Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops

[dave8383]

Putin is trying to stick it to us anywhere he can.

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says
The Trump administration has been deliberating for months about what to do about a stunning intelligence assessment.



American troops in Afghanistan have been the target of some Taliban operations backed by Russia, intelligence officials found.

Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times
Charlie Savage Eric Schmitt Michael Schwirtz
By Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt and Michael Schwirtz
June 26, 2020
Updated 4:35 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.

The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.

Islamist militants, or armed criminal elements closely associated with them, are believed to have collected some bounty money, the officials said. Twenty Americans were killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2019, but it was not clear which killings were under suspicion.

The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options — starting with making a diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any step, the officials said.

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says - The New York Times

 

[swing_voter]

I don't think the taliban needed an incentive to kill NATO troops.

 

[dave8383]

I don't think the taliban needed an incentive to kill NATO troops.

Not the point.

 

[Thoreau72]

OMG, the NYT printed this so it must be true, just as when they printed that Russia shot down MH17.

NYT always prints the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! :lol:

 

[Fledermaus]

OMG, the NYT printed this so it must be true, just as when they printed that Russia shot down MH17.

NYT always prints the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! :lol:

Russia shot down MH17.

At least that is what the evidence shows.

Have you EVIDENCE to the contrary?

 

[Godric1970]

typical US B/S .... Russians hate the taliban with a passion they had only fought them for 12 years ffs

meanwhile America was openly arming them and training to kill Soviets ... hypocrisy no ??

 

[Godric1970]

Russia shot down MH17.

At least that is what the evidence shows.

Have you EVIDENCE to the contrary?

says American propaganda the said missile that shot it down was transferred to Ukraine in 1986 .... and Russia hasn't used the type of S-300 missile since around early 2000 as they are extremely beyond there service age .... Ukraine claims it had noperational Buks at the time yet 2 days before the attack a video of a Ukrainian ato convoy contained several buks and the video was pulled from Youtube as it was posted on MP.net days before the attack .... the simple fact was the Plane should not have been overflying a warzone ... and what would Russia have to gain from shooting down a airliner ... and while we are on the subject of shooting down airliners has America still not appologised for shooting down Iranair over Iranian airspace ??

 

[avatar]

says American propaganda the said missile that shot it down was transferred to Ukraine in 1986 .... and Russia hasn't used the type of S-300 missile since around early 2000 as they are extremely beyond there service age .... Ukraine claims it had noperational Buks at the time yet 2 days before the attack a video of a Ukrainian ato convoy contained several buks and the video was pulled from Youtube as it was posted on MP.net days before the attack .... the simple fact was the Plane should not have been overflying a warzone ... and what would Russia have to gain from shooting down a airliner ... and while we are on the subject of shooting down airliners has America still not appologised for shooting down Iranair over Iranian airspace ??

Educate yourself. It's agonizing to read someone who doesn't know what they are talking about or who says things for a different purpose.

MH17: Four charged with shooting down plane over Ukraine - BBC News

 

[Fledermaus]

says American propaganda the said missile that shot it down was transferred to Ukraine in 1986 .... and Russia hasn't used the type of S-300 missile since around early 2000 as they are extremely beyond there service age .... Ukraine claims it had noperational Buks at the time yet 2 days before the attack a video of a Ukrainian ato convoy contained several buks and the video was pulled from Youtube as it was posted on MP.net days before the attack .... the simple fact was the Plane should not have been overflying a warzone ... and what would Russia have to gain from shooting down a airliner ... and while we are on the subject of shooting down airliners has America still not appologised for shooting down Iranair over Iranian airspace ??

Whole Lotta Claiming.

No EVIDENCING.

Russian backed SEPERATISTS bragged about shooting down both an earlier transport aircraft and this one...

And a RUSSIAN launcher was seen skeedaddling out of Donbus after the shooting.

Whether the airliner should have been there is irrelevant.

And your Whataboutism is flawed.

"... the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident .."

And the US has paid much Dinero to the families.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says - The New York Times

Trump has known about this bounty system for months.

:::crickets:::

 

[anatta]

I don't think the taliban needed an incentive to kill NATO troops.

correct. This doesn't even make any sense -we are leaving Afghan.
Trump wants us down to 5k by fall.
Any interference by Russia -including the odious paying of bounties
just inflames our Russiaphobic politicians -who now will no doubt be saying we cant leave Afghan...
NYT is garbage as usual and/or our INTEL agencies are perpetrating yet another "Russian hoax"

 

[dave8383]

just inflames our Russiaphobic politicians -who now will no doubt be saying we cant leave Afghan...

Which is one of the theories about why they might be doing it. To keep us bogged down there.

 

[anatta]

Which is one of the theories about why they might be doing it. To keep us bogged down there.

Russia wants to work to gain commercial ties with Afghanistan.
It cant do that in a war zone -even Taliban rule would be more lucrative for Russia

 

[dave8383]

Russia wants to work to gain commercial ties with Afghanistan.
It cant do that in a war zone -even Taliban rule would be more lucrative for Russia

Look, you don't have any idea what this was or wasn't about, and neither do I. I do however suspect it's true.

