Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Kuala Lumpur today. Against the backdrop of multiple questions to him about the outcome of their discussion, let us first discuss the problem being avoided.
In the mind of President Putin, and in the growing awareness of the American electorate, the President of the United States does not control the Intelligence Community. It is entirely possible for the USIC to take America deeper toward war despite the President and people of America not wanting that to happen. Putin is simply prepared for that outcome.
This reality explains a dynamic where President Trump engages with President Putin in an effort to stop the war in Ukraine, yet President Putin continues the war in Ukraine; because ultimately he knows President Trump does not control the elements that facilitate the Ukraine military.
People struggle to accept this dynamic. However, I would remind everyone that right now YOU are paying for the entire government of Ukraine to exist. Including the Ukraine govt payrolls, retirement benefits, healthcare and operational budget of Ukraine overall.
Americans do not want to pay for that. President Trump does not want to pay for that. Yet, here we are, paying for that.
The same inertia process applies to the literal Ukraine war and conflict with Russia.
You might not want it. President Trump might not want it. Yet, here again we are providing weapons, intelligence, satellite communication, personnel and systems for the war.
This is the reality of the situation regardless of your/my willingness to accept it. This reality is what President Vladimir Putin discusses and accepts.
The problem for President Trump is not that this reality exists; the bigger political problem for President Trump is that people are increasingly becoming aware of this reality.
Now, many people are recently arguing against this reality. However, these are the same voices who previously stated President Trump could unilaterally declassify information within the same silo process that is designed to control his declassification authority. Empirically, and in reality, these voices are wrong.
Something needs to change. That something is generally that President Trump has to either: 1. admit publicly he does not control the U.S. Intelligence Community (very ugly); or 2. take control of that intelligence community (even uglier).
In this element of consideration you would be well served to insert the recent experience of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard; who, intentionally or not, opened the pandora’s box containing this issue, and look what happened to her.
There was a reason DNI Tulsi Gabbard sat silently recently in the very public Cabinet meeting. I will return to this in a moment.
♦ President Trump does not have control over the USIC activity in Ukraine. If he did, he would have been fully aware of the drone strikes against the Russian strategic bomber fleet before it was carried out. By his own admission he did not know.
Prior to the increased attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin correctly noted that Ukraine does not have the military capability, the satellite communication and guidance systems to continue carrying out strikes deep into Russia. Therefore, from the perspective of Putin, as these strikes continued they were facilitated by NATO. Ergo, NATO was factually attacking Russia, albeit using Ukraine as the proxy for it. Again, Putin with clear eyes on reality.
Into this pretending/non-pretending world, in a remarkable statement of candor we also saw Secretary of State Marco Rubio accurately -and honestly- say five months ago the Ukraine conflict was a proxy war for the USA against Russia.
Now, fast forward to today. The reality is the proxy war, Rubio outlined so eloquently, continues. Simultaneously, neither he nor President Trump has any control over the USIC that is carrying it out. Yet, Secretary Rubio has to sit down with Foreign Minister Lavrov and either (a) be honest, or (b) pretend.
Following the meeting, here is Rubio’s remarks. You decide:
[Rubio brought up a good point. Germany, UK, France and Spain all have Patriot battery’s they can spare. However, they are refusing to give them to Ukraine. I wonder why.]
Back to the point – Again, President Trump and Secretary Rubio seem to have two options: 1. Admit their lack of control, or 2. Take control.
♦ The first option is obviously the easiest, admit the President of the United States does not have full control over the U.S. Intelligence Community. However, that comes with severe ramifications.
Flip it. Look at the dynamic from the outside. Imagine Emmanuel Macron or Abdel Fattah al-Sisi saying they no longer have operational control over their intelligence agencies, and those agencies have gone rogue. What would you think of France or Egypt?
Now imagine if the President of the USA made such a statement. How would the world react? What would happen to the dollar? How weak would President Trump look?
Thus, there is extreme pressure to maintain a premise.
Think about the recent experience of DNI Gabbard, and accept those types of consequences are exactly what the USIC rely upon to maintain their power and control. Open, even briefly, the Pandora’s Box that hides reality and massive alarms are immediately triggered to isolate, ridicule and marginalize the truth teller.
The people around President Trump have a vested interest in keeping that Pandora’s Box closed. Which brings us to the second option…. ‘Take control.’
♦ Factually, no one knows what “taking control” would look like.
Who exactly would enforce compliance and bring the USIC to heel? Tulsi was burned just nibbling around the edge of it. What would be the reaction from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and more importantly what would be the response from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; ironically the former silo chaired by Rubio.
Would President Donald Trump reach the same fate as President John F Kennedy? Perhaps not, if a very public process was instituted where President Trump said exactly what the situation was. However, that approach simply goes back to point #1.
See the problem?
Let’s talk about Tulsi Gabbard’s silence at the cabinet meeting, and role play for a moment as a Gordian Knot cutter.
Imagine a journalist who says: “Mr. President, thank you for the transparency you provide in allowing us to be with you and your cabinet during these meetings. If I may ask a question with a brief follow up?”
Question: “Mr President, do you feel you have full control over the intelligence agencies of our government?“
[Anticipated Response]: “I think so, at least I would hope that is the case” (or something similar).
Question: “Thank you. With that in mind, what specifically provides you with the sense of assurance you do have full control over the USIC?” … AND… “Would you also permit DNI Tulsi Gabbard to answer that question?“
Imagine what would follow that brief line of questioning. If the imaginary journalist were so inclined, he/she could also follow up with simple examples, like President Trump having no prior knowledge of the Ukraine drone strikes into Russia etc.
My point is that absent of President Trump taking some action that begins the process -against the interests and advice of his protective advisors- it is going to take an external element in this dynamic to trigger a change in the situation; for better, for uglier, or for worse.
The people around the office of the President are not going to want to touch this issue…
American Buddhist Net 