Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

[Bradskii]

To put it bluntly...I don't care.

Fair enough. You don't have to argue when holding that position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Care to elaborate on which narratives those are?

Because you'll have to back that up with something if you're going to suggest that
- A Pulitzer prize winning journalist (known for meticulous attention to detail)
- A senior professor for Columbia University and the head of the department on their foreign policy studies (and arguably one of the most cited international relations professors in the last 2 decades)
- An economist, who the NY Times once referred to as "the most important economist of our generation" and a Centennial medal winner recipient from Harvard

(all of whom are fairly liberal btw, and were critical of republican administrations)

And often with some of these types, that is part of the problem. They become too enamored with the "US is wrong" narrative.

...were all just duped by the poorly worded postings of a Russian bot farm on Facebook, then as the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

It is doubtful that their problems have anything to do with Pregozin's disinformation operation.

Because to me, it seems like "There's some smart guys, who looked at all the information, and came up with a different opinion than some of the other smart guys" is being conflated for "They must be Russian Agents".

(I'll let Pekka at "vatnik soup" do the leg work to put it all together.)

Sachs has been serially wrong about stuff for years. I wasn't sure what his problem was but after review, he seems obsessed with blaming the CIA for everything. I first noticed his claims on *this* topic when he tried blaming the US for the Nord Stream sabotage (along with some famous, elder US journalist I forget the name of)

Sachs

(Of course I also was reminded in this "research" that he has also "blamed" the US for inciting the Maidan protests and the ouster of Yankovitch. (A straight up russian narrative.)

Greenwald is another one that seems to have internalized the "USA is the bad guy" narrative in international affairs. I first noticed his covering for russia during his attack on the story of the troll farm attack on our election as "Russiagate". Since the war started he has pushed the "Ukrainian nazi" narrative (despite having a bit of a "nazi-problem" of his own) and "Ukranian bio-lab" narrative.

Mearsheimer's ideology seems to be nothing more than great powers should decide what happens to the smaller countries. Been excusifying for Putin's wielding of power for years. He's also been serially wrong about the progress of the war from the beginning. (Probably due to his obsession with "great powers" like russia.)

John Mearsheimer | Vatnik Soup

But just out of curiosity, is there any position (no matter well-educated) that concludes "we shouldn't just endless send money and arms to Ukraine" that wouldn't get branded as "Russian propagandist" by the modern-day standards?

Of course there are. There are plenty of appeasers, isolationists, etc. These three are at minimum knowingly or unquestioningly propagating obvious propaganda. I don't personally care if they are agents or useful idiots.

 

[Bradskii]

If it's a conflict between Cuba and Venezuela...

Cuba is a great example of where you can win friends and influence people. Cubans are desperate to join the ranks of the capitalists, just like the Chinese were. From here: 2016 Cuban Public Opinion | NORC at the University of Chicago

'The survey also revealed that Cubans wanted to see fundamental changes to the economy, with a majority saying there should be more private enterprise, and many revealing a personal goal of owning their own business. Additionally, fully 95 percent prioritized a high level of economic growth as an important goal for the country, and more than two-thirds viewed competition in the marketplace as a positive force for this growth.'

Do something positive for the country and the population will be singing your praises. Mention it to the guy in the White House. I'm sure they'll let him have a couple of acres on the Malecón for a casino or two.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Cuba is a great example of where you can win friends and influence people. Cubans are desperate to join the ranks of the capitalists, just like the Chinese were. From here:

'The survey also revealed that Cubans wanted to see fundamental changes to the economy, with a majority saying there should be more private enterprise, and many revealing a personal goal of owning their own business. Additionally, fully 95 percent prioritized a high level of economic growth as an important goal for the country, and more than two-thirds viewed competition in the marketplace as a positive force for this growth.'

Do something positive for the country and the population will be singing your praises. Mention it to the guy in the White House. I'm sure they'll let him have a couple of acres on the Malecón for a casino or two.

