US sanctions Russians for cyberattacks and election meddling

[Grokmaster]

Bu-bu-but , this isn't what PUTIN WANTS !!!!

See what happens when a POTUS is willing to CONFRONT offending nations , as opposed to former Pres. Mommy Pants, "More Flexible for Vladipoo"....




US sanctions Russians for cyberattacks and election meddling


The US Department of the Treasury has instituted sanctions against five Russian entities and 19 individuals for their involvement in a number of cyberattacks and online efforts to interfere with the US presidential election (https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/07/russians-successfully-gained-access-to-us-voter-registration-rec/).

The sanctions prohibit US companies and individuals from conducting business with those named by the Treasury Department. "The Administration is confronting and countering malign Russian cyber activity, including their attempted interference in US elections, destructive cyberattacks and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said in a statement (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312).


"These targeted sanctions are a part of a broader effort to address the ongoing nefarious attacks emanating from Russia. Treasury intends to impose additional CAATSA sanctions, informed by our intelligence community, to hold Russian government officials and oligarchs accountable for their destabilizing activities by severing their access to the US financial system."

Among those being sanctioned is the Internet Research Agency, which US officials have said played a major role in the Russian campaign to sow political discord (https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/31/twitter-now-says-1-4-million-users-interacted-with-russian-spam/) during the 2016 election. The Treasury Department notes the IRA's efforts to create fake online personas (https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/07/russians-fake-social-media-accounts-steal-personal-data/) and pose as US individuals and organizations, the ads it bought during the election (https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/04/facebook-russia-ads-michigan-wisconsin/) and the political rallies it organized and coordinated (https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/26/facebook-russian-trolls-created-129-event-posts-during-2016-ele/) ahead of and following the election.

Along with the IRA, the Treasury Department sanctioned an additional two entities and 13 individuals who assisted the IRA in some way.






https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-sanctions-russians-cyberattacks-election-181700997.html

[Grokmaster]

In addition...


US and Poland strike $10.5 billion missile defense deal

http://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719

[Grokmaster]

Obama must be so upset over Pres.Trump putting sanctions on his mancrush, Vladipoo...

[Common Sense]

This batch of sanctions are very mild and only targets a handful of people.

Whats ironic is that they are a result of Mueller's investigation.

[Grokmaster]

This batch of sanctions are very mild and only targets a handful of people.

Whats ironic is that they are a result of Mueller's investigation.


Bullshit and bullshit.

More than Obama "more flexible for Vlad" did, and has not one damned thing to do with the Mueller Witch Hunt.

Makeup some more bullshit.

[MisterVeritis]

Cyber attacks on our electrical grid are war acts. One does not win a war by imposing sanctions.

[Grokmaster]

Cyber attacks on our electrical grid are war acts. One does not win a war by imposing sanctions.
Your contention is that we are incapable of cyber war? Sanctions hurt economically, which is the lifeblood of any nation.

We destroyed the USSR without firing a shot, on that very basis.

[MisterVeritis]

Cyber attacks on our electrical grid are war acts. One does not win a war by imposing sanctions.

Your contention is that we are incapable of cyber war? Sanctions hurt economically, which is the lifeblood of any nation.

We destroyed the USSR without firing a shot, on that very basis.
You err. Fighting a war is not the same as imposing sanctions. Cyber-warfare is similar to strategic bombing. Economic warfare, which, in my opinion, goes well beyond these minor sanctions are also acts of war. Outspending one's opponents on war-winning technologies is not a war act.

If we are to have a war with Russia then let's debate it and declare war, Congress.

[Grokmaster]

yber attacks on our electrical grid are war acts. One does not win a war by imposing sanctions.

You err. Fighting a war is not the same as imposing sanctions. Cyber-warfare is similar to strategic bombing. Economic warfare, which, in my opinion, goes well beyond these minor sanctions are also acts of war. Outspending one's opponents on war-winning technologies is not a war act.

If we are to have a war with Russia then let's debate it and declare war, Congress.

I don't think a nuclear confrontation is called for...

[MisterVeritis]

I don't think a nuclear confrontation is called for...
I cannot recall mentioning nuclear war. But in every war, the enemy gets a vote on its progression.

Economic and cyber warfare are warfare. If we are prepared to conduct lower levels of war we ought to prepare ourselves to conduct the war to win it.

[Grokmaster]

I cannot recall mentioning nuclear war. But in every war, the enemy gets a vote on its progression.

Economic and cyber warfare are warfare. If we are prepared to conduct lower levels of war we ought to prepare ourselves to conduct the war to win it.
If we enter into a shooting war with Russia, where would it end up? Nuclear confrontation...

[MisterVeritis]

If we enter into a shooting war with Russia, where would it end up? Nuclear confrontation...
No one can predict how a war will go.