 

[iguanaman]

Trump has known about this bounty system for months.

:::crickets:::

Yes. Yet again he sides with Putin. This time it cost Americans their lives. Putin will be laughing out of the other side of his face once Biden is elected

 

[beerftw]

Russia wants to work to gain commercial ties with Afghanistan.
It cant do that in a war zone -even Taliban rule would be more lucrative for Russia

Russia already has commercial ties to afghanistan, they would exist whether america is occupying or not. Also to not russia has been one of the largest backers of the war in afghanistan, they have to date provided intel and logistics support, as well as supported the afghan govt and military. Also to note iran has suppored the afghan invasion, supplyin intel as well, the taliban has to be pretty hated when enemies across hemispheres can all come together and agree on something.

Russia has nothing to gain from such, afghanistan is in their former backyard and close enough to bring radical islam further to russia, it is close enough to their back yard that they supported americas invasion and even admitted their own failure in afghanisan in order to prevent that region from becoming more unstable.


I guess it is claimed by intel this happened, but they claimed not too long ago russia was directly arming the taliban, that one fell flat on it's face as well, as intel is not known to be reliable on what it tels to the american public, since us intel has flat out lied numerous times to the public since the start of the cold war in order to promote policy, what he public is told and what the pentagon and white house are told are often two different things.

 

[iguanaman]

Russia already has commercial ties to afghanistan, they would exist whether america is occupying or not. Also to not russia has been one of the largest backers of the war in afghanistan, they have to date provided intel and logistics support, as well as supported the afghan govt and military. Also to note iran has suppored the afghan invasion, supplyin intel as well, the taliban has to be pretty hated when enemies across hemispheres can all come together and agree on something.

Russia has nothing to gain from such, afghanistan is in their former backyard and close enough to bring radical islam further to russia, it is close enough to their back yard that they supported americas invasion and even admitted their own failure in afghanisan in order to prevent that region from becoming more unstable.


I guess it is claimed by intel this happened, but they claimed not too long ago russia was directly arming the taliban, that one fell flat on it's face as well, as intel is not known to be reliable on what it tels to the american public, since us intel has flat out lied numerous times to the public since the start of the cold war in order to promote policy, what he public is told and what the pentagon and white house are told are often two different things.

Putin is a thug who does not care about human life and has stated many times that the U.S. is his enemy. Putting a bounty on American lives is just the kind of thing Putin would do just like Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers.

Videos suggest Russian government may be arming Taliban - CNN

 

[Evilroddy]

What goes around, comes around. 41 years ago this summer, the US Government began arming Afgan and foreign fighters in Afghanistan to draw the USSR into its own Vietnam-like military morass. The programme called Operation Cyclone worked like a charm and within six months the country was so destabilised that the Soviets were forced to intervene/invade. The result was more than a decade of brutal counter insurgency warfare in which the Soviets lost tens of thousands of lives and the Afghans lost hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million souls. That was the effect of American foreign policy in the late 1970's.

Brzezinski Interview | David N. Gibbs

Now Mr. Putin, with a long memory and a vengeful heart is continuing the policy of settling accounts with America. You reap what you sow. My only sympathies for all three sides in this cauldron of hate are for the innocents caught in the middle of these murderous machinations.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Tangmo]

Iran, China and its BFF Pakistan want Afghanistan while Russia tried an all out military invasion that went bust.

The US has been holding the fort in Afghanistan against each of 'em and all of 'em for decades, even before 9/11. Indeed, US Intelligence know that people who loved 9/11 cackle that the USA got what it deserved (even if it was Saudi attackers and bin Laden was Saudi anyway) and that US Intel are dopes while Putin's KGB and successors are genius.

Americans will ask who lost Afghanistan and the answer will be Trump lost Afghanistan. Indeed Putin assembled and made Trump to do that too while Putin's loyalists everywhere work at it tirelessly.

Afghanistan has a wealth of natural resources in the earth beneath it. Putin would settle for at least some of the take while China-Pakistan and Iran go at it big time. The US strategic partner India is not pleased however, which is one reason India signed off in 2015 to US uses of all of its military bases on request, to include conducting military operations against a third country.

 

[Dannytoro1]

Is the media just now catching on that countries fund the deaths of geopolitical rival's personnel?

 

[anatta]

Russia already has commercial ties to afghanistan, they would exist whether america is occupying or not. Also to not russia has been one of the largest backers of the war in afghanistan, they have to date provided intel and logistics support, as well as supported the afghan govt and military. Also to note iran has suppored the afghan invasion, supplyin intel as well, the taliban has to be pretty hated when enemies across hemispheres can all come together and agree on something.