Not to mention that Maduro is clearly not popular in Venezuela anymore. (Cheating on an election to stay in power is usually a big clue.)

 

[Bradskii]

Cheating on an election to stay in power is usually a big clue.

Something tells me that there'd be a significant number of people in the US that wouldn't have a problem with bthat.

 

[Pommer]

Something tells me that there'd be a significant number of people in the US that wouldn't have a problem with bthat.

21 months until the next [scheduled] elections!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cuba is a great example of where you can win friends and influence people. Cubans are desperate to join the ranks of the capitalists, just like the Chinese were. From here: 2016 Cuban Public Opinion | NORC at the University of Chicago

'The survey also revealed that Cubans wanted to see fundamental changes to the economy, with a majority saying there should be more private enterprise, and many revealing a personal goal of owning their own business. Additionally, fully 95 percent prioritized a high level of economic growth as an important goal for the country, and more than two-thirds viewed competition in the marketplace as a positive force for this growth.'

Do something positive for the country and the population will be singing your praises. Mention it to the guy in the White House. I'm sure they'll let him have a couple of acres on the Malecón for a casino or two.

For that, we don't have to spend money making fake social media platforms to trick them in to getting themselves into a bloody coup attempt.

We could simply lift the embargos.

 

[Longing to kneel]

If you claim to care about the less fortunate in the world, what Trump/Musk are doing is the antithesis of that.


Turmoil inside USAID: DOGE reps take over offices, senior officials placed on leave

Amid ongoing turmoil inside the U.S. Agency for International Development, sources told ABC News that Department of Government Efficiency staffers have moved to take over offices, escalating tensions as more senior staff members are locked out of internal systems, additional employees are placed on administrative leave, and the agency’s newly appointed chief of staff resigned as the Elon Musk-led agency works to assert control over the USAID, which oversees foreign aid, disaster relief and international development programs.

On Friday night, a dramatic scene played out when a group of individuals who identified themselves as State Department employees and DOGE representatives arrived at the USAID offices in the Ronald Reagan Building and demanded immediate access to every office, according to sources familiar with the incident.

After initially being denied entry, the group told security guards that if they were not granted entry, they would call the U.S. Marshals Service, sources said. The guards ultimately complied, the source said.

As reports emerged over clashes inside USAID, Musk unloaded a barrage of attacks against the agency across his social media platform, X.

"USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die," Musk wrote in one post.

When shown Musk’s posts on X targeting USAID, a senior official for the agency told ABC News, “The warp-speed of this mafia-like takeover has shaken USAID staff to the core.”

The group gained access to USAID’s internal systems on Friday, including the agency’s website and several critical databases, according to sources familiar with the matter. Among the systems was the Development Evaluation Clearinghouse, which houses reports on past and ongoing USAID programs, as well as the Development Information Solution (DIS) -- a system used to track congressionally mandated and performance-related data for all USAID programs worldwide.

Sources also said that the group also seized control of a software system called Phoenix, a program for USAID's financial management system used to track and manage the agency’s budgeting, accounting and financial transactions. The system was down over the weekend, sources said, which has sent shockwaves across contractors for USAID who are fearful they won't be paid for their work. Major firms that manage global supply chains, including those for initiatives like antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and other essential medicines to combat HIV/AIDS, rely on Phoenix.

Sources told ABC News the Trump administration’s foreign aid cuts are being overseen by Peter Marocco, a campaign ally in the Office of Foreign Assistance who was reportedly caught on camera inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

​

The Website Vanished

It's been a tumultuous weekend for USAID — the U.S. Agency for International Development. On Saturday sometime after 3 a.m., its website went down, according to the Internet Archive, a nonprofit group that tracks web pages.

The deletion of the website and social media accounts alongside significant layoffs and the near-total suspension of work is an effort to dismantle USAID entirely, Jeremy Konyndyk told NPR. Konyndyk led disaster relief under Obama and the COVID and mpox responses under Biden at USAID. He's currently president of the aid group Refugees International.

