Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Recall that in the leadup to the 2016 election, the Russians engaged in propaganda from bots and intel agents with the proximal goal of increasing divisiveness in US politics. They were hoping to destabilize the country and they did this from both sides--exciting BLM and exciting racists and other groups who dislike BLM. The ultimate goal of course was to make the US a failed state so that Russian hegemony could flourish under Putin and his crony oligarchs. They could then also take advantage financially and geo-politically of the failed US.
Instead of learning from this, it seems to just have gone down the memory hole. In terms of national security, it ought to have remained one of the biggest risks.
So, my question is this. Is it reasonable to just assume the Russians are no longer an active threat to our security? Is it unreasonable to extrapolate their past actions to current times in 2020? Let me put it another way. Why should we, practically speaking, reserve analysis of security risks to retrospective deductions based on evidence we can find after-the-fact as opposed to inferring what they may be doing right now?
Speaking of retrospective, this was back in March...
So, what are they going to do right up to Inauguration, most likely?
Instead of learning from this, it seems to just have gone down the memory hole. In terms of national security, it ought to have remained one of the biggest risks.
So, my question is this. Is it reasonable to just assume the Russians are no longer an active threat to our security? Is it unreasonable to extrapolate their past actions to current times in 2020? Let me put it another way. Why should we, practically speaking, reserve analysis of security risks to retrospective deductions based on evidence we can find after-the-fact as opposed to inferring what they may be doing right now?
Speaking of retrospective, this was back in March...
So, what are they going to do right up to Inauguration, most likely?