The resignation of Michael Flynn from the post of national security adviser has increased the hype around a possible Russian intervention in the election process. The New York Times published an editorial in which he compares the misunderstanding with Flynn Watergate, expressed “shock and bewilderment” at the fact that the leaders of the headquarters of the trump contact with representatives of the Russian intelligence service, and demanded that Congress conduct an investigation and find out “have not helped and do not contributed to the people from the highest echelons of us government authorities of the country, which is trying to oppose US foreign policy since the cold war.” President trump, of course, scornfully denied the allegations, calling them “absurd” and “cunning trick.” Senate minority leader a Democrat from new York Chuck Schumer (Chuck Schumer) called an extraordinary meeting of the Democrats to make a plan of bringing to this issue the spotlight.
When Washington gets in that frenzy, first of all suffers sanity. But we must remember what is at stake.
After the election, we learned that the FBI and CIA with the tacit consent of the other intelligence agencies came to the conclusion that the leadership of the Russian intelligence conducted a covert operation by the hacking and publication of electronic communications of the National Democratic Committee and campaign Manager, Clinton John Podestà, in order to hurt the democratic candidate. After analyzing still-secret report, and to establish the election results, President Obama has punished Russia, expelling from the United States 35 of Russians suspected of intelligence activities, and introducing other restrictions.
Evidence of this explosive allegations published in the report of the office of the Director of National intelligence, dated 6 January, was so convincing that The New York Times concluded: “there is no information about how these agencies collected their data and how they came to such conclusions.” Naturally, in these conditions, it was necessary to create an independent Commission that she reported the incident and reported the measures necessary to prevent such a situation in the future. It’s a shame that the Republicans in Congress decided to block such actions.
Flynn’s resignation is also a matter of deep concern.
According to leaks from intelligence agencies to intercept conversations between the Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Flynn, who at that time was not yet a national security Advisor to the newly elected President, trump, Flynn urged Russian not to overreact to the sanctions Obama. Putin has decided not to respond to these sanctions in the traditional manner and refused to countermeasures. According to the leaks, security chiefs appealed to the acting attorney General Sally Yates (Sally Q. Yates) and expressed its concern at the fact that Flynn could be subjected to blackmail by Russia. She reported it to the Trump. A few weeks later, Flynn was fired because misled Vice-President of Pensa and other people on the content of these conversations.
But the editorial writers at The New York Times and other publications say that the fact of contacts with Russian officials for some reason is flawed, if not criminal. They note that assumptions about the future improvement of relations with the new President is actually cheating.
But this is just ridiculous. Trump throughout the election campaign, praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and declared that he would enlist the support of Russia in the fight against “Islamic state” (banned in Russia organization — approx. TRANS.). If Flynn tried to assure the Russian Ambassador that the sanctions Obama won’t dissuade trump, he did so, as in this case, would the national security Advisor.
If you read Flynn’s published works, it will become clear that he’s not fit to head the national security Council. But the conversation with the Russian Ambassador or imaginary “members of the Russian intelligence” about the intentions of the new President can hardly be called subversive activities.
The alarm needs to cause leakage of the contents of intercepted telephone conversations. Obviously, this was done to eliminate Flynn, and the attempt were crowned with success. The fact that trump has protested about the leakage of information, cannot be grounds for rejection of this concern. The intelligence community used information leak to weaken the position of President, which is in accordance with the Constitution, elected the American people. And no matter how unfit we may considered this to be an ominous precedent.
Trump expressed hope for cooperation with Russia, and this has caused serious concern at the highest management level of national security. The exaggeration of the Russian threat helps to justify increasing the military budget and the efforts to unite the increasingly capricious allies. The former US Ambassador to NATO Robert hunter (Robert Hunter) recently noted: “allegations of Russian interference in the American election campaign has become a convenient tool to obstruct and even to disrupt attempts by trump to change the course for the deterioration of relations between the US and the West with Russia.”
Unfortunately, in this frenetic frenzy lost common sense. Supporters of Clinton are strongly exaggerate the significance of the alleged hacker attacks from Russia, to justify his painful defeat. Democrats see the scandal a convenient way to ease trump.
Took up arms against trump, many liberals have joined the inciting hysteria in the spirit of pamakarista, trying to discredit those who seek to ease tension in Russian-American relations. They ignore anyone who starts to doubt the claims about the hacker hacking and conspiracy, calling people like Putin apologists. But as he noted in his editorial article in the Nation, “skepticism is not cheating; it is extremely important to establish the truth”.
In fact, the improvement of relations with Russia is in our national interest. Cooperation in matters of nuclear proliferation, arms control, terrorism and so on is vital to our security. Strengthening peace in Europe is impossible without Russia’s participation. Russia as a leading oil-producing country should become a party to international efforts to tackle climate change. All the more dangerous of the two nuclear powers — the emergence of a Russian intelligence ship off our shores, risky convergence of aircraft in the skies over Syria, provocative NATO exercises on the border with Russia — all this can very quickly bring the situation under control.
Foreign interference in American elections is unacceptable. Leaking classified intelligence information to discredit the elected President is a bad precedent. We need an independent investigation and openly about what happened and what measures should be taken to prevent this in the future. But we don’t need hysteria in the spirit of the cold war, which preclude the debate, skeptics discredits and undermines all efforts aimed at finding areas of agreement with Russia is in our own national interest.