"They're trying to eliminate the agency," Konyndyk said.

"They have announced no plan and given no rationale — they're just taking everything down," Konyndyk said. "They're trying to do it behind the scenes rather than openly," he said, so they don't have to "defend what they're doing" in announcements to the public.

The consequences of a diminished or erased USAID would be dire, Konyndyk said, noting that one key component of its programs is keeping outbreaks and epidemics from reaching U.S. shores.

USAID is "enduring an unlawful shutdown, purge, and dismantling," wrote Dr. Atul Gawande, former assistant administrator for global health at USAID, in a post on Bluesky on Sunday.

The dissolution would extend beyond "the unlawful destruction of USAID's life-saving work," Gawande told NPR. "USAID has become the place where the administration is demonstrating and developing its playbook for eviscerating other targeted agencies."

The web shutdown comes in the wake of both the stop work order and the furloughing or laying off of hundreds of USAID employees. In his first two weeks in office, the Trump administration placed senior leadership at USAID on leave and laid off or furloughed more than 400 contractors in the agency's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and also laid off hundreds more in its Global Health Bureau.

Soros and all the higher ups in USAID which I now call ISAID (ISIS) should all be tried for treason for directly funding the enemies of America.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Fair enough. You don't have to argue when holding that position.

What I meant by that, was I don't care if Laos or Vietnam is getting funding from China, that's not an excuse for us to try "out-bid" them, because evidence in other intervention efforts have shown that doesn't work when the two factions are closer to each other (culturally speaking), they'll end up having an inclination to want to side with them anyway.


We spent years and billions trying to use both the carrot and the stick (and everything in between) with regards to Afghanistan.

They handed it right back over to the "bad guys" literally the day after we left...and now the bad guys have a bunch of our stuff.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And often with some of these types, that is part of the problem. They become too enamored with the "US is wrong" narrative.

It is doubtful that their problems have anything to do with Pregozin's disinformation operation.

(I'll let Pekka at "vatnik soup" do the leg work to put it all together.)

Sachs has been serially wrong about stuff for years. I wasn't sure what his problem was but after review, he seems obsessed with blaming the CIA for everything. I first noticed his claims on *this* topic when he tried blaming the US for the Nord Stream sabotage (along with some famous, elder US journalist I forget the name of)

Sachs

(Of course I also was reminded in this "research" that he has also "blamed" the US for inciting the Maidan protests and the ouster of Yankovitch. (A straight up russian narrative.)

Greenwald is another one that seems to have internalized the "USA is the bad guy" narrative in international affairs. I first noticed his covering for russia during his attack on the story of the troll farm attack on our election as "Russiagate". Since the war started he has pushed the "Ukrainian nazi" narrative (despite having a bit of a "nazi-problem" of his own) and "Ukranian bio-lab" narrative.

Mearsheimer's ideology seems to be nothing more than great powers should decide what happens to the smaller countries. Been excusifying for Putin's wielding of power for years. He's also been serially wrong about the progress of the war from the beginning. (Probably due to his obsession with "great powers" like russia.)

John Mearsheimer | Vatnik Soup



Of course there are. There are plenty of appeasers, isolationists, etc. These three are at minimum knowingly or unquestioningly propagating obvious propaganda. I don't personally care if they are agents or useful idiots.

With regards to "mirroring narratives", isn't that to be expected when you have two factions fighting each other, and people all the way over here in the US are picking which side they want to support?

For instance, if you look at the Israel/Palestine conflict.

You'll undoubtedly find instances where people here in the US are mirroring some of the narratives of either Netanyahu or Hamas (depending on which side of the conflict they align with)

So with regards to this conflict:
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

The narrative of "Russia was provoked by Western leaders going back on their word" isn't merely "Kremlin propaganda", it's a reasonable theory.

