By John Q. Hosedrinker 
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot expressed bewilderment over reports that U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has directed a cessation of offensive cyber operations against Russia. This decision reportedly impacts U.S. Cyber Command’s activities. The halt comes despite the European Union’s ongoing experience of frequent Russian cyberattacks. News outlets confirmed the reported stand-down order from Hegseth.
Read the original article here
France’s purported difficulty in understanding the US halt on cyber operations against Russia stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the current American political landscape. It’s not a matter of complex geopolitical strategy or nuanced diplomatic maneuvering; the situation is far more straightforward. The prevailing sentiment is that the current US administration is deeply compromised, essentially acting as a puppet regime controlled by Russian interests.
This perception isn’t rooted in conjecture but in the widely held belief that the president is a Russian asset, beholden to Russian directives. This alleged subservience explains the seemingly inexplicable decisions, including the cessation of cyber operations against Russia. It’s posited that the US is actively aiding Russia, not opposing it, which explains the bewilderment of allies like France.
The argument goes that this isn’t simply a case of poor judgment or misguided policy; it’s a direct consequence of Russian influence within the highest echelons of power. The silence surrounding alleged Russian interference in past elections, coupled with the president’s consistent alignment with Russian interests, only strengthens this narrative. This alleged complicity extends beyond the president, with concerns raised about broader Russian influence within the ruling party.
The lack of any significant pushback against these alleged actions further reinforces the perception of a compromised government. The purported inaction from oversight bodies and the lack of widespread public outcry suggest a deep-seated problem, extending far beyond the president himself. The implication is that significant portions of the US government, including key intelligence and security agencies, may also be compromised or complicit.
This perception is further solidified by the ongoing flow of sensitive information to potentially adversarial interests, raising serious national security concerns. The alleged transfer of classified documents adds to the narrative of a compromised government actively undermining its own interests and those of its allies. This scenario is seen as a complete betrayal of long-standing alliances and principles, leaving France and other nations understandably perplexed and concerned.
The prevailing view is that the US is no longer a reliable partner, given the apparent level of Russian influence. This alleged sellout is not just a betrayal of American interests but a global security risk, jeopardizing the stability of international relations. The argument concludes that until this alleged Russian influence is neutralized, the US cannot be considered a trustworthy actor on the world stage. It’s viewed as a situation where American policy decisions are dictated not by American interests, but by those of Russia.
This perspective explains France’s “trouble understanding” as less a diplomatic nicety and more a reflection of the sheer incredulity and alarm at what is perceived as the complete capture of US power by a foreign adversary. The situation is framed not as a mystery to be solved, but a clear and present danger that threatens global stability. The lack of robust action by the US to counteract this perceived Russian influence exacerbates these concerns, leading to widespread distrust and uncertainty among international partners. The only logical conclusion, from this perspective, is that the US halt on cyber operations isn’t a strategic decision, but a direct consequence of foreign influence.