Fiona Hill previously served in the Trump administration as a top advisor on Russia and Europe. She is a harsh critic of President Putin.
She joined the Trump administration in March 2017 and resigned before the July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone call.
She testified again Thursday but has no first-hand knowledge of the call or anything. But she has a lot of opinions. One concerns the complete innocence of Ukraine in 2016 despite evidence to the contrary.
“I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary and that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked us in 2016,” ex-NSC Russia expert Fiona Hill says in opening testimony.
One doesn’t preclude the other but she seems to think so.
Hill is a member of the left-wing Brookings Institute. Ukraine did have a role in the 2016 election interference, and she has to know that. She is only offering opinion and is another operative.
During her testimony, Fiona Hill issued a dramatic warning about Russians gearing up to “repeat their interference in the 2020 election,” claiming, “We are running out of time to stop them.” In her warning, Hill called on Republicans to stop spreading conspiracies that help the Russians to undermine our elections.”
“Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them.”
Fiona Hill urges Republicans to stop spreading conspiracies that help the Russians undermine our elections. pic.twitter.com/5awm2BurP9
— Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) November 21, 2019
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
HILL’S REFUSAL DOESN’T MAKE IT SO
However, they did interfere, and if she doesn’t know that, she should.
Veteran investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson dredged this up from Politico:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative [Chalupa] who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
It was the Obama administration that allowed the interference. It happened under his watch, but Democrats have successfully re-written the script because they have the media to provide cover.
Then-President Obama made a point of saying he told President Putin to “cut it out.” His response demonstrated weakness.
SHE’S WORRIED ABOUT UKRAINE’S SECURITY AND NOT GETTING MILITARY AID
Dr. Fiona Hill told the impeachment inquiry that she was concerned that a hold on aid might endanger Ukraine’s security.
The ice queen was on board with disarming them under Barack Obama.
Fiona Didn’t Feel That Way in 2015 When Obama Ruled
In 2015, Fiona Hill penned an op-ed in The Washington Post, arguing against the United States giving military aid to the Ukrainians, as a way to maintain our relations with Russia, referring to them as one of our “allies.”
“The United States is on a dangerous trajectory in its relations with Russia, a nuclear superpower that believes itself to be under direct threat. Several former U.S. officials and top think-tank experts released a report calling on the West to provide military support to Ukraine. (Two of them, our colleagues at the Brookings Institution, expanded on the report a week ago on this page [“Ukraine needs the West’s help now”].) The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladimir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.”
“We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.”
“Anyone who argues that Putin’s wartime rhetoric is a bluff is making a very risky assumption,” Hill warned.
She Was Afraid of Losing Our Allies?
“We face a huge challenge in devising a strategy to deal with Russia that does not fuel this escalatory cycle and puts Ukraine on another path. We also need to draw bright lines around transatlantic unity and work to preserve it. It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right.”
Russia was never an ally in the last administration.
That was terrible advice. Fiona was Putin’s best friend as he took over Crimea and went to war with Ukraine.
wpDiscuz
