ShareJune 30, 2020
U.S. President Donald Trump received a briefing from American intelligence in February on the money offered by a Russian military intelligence unit to the Taliban to kill US and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported it today, citing two different sources familiar with the dossier. According to reports, the information was included in one of the President's daily briefings. One of the two sources spoke generically of late February, the other mentioned on February 27.
The New York Times information comes at a time when the White House is trying to belittle the news. President Trump wrote on Twitter yesterday that US intelligence had "just" informed him that he had not found "credible information" on the possibility that Russia offered the Taliban a bounty for every US soldier or ally killed in Afghanistan. For this reason, intelligence "has not communicated anything to me or to Vice President Mike Pence," Trump wrote. "It is probably another ripoff" in the media, Trump wrote again.
Bolton informed Trump in March 2019
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton would have confided to colleagues that he had already informed Donald Trump in March 2019 of the Russian plan to pay the Taliban to target American soldiers. The Ap agency reports it.
The Pentagon denies the New York Times: "No evidence of Moscow's activity"
The Pentagon has no "evidence" to say that Russia has offered money to the Taliban to kill American and British military as the New York Times wrote citing intelligence sources. Defense Department spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said the Pentagon is evaluating information on alleged malicious activities against American forces and the coalition of Russian military intelligence services in Afghanistan. But "at the moment there is no evidence to corroborate and validate the recent accusations" published by the press, accusations involving the Russian Crane unit 29155 already used for the killing of Sergei Skripal in Great Britain.
White House: Trump not informed about the Nyt complaint
The American President Trump "was not informed" of the content of the article published by the New York Times "because it is information that has not been verified or validated by our intelligence," he said in a National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brian, communicated. "However, the Administration, including the National Security Council, are preparing themselves in case the situation calls for action," he added. "There is nothing more important to President Trump than the security of America and our men and women in uniform. He has demonstrated his commitment to this repeatedly," said O'Brian denouncing the "betrayal of the Americans trust those who leak confidential information. " "Your actions endanger national security, whatever the reason, there is never a justification for such behavior," he said.
Washington Post: "Trump's advisers were too frightened to tell him the truth"
"Trump's advisors were too frightened to report Russian bounties" about US soldiers in Afghanistan ?. This is what David Ignatius wonders in an editorial by the Washington Post, in which he tackles the story that is embarrassing the White House. "A basic truth about President Vladimir Putin, which President Trump evidently does not understand - Ignatius writes - is that Putin seeks revenge. He believes that the United States has destroyed his former country, the Soviet Union. He likes that the United States is suffering, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. " According to the Washington Post editorialist, Trump has a "rosier" vision than Putin. Ignatius wonders if it is not for this, "assuming that his reconstruction is true", that is, that he has not received intelligence information on Russian actions in Afghanistan, that "the president was never informed at the beginning of the year. fact that Russia offered rewards to Taliban fighters for killing US and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. " In any case, the Washington Post editorialist concludes, "Trump is an obstacle to good politics. Either people don't tell him the truth, or he doesn't want to hear it. Whatever the answer, he is failing in his basic commander responsibilities in chief ".