Very Good (re: Russia Hacking, Motives & Goals)

[Yooper]

This is an excellent article outlining what Putin (may have) expected to gain by hacking the DNC and meddling in the election AND (more importantly) why we (US intel) so easily came to know about it.

"WHAT PUTIN WAS UP TO" (Paul Mirengoff, Powerline, 19 July 2018

Having worked in this area (subject matter, geography, & community) I can tell you that he's spot-on (if not for motive, certainly for how the Russians operate and think). I also think the analysis that Putin got the election wrong (meaning, he believed HRC was the sure winner) is correct.

Worth your time regardless of which side of the political divide you stand.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[GURPS]

Why leave fingerprints? If the only goal was to inflict damage, the new president would have been not only damaged, but also resentful. Even the person who happily posed with a mislabeled “reset” button in frothier days likely would have turned sour.

The point likely was not merely to inflict damage but also to send a warning. Consider the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized and vulnerable email server. It found that the bureau had concluded the server could well have been penetrated without detection. Recall also that some of the people hacked by GRU agents were aware of that server and mentioned it in messages they sent, so that the Russians too were aware of it. The SVR certainly was capable of an undetected hack.

There are some 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over, on the claim that they were personal and involved such trivia as yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding. If they instead contained damaging information—say, regarding Clinton Foundation fundraising—the new president would have taken office in the shadow of a sword dangling from a string held by the Russians.​

it has been said the hack was all about Hillary

 

[Yooper]

And an equally excellent follow-up piece: "WHAT PUTIN WAS UP TO (2)" (Steven Hayward, 19 July 2018)

I wasn't aware of the referenced "Kingdoms Of The Blind," but Rood is absolutely correct in his assessment (Kennedy's "victory" in the Cuban Missile Crisis was actually the result of Khrushchev's string-pulling). Khrushchev wanted U.S. Jupiter nuclear-capable missiles out of Turkey so he orchestrated Cuba to make that happen (which it did under the terms of the secret U.S.-Soviet post-crisis agreement). Revisionist historians' assert (to save Kennedy's legacy?) that Kennedy had already decided/moved to remove the missiles (i.e., well before Cuba) making Khrushchev's gambit both unnecessary and very risky. However, this is unlikely. First, the secret agreement remains quite "unknown." Second, given Soviet penetration of U.S., UK, NATO, German, and other entities there is good reason to believe Khrushchev would have known the missiles' removal was imminent.

In apparently failing to work out the "branches and sequels" Khrushchev eventually suffered humiliation. While he got the missiles removed he chose to abide by the terms of the secret agreement and the Soviet Union looked to have been humiliated by the U.S./West in the global forum. Khrushchev's strategic victory for the USSR turned out to be his Waterloo. Why Kennedy chose to keep the agreement secret is really no surprise (he would have looked very weak both at home and abroad), but why Khrushchev chose to stay silent is still a bit of a mystery. Unless there was a game being played out on several levels (2D, 3D, 4D, etc.). (This is my view.)

Anyway, where intel ops are concerned (be it Russian Chinese, Israeli, Brit, and yes, even U.S. ones) if it is easy to uncover it it is no doubt meant to be uncovered. It was almost certainly that way in 1962, it was probably that way in 2016. Like Khrushchev Putin may be a bit of a fox, but in Putin's case his gambit only works if HRC had been elected (despite all rending of garments to the the contrary re: Trump's supposed collusion, blah, blah, blah). That she wasn't may have implications for Putin/Russia like Cuba did for Khrushchev/Soviet Union. Time will tell.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[This_person]

The problem with the idea (I didn't read the story because conjecture about conjecture sounds like deep fiction to me) is that the analysis that was allowed from the DNC server suggests there was no "hack" as we commonly think about it. The spill of DNC information came from the inside, downloaded onto a thumb drive or external hard drive or some other such physically-attached storage device.

Conjecture about conjecture may be interesting reading, but it really amounts to little more than an Alec Baldwin movie.