Pekka Kallioniemi, a professor who has no background in international politics and is a member of the NAFO - an online poop-posting group (I can't say the actual term) and meming group aimed at gaining online support for Ukraine and calling out who they feel are Russian sympathizers (which basically includes everyone who takes the "we should stay out of it position", shouldn't be viewed as "the" expert on this.

If we're going use the "mirroring narratives" standard, then by that standard the members of "NAFO" are mirroring the same sentiments said by Senator Lindsey Graham. Does that mean Pekka is either an "agent of the military industrial complex" or a "useful idiot for Neo-con war hawks"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trump won because democrat and independent voters stayed home. Biden got millions of more votes than Harris. The best theory I have heard is that millions of people were just complacent. Things were going reasonably OK, so why bother...

I think civics education has failed in our country, people don't understand that just because things are going OK, our democracy's legitimacy still depends on their active participation. Otherwise, you're ceding power to people who will decide for you, and without your interests at heart

"Complacency because everything seems to be going okay" only describes a sub-set of the "non-participant" crowd.

There were a large percentage of people (myself included), who opted to not vote for either candidate in 2024. I still went to the polls that day and voted for state and local stuff, but I opted to not do a "lesser of two evils" vote for the 3rd straight presidential election.

If any entity was complacent, it was the DNC.

Thinking that "we can just throw any old person up there, or run on stances that are unpopular with over half the country, and you have a civic duty to back whoever we put up there, because Trump unique threat, save democracy, etc.. etc.." would indicate that the DNC perhaps got a little too cocky. People have heard those talking points ad nauseum for over a decade. At a certain point, they'll need to have a little more substance than "Not-MAGA, so you should vote for us".

 

[Hans Blaster]

With regards to "mirroring narratives", isn't that to be expected when you have two factions fighting each other, and people all the way over here in the US are picking which side they want to support?

For instance, if you look at the Israel/Palestine conflict.

You'll undoubtedly find instances where people here in the US are mirroring some of the narratives of either Netanyahu or Hamas (depending on which side of the conflict they align with)

Let's not bring in more irrelevance.

So with regards to this conflict:
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

The narrative of "Russia was provoked by Western leaders going back on their word" isn't merely "Kremlin propaganda", it's a reasonable theory.

It isn't and the direct words of *russian* leadership and propagandists tell us so. It is russian imperialism driven by putin.

Pekka Kallioniemi, a professor who has no background in international politics and is a member of the NAFO - an online poop-posting group (I can't say the actual term) and meming group aimed at gaining online support for Ukraine and calling out who they feel are Russian sympathizers (which basically includes everyone who takes the "we should stay out of it position", shouldn't be viewed as "the" expert on this.

If we're going use the "mirroring narratives" standard, then by that standard the members of "NAFO" are mirroring the same sentiments said by Senator Lindsey Graham. Does that mean Pekka is either an "agent of the military industrial complex" or a "useful idiot for Neo-con war hawks"?

Pekka was a convenient collator of information. I merely used his compilation.

 

[DaisyDay]

Speaking of dying:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2025-02-12/trump-administration-battles-employee-lawsuit-to-block-dismantling-of-usaid

Sec. Rubio should visit the Congo.

 

[Bradskii]

What I meant by that, was I don't care if Laos or Vietnam is getting funding from China...

Then again, there's nothing for you to argue against. Pull all aid. Leave it to others. Exactly what Trump is doing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It isn't and the direct words of *russian* leadership and propagandists tell us so. It is russian imperialism driven by putin.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Broadly speaking, his goals fall into three baskets: weakening or disrupting Ukraine’s ties with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), stymieing Ukrainian nationalism, and expanding territorial gains.