I did not know Russia has supported the Afghan government with logistic/intel.
I'll have to look at that -and yes they have "commercial ties" but they are limited because of the security situation in Kabul (ex)

It's the same with China who wants in on the mineral wealth (Afghn has lots -including lithium) -but cant really domuch extraction for the same reason

Russia has nothing to gain from such, afghanistan is in their former backyard and close enough to bring radical islam further to russia, it is close enough to their back yard that they supported americas invasion and even admitted their own failure in afghanisan in order to prevent that region from becoming more unstable.

agree. Iran is the real problem- not Russia- in Afghan

I guess it is claimed by intel this happened, but they claimed not too long ago russia was directly arming the taliban, that one fell flat on it's face as well, as intel is not known to be reliable on what it tels to the american public, since us intel has flat out lied numerous times to the public since the start of the cold war in order to promote policy, what he public is told and what the pentagon and white house are told are often two different things.

:yes:

 

[Tangmo]

Is the media just now catching on that countries fund the deaths of geopolitical rival's personnel?

"The media" during the Cold War was owned by Republicans-Conservatives so they focused on Americans believing there was a commie under every bed. That and the exchange of captured spies of each side. And the "missile gap" that never existed.

 

[anatta]

Iran, China and its BFF Pakistan want Afghanistan while Russia tried an all out military invasion that went bust.

The US has been holding the fort in Afghanistan against each of 'em and all of 'em for decades, even before 9/11. Indeed, US Intelligence know that people who loved 9/11 cackle that the USA got what it deserved (even if it was Saudi attackers and bin Laden was Saudi anyway) and that US Intel are dopes while Putin's KGB and successors are genius.

Americans will ask who lost Afghanistan and the answer will be Trump lost Afghanistan. Indeed Putin assembled and made Trump to do that too while Putin's loyalists everywhere work at it tirelessly.




Afghanistan has a wealth of natural resources in the earth beneath it. Putin would settle for at least some of the take while China-Pakistan and Iran go at it big time. The US strategic partner India is not pleased however, which is one reason India signed off in 2015 to US uses of all of its military bases on request, to include conducting military operations against a third country.

Afghan was "lost" when we went in with a nation building strategy
(of which Biden was a chief proponent of "building their middle class")
instead of a counter-terrorism strategy of hit the terrorists without an occupation

I have no idea what you mean otherwise -nobody can /wants to occupy Afghan;
"the grave yard of the empires"

 

[Tangmo]

Afghan was "lost" when we went in with a nation building strategy
(of which Biden was a chief proponent of "building their middle class")
instead of a counter-terrorism strategy of hit the terrorists without an occupation

I have no idea what you mean otherwise -nobody can /wants to occupy Afghan;
"the grave yard of the empires"

The US hasn't ever tried to occupy Afghanistan....or Iraq....nor does the USA want to occupy Syria or North Korea or anywhere else.

Iran wouldn't try an occupation either, knowing their installing a Mullah would do the trick. Put in a popular and charismatic mullah with a trunk full of cash and tents full up with virgins.

China would try to occupy and they'd kill every Afghan to do it.

China needs the land for its resources and to relocate Chinese from their overpopulated and polluted mainland that cannot support the numbers the Chinese now have and going forward. Beijing has relocated Chinese to Tibet and to XinJiang and the CCP Boyz want to put hoards of Chinese everywhere along the still stalled Belt and Road project. Beijing could relocate a couple of hundred million into Afghanistan, easily, doing massive construction at a humongous profit to the Party back home. Plus the wealth from controlling Afghan natural resources that are bountiful.

While what you believe is your business, when you want to fight terrorists over here instead of over there it becomes my business too.

 

[anatta]

The US hasn't ever tried to occupy Afghanistan....or Iraq....nor does the USA want to occupy Syria or North Korea or anywhere else.

occupy/prop up/have a 'tiger by the tail' -use whatever you like.
We went in without a viable exit strategy except nebulous nation building that was doomed to fail.
we should have left ages ago -we should never have gone in heavy -we should have used a "whack a mole" (counterterrorism) strategy

Iran wouldn't try an occupation either, knowing their installing a Mullah would do the trick. Put in a popular and charismatic mullah with a trunk full of cash and tents full up with virgins.

...

China needs the land for its resources and to relocate Chinese from their overpopulated and polluted mainland that cannot support the numbers the Chinese now have and going forward. Beijing has relocated Chinese to Tibet and to XinJiang and the CCP Boyz want to put hoards of Chinese everywhere along the still stalled Belt and Road project. Beijing could relocate a couple of hundred million into Afghanistan, easily, doing massive construction at a humongous profit to the Party back home. Plus the wealth from controlling Afghan natural resources that are bountiful.

a couple million mean not that much to China population density. But I get the Belt Road initiative
I agree on Tibet especially since I am Vajrayana Buddhist

While what you believe is your business, when you want to fight terrorists over here instead of over there it becomes my business too.

I am all fro killing terrorist "over there" - but Afghan is more about killing Taliban
which are no real threat to the USA..to be clear I'm fine with hitting terrorist activities from the air