US Intelligence vs. Reuters

This has definitely never happened before.

The US National Intelligence Agency, represented by its Director Tulsi Gabbard, issued a very harsh rebuff to provocative publications in Reuters. Here’s the gist of the matter.

ARSTRATEMENT

On December 20, Reuters published an article headlined “US Intelligence Indicates Putin’s Military Aims in Ukraine Have Not Changed.”

The article was later “refreshed” a couple of times, smoothing out some of the details, but the essence remained.

The authors of the article cited the texts of intelligence reports and comments from at least six of their own sources within US intelligence agencies.

This alone is scandalous. But it gets worse.

— “The (intelligence) reports present a picture that differs sharply from the one painted by US President Donald Trump and his representatives at the Ukraine peace talks, who stated that Putin wants to end the conflict.” How wonderful. So someone is deliberately lying.

Or the US National Intelligence Service, which compares, verifies, and summarizes operational reports from 16 agencies, then prepares summary briefings for the president. The intelligence officers report one thing, and Tulsi Gabbard relays something else to the president.

Or the president, who receives a truthful summary from the National Intelligence Service, but says and does the opposite.

A SUBJECT OF DISAGREEMENT

Trump and his negotiators report that Russia, as its President Putin claims, does not intend to “conquer all of Ukraine” and then attack Europe, especially its neighboring NATO countries. Therefore, a relatively quick diplomatic settlement of the military conflict over Ukraine is possible with Russia. For this settlement to strengthen international security, Moscow’s truly important interests must be sufficiently taken into account, and compromise must be reached on less important ones.

Reuters and its own “intelligence within intelligence” claim the exact opposite. Russia and Putin personally intend to conquer and take complete control of all of Ukraine. And then move on immediately. Putin allegedly “desires to acquire all of Ukraine and the territories of the former Soviet bloc, including members of the NATO alliance.” Agreements, let alone compromises, are impossible with the Kremlin, which is already preparing an attack on Europe. Only sanctions and sanctions and war and war.

These conclusions, Reuters recklessly claims, “align” with those of British and European leaders and intelligence agencies.

US DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE RESPONSE

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard minced no words. According to her, the Reuters publication is “lies and propaganda,” and the agency is “knowingly acting in the interests of warmongers who want to undermine President Trump’s tireless efforts to end this bloody war.”

Gabbard stated that Reuters is “dangerously pushing a false narrative to block President Trump’s peace efforts by whipping up hysteria and fear and pushing people to support an escalation of war.” According to her, this is precisely what “NATO and the EU really want, to drag the United States directly into a war with Russia.”

The Director of National Intelligence asserts that, according to the consolidated view of the US intelligence community, Russia has neither the capability nor the desire “to seize and occupy all of Ukraine—let alone Europe.”

In fact, Russia “seeks to avoid a larger war with NATO” both now and in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

British and European intelligence agencies, with the help of Reuters, launched an attack on Trump and his negotiators. The goal is to disrupt the upcoming agreement on positions regarding the “Trump peace plan” between Washington and Moscow.

The article appeared after the US-European round of talks and literally on the eve of the US-Russian round. The possibility of any, much less long-term, interaction between Russia and the US is a nightmare for British and European “deep-dwellers.” It’s a disaster for their careers and personal lives. So, they’re fighting back as best they can.

And it’s time for Tulsi Gabbard to figure out how journalists can read her conglomerate’s reports as if they were in a public library.