time in the past half century, . . .
Third, candidate Hillary Clinton made clear, repeatedly, her plans to throttle the shale industry when she said: “So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” Clinton promoted the focus-group-created phrase of becoming a “clean energy super power.” Got it: message received. But Putin is not afraid of American windmills and (Chinese) solar panels robbing him of cold hard cash. Trump, on the other hand, not only boisterously supported shale, but a recent leaked transition-team memo makes clear that policy changes are likely to follow the bluster.
Does picking “T-Rex ” (former chair of ExxonMobile Rex Tillerson) signal a Trump Putin Oil cabal? Troubling is his apparent belief in the “climate change con”. We’ve learned that he championed the “carbon tax” and that he apparently supported (supports?) the “Paris agreement”. The latter suggests that the Exxon exec is OK with “treaties” when, if called by another name are easily reached without Constitutionally required Senate approval. But his pick of SOS was not predictable by Russia as Trump’s victory was not assured, indeed just the opposite. Besides there is a lot more at stake politically and job wise with increased domestic energy production through fracking, than inhibiting US oil production to appease Russia. So while it is troubling it is not as much as having a Hillary anti-energy cabal running government across the various departments that will demonstrate policy – Energy, EPA, and Interior.
Hillary easier to roll
She is demonstrably not a competent strategist or leader, and therefore less formidable. How much needs to be elaborated . . . the reset with Russia, Benghazi, pulling out at the cusp of establishing victory in Iraq, Iran nuclear treaty, trade deals that will make US dependent on foreign influence, meaningless responses to provocations, the Obama disease of believing you are competent and that people have faith in you. To the Russians these and more say “Hillary is our gal” and if anything to propagandize the world “don’t throw us into that Hillary briar patch.
Blow-back complications no matter who favored
Russia has responded to the accusations of trying to hack the DNC and election processes, and doing so to help Trump, by saying “no we didn’t and if you think you can prove it, prove it”
Now the Russians are cagey, and goading us into reveling sources and techniques might seem a good rhetorical counter and a win if it happens to reveal the U.S. signals intelligence capabilities. That is if you think the Russians play chess by hopeful maneuvers depending on their opponent thinking only one move ahead. I don’t think the Russians play that amateurishly or with risky maneuvers.
Trump was by the preponderance of polls the underdog by a lot and taking shots at the likely winner is not a good strategy. Further being perceived as helping one or the other hurts who you supposedly want to help pre-election, which is when it came out, and after the election probably makes either one react to prove their toughness or independence. The one you do a number on, as they are accused of doing as regards Hillary, should that person win, as was the likelihood with Hillary, is politically forced to be more aggressive to prove their independence.
If Russia is perceived to have been a mischievous equal opportunity under-miner of the American political system, that also guarantees retaliation of some sort. The only thing that makes sense as to the source of DNC leaks, as has been revealed anyway by a personage close to Wikileaks, is that it was a disgruntled person in the DNC, with Wikileaks serving as the distribution agent for the whistleblower. The Podesta hacking, could be achieved by any number of hacking operations including homegrown U.S. of A. Millions have been hacked similarly world wide.
R Mall with DLH
