[mjanx123]

The European countries leaderships were each put in place by its responsible CIA compartment supporting liberal candidates/parties and undermining the competition. With the current conservative US admin they are supposed to interact with they don't know what to do and likely will do nothing.

[pyuser583]

CIA is fanatical about following the State Department's foreign policy. Aside from gathering intelligence, they just take the State Department's lead.

A lot "CIA influence" isn't the CIA at all, but the US Government, usually State or DoD, projecting soft power.

I know this sounds pendantic. But whenever someone starts talking about the CIA like it's responsible for "supporting liberal candidates" - all seriousness leaves the room.

[alephnerd]

> CIA is fanatical about following the State Department's foreign policy

From past personal experience, inter-service autonomy over policymaking is tightly guarded, and arguments always end up with the NSA (advisor, not the agency) where the president essentially becomes the tiebreaker.

Under the current administration, this rivalry has gotten much more intense due to the relatively hands-off management style that has been adopted.

[pyuser583]

I'm sure fights happen all the time over inter-service autonomy. There was a book written recently about very nasty fighting between the CIA and DEA over whether to support a group of anti-communist guerillas who financed by running drugs.

The CIA and DEA switched positions repeatedly: one day the CIA wanted to support them to fight communism, and the DEA wanted to cut them off to stop the supply of drugs. When communism fell, the CIA saw the group as a liability who knew too much, while the the DEA wanted to pay them to destroy their drug labs and plant licit crops.

The group ended up destroying their drug labs, and focusing on money laundering, ransomware, and crypto-scams, which neither the CIA nor DEA cared about.

But the CIA is very consistent in following state department policies. They jealously guard their ability to delivery intelligence that conflicts with State Department priorities, but they don't have any strong priorities that conflict with those of State.

I'm sure things need to be ironed about by the NSA/NSC. That's normal. But the CIA isn't going fight the State department like they fight the DEA.

I'm open to correction on this. Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation.

[alephnerd]

> I'm open to correction on this. Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation

It's much more gray simply because there are multiple agencies per department that can interpret and conduct intelligence operations.

The current administration also decided to adopt the private sector practice of letting "middle managers" conduct and implement what they want on their own and only disturb "upper management" if there are irreconcilable differences.

This is why policies change on a dime in the current administration.

[igleria]

> But whenever someone starts talking about the CIA like it's responsible for "supporting liberal candidates" - all seriousness leaves the room.

Nobody likes to admit their vote (or lack of) has consequences outside their little bubble.

[1718627440]

Do they? Isn't that kind of the point of voting to influence things that are far outside of your direct reach?

[kreetx]

Where would you say the "CIA influence" is the strongest, so I could see better what you mean?

I've observed that it's the messy process of democracy that has put the people in power. Sure, big countries (i.e, mostly Russia) would like to tilt governments their way, but it isn't succeeding. I can tell you though that local Facebook pages for newspapers are full of strange comments, seemingly Russian trolls (but I have no proof).