If you follow Clausewitz you may see his approach to total war. Why aren't all wars total wars? We know almost no wars become total wars. Why would Russia's war with us have a nuclear phase?

[Peter1469]

Cyber attacks on our electrical grid are war acts. One does not win a war by imposing sanctions.I expect that Russia is less vulnerable to cyber attacks than we are.

[Grokmaster]

No one can predict how a war will go.

If you follow Clausewitz you may see his approach to total war. Why aren't all wars total wars? We know almost no wars become total wars. Why would Russia's war with us have a nuclear phase?
Wars between world powers , not proxy wars, always become total wars.

[MisterVeritis]

I expect that Russia is less vulnerable to cyber attacks than we are.
Maybe. Maybe not. I have almost no insights into our collection against Russian networks and cyber attacks. I know it is commonly believed they are less vulnerable. One need not take down the entire nation in order to win. One need only take away the things the enemy regime holds most valuable.

[MisterVeritis]

Wars between world powers, not proxy wars, always become total wars.
Well, no. I believe the opposite is true. We have experienced very few total wars in all of history.

[Grokmaster]

Well, no.

Example.

[Peter1469]

No one can predict how a war will go.

If you follow Clausewitz you may see his approach to total war. Why aren't all wars total wars? We know almost no wars become total wars. Why would Russia's war with us have a nuclear phase?
Wars of necessity are always total war.

We have not fought a war of necessity since WWII (disregarding the argument that we did not need to get involved.)

[MisterVeritis]

Wars of necessity are always total war.

We have not fought a war of necessity since WWII (disregarding the argument that we did not need to get involved.)
We disagree. We have had almost no total wars in the history of warfare.

[MisterVeritis]

Example.
In all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars.

[Grokmaster]

In all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars.

Still waiting for the shooting war between WORLD POWERS that was NOT a "proxy war", and was not total war....

[MisterVeritis]

In all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars.

Still waiting for the shooting war between WORLD POWERS that was NOT a "proxy war", and was not total war....
In all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars. The weight of history supports my contention, not yours. What example would you like? Would all of the wars between France and England over 300 years be sufficient? Would all of the wars between the Mongols and China be sufficient? Those were world powers, I mean WORLD POWERS.

[Grokmaster]

In all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars.

In all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars. The weight of history supports my contention, not yours. What example would you like? Would all of the wars between France and England over 300 years be sufficient? Would all of the wars between the Mongols and China be sufficient? Those were world powers, I mean WORLD POWERS.

My contention was that ANY shooting, non "proxy" war between WORLD POWERS,( in today's world that would be the US, Britain, Red China, Russia and Germany) becomes a total war.

You have yet to disprove that assertion.

[MisterVeritis]

n all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars. The weight of history supports my contention, not yours. What example would you like? Would all of the wars between France and England over 300 years be sufficient? Would all of the wars between the Mongols and China be sufficient? Those were world powers, I mean WORLD POWERS.

My contention was that ANY shooting, non "proxy" war between WORLD POWERS,( in today's world that would be the US, Britain, Red China, Russia and Germany) becomes a total war.
You have yet to disprove that assertion.
Your assertion/contention is nonsensical. It is an article of faith for you, nothing more. See above. Also, if you have a mind for some heavy lifting read what Clausewitz has to say about total wars.

[pjohns]

Vladimir Putin has tried, also, to assassinate a former spy and his daughter, in the UK.

The proper response to this, I think, would be for Britons to entirely boycott Russian oil--even if that would mean paying a few cents more at the pump.

There is yet another interesting suggestion that I have heard--and it is not an "either/or" sort of thing; I would favor both--and that is to freeze all of Putin's assets (which, reportedly, are not in his own name, but in the names of his oligarchs). In other words, hit him in the wallet--and very hard!

[Grokmaster]

n all of recorded history, we have had almost no total wars. The weight of history supports my contention, not yours. What example would you like? Would all of the wars between France and England over 300 years be sufficient? Would all of the wars between the Mongols and China be sufficient? Those were world powers, I mean WORLD POWERS.

Your assertion/contention is nonsensical. It is an article of faith for you, nothing more. See above. Also, if you have a mind for some heavy lifting read what Clausewitz has to say about total wars.

He's entitled to his opinion. Your tacit admission that you cannot refute my point is obvious. No, it is NOT "NONSENSICAL"; it is a HISTORIC TRUTH.

[Peter1469]

We disagree. We have had almost no total wars in the history of warfare.
Then we are not communicating.

For everyone else, WWII was the last war of necessity that the US engaged in (as we fought it, not how we got into it). What we have seen since are wars of choice, or police actions to achieve limited goals.

