The New York Times paid for its constructive position towards Russia — Russian Spring investigation, part 2 (PHOTO)

The New York Times paid for its constructive position towards Russia — Russian Spring investigation, part 2 (PHOTO) | Русская весна

In the recent days hundreds FBI officers have been trying to find evidences of Russian cyber attack on The New York Times reporter’s private mail but in vain.

«Rusian Spring» has already witten about Washington’s loud accusations concerning alleged Moscow’s attempts to influence political process in the USA — in particular about accusations against «Russian hackers» for for US DNC network penetration and stealing private data of its most affluent members.

READ ALSO: «The Russian attacked Clinton's campaign headquarters and The New York Times», — why FBI credits «Putin's hackers» with fantastic achievements (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

However the recent story with «cyber attack» on The New York Times is also worth careful attention.

On 24th of August this incident was reported by CNN, another influential American news agency. 

According to news channel reporter Ivan Perez «those penetrations and cyber attacks let us know that Russian intelligence could try to get access to Washington’s organizations connected with US political system.

That is why the hackers don’t limit themselves with conditional attacks on American governmental agencies. Analytial centres have become their target», — the reporter’s analytical skills are just striking.

From that point it becomes quite explainable why American propaganda appointed The New York Times staff as an object for «attack of the Russians».

The second-big newspaper in the country published since 1851 has become one of the most-read editions of the world. According to independent statistic data the newspaper’s web-site is rated as one of the most visted news portals with monthly numbers of 30 million.

No doubts that «The New York Times» is one of the key instruments of social conscience moulding in the US and their publications mean a lot for American political elite especialy on the verge of presidential elections.

It’s quite interesting that «Russian hackers» and «intelligence services» «launched attack» on The New York Times just after the edition published another material dedicated to necessity of abandoning doctrine of preventive nuclear strike on Russia and China.

Authors of the article — a leading advocate for the phased and verified elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide, leader of Global Zero movement, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, four-star general James E. «Hoss» Cartwright and one of the Global Zero founders, research scholar at Princeton University, former Minuteman ICBMlaunch control officer and support officer for the Strategic Air Command’s Airborne Command Post, Bruce G. Blair.

James Cartwright (on the left) and Bruce Blair

Experts are absolutely sure that American preventive nuclear strike doctrine is absolutely outdated and does no correspond to the international  post-cold war reality.

Authors of the article are sure that Washington doesn’t need nuclear weapon for protecting its own and its allies interests. Moreover nuckear weapn implementation would be suicidal for the US. In case nuclear strike is launched against Russia or China Washingtonn would provoke massive response strike and would endanger the mere existence parter states on the European continent.

Alongside with this pure military factor Cartwright and Blair remind of economic factor which is not less important. In particular nuclear arms non-use policy would significantly cut Washington’s expenses.

But that point of view is not shared at White House. Obama’s administration is busy with nuclear potential build-up, preventive nuclear strike doctrine is being assessed as priority, expenses for the strategic assault forces modernization are being constantly increased.

Over the next 30 years Washington is going to build 12 modern nuclear submarines, about 100 strategic bombers, up to 400 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and more than 1000 cruise missiles as well as provide US Armed Forces with substantial number of modernized nuclear warheads and bombs.

US Bureau of the Budgets punlished a report which contains strategic nuclear forces expenses assessements. According to the document it is planned to spend 384 billion of dollars by 2024 года for strategic offensive forces. Independent experts assess summary expenses for US nuclear potential in a sum of 1 trillion dollars

And of course Washington does not need any substantiated reasoning of such efforts and expenses futility, especially when they published in such rspectful and crdible edition. 

So there go «Russian cyber attacks on The New York Times». Well, they “occur” at that particular moment when informational effect is mostly benefitial fo Obama’s administration.

Inn this regard one may assume that US special services really deal not with prevention but with organization of such cyber attacks which are then passed off as Russian hackers scheming. The authorities are hoping to solve several tasks with the helpp of such manipulations: 

— first and foremost, to corect editorial policy of The New York Times by persuading editors that “Russian threat” is real so it’s unwise to provide platform for experts who do not share anti-Russian approach and callng US authorities to contructive and not confrontational policy;

— secondly to enhance anti-Russian sentiment in American society;

— and finally in the third place, to prepare base for striking back. It is notable that in The New York Times article devoted to the so called “Russian attacks», Obama’s administrattion representative mentioned that POTUS would “have to decide whether the evidence of Russian responsibility for the breach is strong enough to warran an American response. If so, he would also hate to determine that response would take the form of quiet warnings, economic sanctions or even counterattack of some kind”.

So America’s actions remind chess player’s attempt to move not only his figures but rival’s figures to create advantageous disposition and prepare stepping stone for attack — first informational and then may be real.

Moscow has chosen the only possible strategy which is proven to be right: not to respond Western accusations and provocations but to buid independent political line and forge mutually benefitial economical and political partnership with leading regional states. So that the efforts to isolate Moscow with sanctions would strike estern countries other than Russia.

Russian Spring expert group