11-26-2025, 04:35 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis
IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". It is true that someone at NSA undoubtedly could have done so. However, it happened relatively quickly after the event. That may have been because Ushakov is a priority target, but normally such material would be routed to only a very few people, most of which are pretty high on the food chain. The "rank and file" wouldn't normally see such stuff until much later in the cycle. Therefore the danger of discovery would be much higher than "normal", even assuming there was somebody in the chain who wanted to do so. The State Department may have been briefed, although it would be quite unusual for them to receive the "raw" transcript.
As the article states, it could be somebody in the Russian security services. I wouldn't put that beyond possibility. It could be non-political but instead commercial. Information for money. Ukraine is quite capable of accomplishing that. So are other nations, as well as the United States. However, my money is on GCHQ. They are directly responsible to the Prime Minister and will do what Sir Keir Starmer tells them to. It isn't at all against the law or anything. They also have the technical expertise to obtain that information. In point of fact they share facilities with NSA and in many cases see the same intercepts. Starmer has always been pro-Ukraine, and if he had a tool that could torpedo Witkoff's alleged "peace" plan, he would use it. His people (the very, very few that would "know") will keep their mouths shut as well.
IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". It is true that someone at NSA undoubtedly could have done so. However, it happened relatively quickly after the event. That may have been because Ushakov is a priority target, but normally such material would be routed to only a very few people, most of which are pretty high on the food chain. The "rank and file" wouldn't normally see such stuff until much later in the cycle. Therefore the danger of discovery would be much higher than "normal", even assuming there was somebody in the chain who wanted to do so. The State Department may have been briefed, although it would be quite unusual for them to receive the "raw" transcript.
As the article states, it could be somebody in the Russian security services. I wouldn't put that beyond possibility. It could be non-political but instead commercial. Information for money. Ukraine is quite capable of accomplishing that. So are other nations, as well as the United States. However, my money is on GCHQ. They are directly responsible to the Prime Minister and will do what Sir Keir Starmer tells them to. It isn't at all against the law or anything. They also have the technical expertise to obtain that information. In point of fact they share facilities with NSA and in many cases see the same intercepts. Starmer has always been pro-Ukraine, and if he had a tool that could torpedo Witkoff's alleged "peace" plan, he would use it. His people (the very, very few that would "know") will keep their mouths shut as well.