[Peter1469]

Total war is not a mysterious term. It refers to all of society being invested into the war effort.

Some people believe it means total destruction of the other side. That is not true.

[Grokmaster]

And no direct shooting conflict between world powers has ever wound up short of total war.

[The Xl]

It's all silly grandstanding anyway. A handful of Russian civilians posting incoherent memes didn't have an effect on the election.

[MisterVeritis]

Total war is not a mysterious term. It refers to all of society being invested into the war effort.

Some people believe it means total destruction of the other side. That is not true.
Right. It typically means using all of a nation's people, money, time, and all other resources to fight, in the hope of winning a war. I use total war to describe a war that uses most of a nation's resources to wage a war.

Total war is a very rare thing.

[MisterVeritis]

And no direct shooting conflict between world powers has ever wound up short of total war.
This is untrue. There are very few examples in all of history of total wars.

[MisterVeritis]

Then we are not communicating.

For everyone else, WWII was the last war of necessity that the US engaged in (as we fought it, not how we got into it). What we have seen since are wars of choice, or police actions to achieve limited goals.
We are communicating. We just disagree. I believe you are using "war of necessity" to mean a total war. All wars are wars of choice.

[MisterVeritis]

He's entitled to his opinion. Your tacit admission that you cannot refute my point is obvious. No, it is NOT "NONSENSICAL"; it is a HISTORIC TRUTH.
The opposite is true.

[MisterVeritis]

And no direct shooting conflict between world powers has ever wound up short of total war.
What is a world power?

[Grokmaster]

This is untrue. There are very few examples in all of history of total wars.

Then you should have no trouble providing examples.

[Grokmaster]

What is a world power?

Already listed previously in the thread.

Post #23.

[Grokmaster]

Right. It typically means using all of a nation's people, money, time, and all other resources to fight, in the hope of winning a war. I use total war to describe a war that uses most of a nation's resources to wage a war.

Total war is a very rare thing.

Thankfully that is true.

What do you propose we should do to Russia, then?

[MisterVeritis]

Then you should have no trouble providing examples.
I just shake my head. Let's try a new approach.
1) What do you mean by world power?
2) Throughout history which powers were world powers?
3) Did any world powers ever fight each other?
4) If so were any of their wars total wars?
5) If so, did any of their wars fall short of total war?

I gave you several examples earlier of world powers that fought each other but whose wars were not total.

[MisterVeritis]

Thankfully that is true.

What do you propose we should do to Russia, then?
The Congress should debate the issues. If the Congress believes we should wage war with Russia then let the Congress declare that a state of war exists and let's get on with it.

[MisterVeritis]

Already listed previously in the thread.

Post #23.
You gave examples of world powers. You included Britain who is not even a regional power. That is why I wanted you to define your term.

[MisterVeritis]

Then you should have no trouble providing examples.
I gave you several in post 22. You blew right by them, mysteriously.

[Grokmaster]

You gave examples of world powers. You included Britain who is not even a regional power. That is why I wanted you to define your term.

Britain, is most definitely, a world power militarily.

[Grokmaster]

I gave you several in post 22. You blew right by them, mysteriously.
None of those examples qualify in the context of what we're discussing. ANCIENT "world powers" are irrelevant to the point we are discussing.
MODERN warfare. And, once again, what to you propose we do to Russia, beyond sanctions.

[Captdon]

In addition...


US and Poland strike $10.5 billion missile defense deal

http://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719

This would worry Putin more than sanctions. I like the sanctions but weapons are more effective.

[MisterVeritis]

Britain, is most definitely, a world power militarily.
Then you must define your terms.

Is a world power a power with a few nuclear weapons?

Here is your list: US, Britain, Red China, Russia and Germany

Tell me why you believe each one is a world power.

If nuclear weapons make one a world power where are France and Pakistan? What of Israel and India? And where is North Korea on your World Power list?

[MisterVeritis]

None of those examples qualify in the context of what we're discussing. ANCIENT "world powers" are irrelevant to the point we are discussing.
MODERN warfare. And, once again, what to you propose we do to Russia, beyond sanctions.
I see. you have dismissed every war between world powers right up until yesterday. Why would you do that? At various times Britain and France were world powers. Ditto Spain. And Germany. And Austria.

[MisterVeritis]

Britain, is most definitely, a world power militarily.
How so?

[pjohns]

[A deal between the US and Poland for missile defense] would worry Putin more than sanctions.
This is surely true.

Which is why I regret our having backed away from selling defensive missiles to Ukraine.

Thankfully, that may soon be reversed:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-announces-sale-anti-tank-missiles-ukraine-russian/story?id=53450406

[Grokmaster]

This would worry Putin more than sanctions. I like the sanctions but weapons are more effective.