From the outset, Putin has embedded his issues regarding Ukraine in the larger question of NATO’s role in Europe. He has long railed against the alliance’s expansion and potential Ukrainian membership as a grave threat to Russia’s security, as well as a betrayal of promises at the end of the Cold War not to extend NATO “an inch” eastward. Russian draft treaties on security guarantees released in the run-up to the invasion focused on NATO. The three key demands in these treaties were an end to NATO expansion, a prohibition on the deployment of offensive weapons along Russia’s borders, and the withdrawal of NATO infrastructure back to the lines of 1997.


So, while there's certainly an "imperialism" component at play, the major organizations focusing on foreign relations acknowledge the West and NATO "going back on their word" as a one of the legs on the 3-legged stool of "Why Putin went to war"

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Broadly speaking, his goals fall into three baskets: weakening or disrupting Ukraine’s ties with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), stymieing Ukrainian nationalism, and expanding territorial gains.

From the outset, Putin has embedded his issues regarding Ukraine in the larger question of NATO’s role in Europe. He has long railed against the alliance’s expansion and potential Ukrainian membership as a grave threat to Russia’s security, as well as a betrayal of promises at the end of the Cold War not to extend NATO “an inch” eastward. Russian draft treaties on security guarantees released in the run-up to the invasion focused on NATO. The three key demands in these treaties were an end to NATO expansion, a prohibition on the deployment of offensive weapons along Russia’s borders, and the withdrawal of NATO infrastructure back to the lines of 1997.


So, while there's certainly an "imperialism" component at play, the major organizations focusing on foreign relations acknowledge the West and NATO "going back on their word" as a one of the legs on the 3-legged stool of "Why Putin went to war"

IT's a three legged stool of imperialism. The "other two" are interfering with the soveriengty of Ukraine, which is part of their propaganda -- that there is no such "real" country as Ukraine.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

IT's a three legged stool of imperialism. The "other two" are interfering with the soveriengty of Ukraine, which is part of their propaganda -- that there is no such "real" country as Ukraine.

Do you see any parallels between that situation and the situation between China and Taiwan?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you see any parallels between that situation and the situation between China and Taiwan?

Sure. Taiwan isn't part of China either.

 

[stevil]

From the outset, Putin has embedded his issues regarding Ukraine in the larger question of NATO’s role in Europe. He has long railed against the alliance’s expansion and potential Ukrainian membership as a grave threat to Russia’s security

NATO isn't a threat to Russian security, NATO is a reactionary force. It defends rather than attacks.
NATO is however a threat to Russian plans of expansion by force.

If there was no NATO, Russia would still have invaded Ukraine. Just like Trump, Putin wants Ukraine resources.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure. Taiwan isn't part of China either.

Okay, so then why the disparate responses to the two situations? (not from you personally, just in general)

The same kinds of people (celebs, politicians, etc...) who slapped Ukrainian bumper stickers on their cars, went out of their way to let everyone know how "pro-Ukraine" they were, were the same kinds of people who ran cover for China and/or gave graveling apologies for "accidentally calling Taiwan a country"


What I'm talking about is the types of stuff like
Celebs John Cena - who had a Ukrainian flag in his social media profile, gave an apology to the nation of China (in Mandarin no less) for accidentally calling Taiwan a country... Ironic that the word kowtow originated in the Chinese language.

The clothing brand "The Gap" issued an apology after selling a T-shirt with a map of China that did not include Taiwan & Tibet.

Mercedez Benz issued a public apology to China after quoting the Dalai Lama in an ad.

A slew of people in Hollywood and the NBA refused to condemn China due to not wanting to disrupt any business deals in the Chinese markets. (with regards to the situations involving both Taiwan, and their treatment of Uyghurs)


That leaves us with two possible conclusions (neither is particularly flattering)

1) People leverage "Hooray Ukraine/Boooo Russia" expressions as a self-serving way to signal how anti-Trump they are due to the narrative that "Russia helped Trump win"

2) The even less flattering and shallower one, people will stand up against foreign autocratic governments as long as it doesn't jeopardize any business interests.