Yep. More of Trump "doing Putin's bidding." :grin:

[donttread]

Bu-bu-but , this isn't what PUTIN WANTS !!!!

See what happens when a POTUS is willing to CONFRONT offending nations , as opposed to former Pres. Mommy Pants, "More Flexible for Vladipoo"....




US sanctions Russians for cyberattacks and election meddling


The US Department of the Treasury has instituted sanctions against five Russian entities and 19 individuals for their involvement in a number of cyberattacks and online efforts to interfere with the US presidential election (https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/07/russians-successfully-gained-access-to-us-voter-registration-rec/).

The sanctions prohibit US companies and individuals from conducting business with those named by the Treasury Department. "The Administration is confronting and countering malign Russian cyber activity, including their attempted interference in US elections, destructive cyberattacks and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said in a statement (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312).


"These targeted sanctions are a part of a broader effort to address the ongoing nefarious attacks emanating from Russia. Treasury intends to impose additional CAATSA sanctions, informed by our intelligence community, to hold Russian government officials and oligarchs accountable for their destabilizing activities by severing their access to the US financial system."

Among those being sanctioned is the Internet Research Agency, which US officials have said played a major role in the Russian campaign to sow political discord (https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/31/twitter-now-says-1-4-million-users-interacted-with-russian-spam/) during the 2016 election. The Treasury Department notes the IRA's efforts to create fake online personas (https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/07/russians-fake-social-media-accounts-steal-personal-data/) and pose as US individuals and organizations, the ads it bought during the election (https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/04/facebook-russia-ads-michigan-wisconsin/) and the political rallies it organized and coordinated (https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/26/facebook-russian-trolls-created-129-event-posts-during-2016-ele/) ahead of and following the election.

Along with the IRA, the Treasury Department sanctioned an additional two entities and 13 individuals who assisted the IRA in some way.






https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-sanctions-russians-cyberattacks-election-181700997.html


So the sanctions really amount to more control over the actions of American citizens and companies?

[MisterVeritis]

So the sanctions really amount to more control over the actions of American citizens and companies?
The real danger is coming with an attempt to federalize every Internet connection in any way related to the 14 critical infrastructures. That is everything.

[waltky]

US intel warns of Russian threat to power grid... US military given more authority to launch preventative cyberattacks Tue September 18, 2018 - The US military is taking a more aggressive stance against foreign government hackers who are targeting the US and is being granted more authority to launch preventative cyberstrikes, according to a summary of the Department of Defense's new Cyber Strategy
. The Pentagon is referring to the new stance as "defend forward," and the strategy will allow the US military "to disrupt or halt malicious cyber activity at its source, including activity that falls below the level of armed conflict." The new military strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, also emphasizes an intention to "build a more lethal force" of first-strike hackers. The "defend forward" initiative wasn't included in the 2015 strategy and further enables the United States to carry out offensive hacking operations to defend against cyberattacks on critical US infrastructure, such as election systems and the energy grid. In effect, it gives the US military more authority to act on its own -- even against computer networks based in friendly countries. Normally, one nation's hackers will establish a computer network in a second country before launching an attack on a third country. For example, Russia might use computers in Germany to attack the United States. Until recently, if the US National Security Agency observed Russian hackers building a computer network in a Western European country, the president's National Security Council would need to weigh in before any action is taken. Now, the NSA won't have to give its seal of approval, according to Jason Healey, a senior research scholar at Columbia University and former George W. Bush White House cyber official.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180717104539-gfx-russia-data-hack-exlarge-169.jpg US intel warns of Russian threat to power grid This new strategy provides a roadmap for the military to wipe out the enemy computer network in a friendly country, said Healey. "It's extremely risky to be doing this," Healey told CNN on Tuesday. "If you loosen the rules of engagement, sometimes you're going to mess that up." There is a growing threat from government-sponsored cyberattacks that disrupt civilian life. There is a major focus on Russian efforts to disrupt the 2018 midterms and there is a concern they may target US infrastructure. In 2015, Moscow was formally accused of hacking Ukraine's electric grid in an unprecedented cyberattack that led to widespread power outages. In 2016 and 2017, North Korea stole $81 million from Bangladesh's central bank and carried out a worldwide attack on Microsoft computers through a ransomware attack known as "WannaCry 2.0." However, under the new strategy, US offensive cyberattacks will not target civilian infrastructure, because the US must abide by a UN agreement that prohibits "damaging civilian critical infrastructure during peacetime." This is the Trump administration's second move to give the US military more autonomy over cyberattacks. It follows the National Security Council's recent replacement of an Obama-era directive with one that gives US Cyber Command -- the military's hackers -- more freedom to conduct counteroffensive hacking. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/us-military-cyberattacks-authority/index.html