Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over Russia policies backfires as critics unearth her controversial diplomatic past with Moscow.
At a Glance
- Clinton criticized Defense Secretary Hegseth for pausing offensive cyber operations against Russia
- Critics responded by highlighting Clinton’s own Russia dealings, including the Uranium One deal
- Reports suggest Hegseth’s order is part of Trump administration’s efforts to end the Ukraine war
- Hegseth responded with a 2009 photo of Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
- Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Kremlin-linked bank while Hillary was Secretary of State
Clinton’s Criticism Sparks Backlash
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently ignited controversy by criticizing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over reports that he ordered a pause on U.S. Cyber Command’s offensive operations against Russia. Clinton’s social media post claimed Hegseth was being overly deferential to Russian President Vladimir Putin, mockingly stating, “Wouldn’t want to hurt Putin’s feelings,” Hillary Clinton said.
The criticism, however, quickly boomeranged as observers pointed to Clinton’s own diplomatic history with Russia. Hegseth responded by sharing a 2009 photograph of Clinton presenting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a symbolic “reset” button during her tenure as Secretary of State. The image served as a pointed reminder of Clinton’s previous attempts to improve relations with Moscow – a policy approach she now appears to criticize.
The Pentagon’s Position
According to reports, Hegseth’s directive pausing offensive cyber operations against Russia is allegedly part of broader Trump administration efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict in Ukraine. The order reportedly does not affect the National Security Agency’s intelligence collection activities against Russia. When questioned about the matter, Pentagon officials maintained operational secrecy.
“Due to operational security concerns, we do not comment nor discuss cyber intelligence, plans, or operations. There is no greater priority to Secretary Hegseth than the safety of the Warfighter in all operations, to include the cyber domain,” a Pentagon official said.
The New York Times noted in its coverage that pausing military operations during diplomatic negotiations is standard practice in international relations. This context suggests Hegseth’s directive may be a tactical pause rather than a permanent policy shift, aligning with traditional diplomatic approaches when seeking peace agreements.
The Uranium One Controversy Resurfaces
Critics were quick to highlight what they view as Clinton’s hypocrisy by referencing the controversial Uranium One deal. Under her watch as Secretary of State, the State Department approved the sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation. The deal gave Russia control of approximately 20% of U.S. uranium capacity at the time.
The transaction became highly controversial when it was later revealed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting Uranium One stock. Additionally, multiple individuals connected to the deal donated millions to the Clinton Foundation during the same period the deal was under government review. These financial connections have raised persistent questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Diplomatic Approach to Russia
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s diplomatic approach toward Russia, emphasizing the practical realities of international negotiations. He articulated the need for constructive engagement rather than antagonism when working toward peace.
“We have to bring [Russia] to the table. You’re not going to bring them to the table if you’re calling them names, if you’re being antagonistic. That’s just the President’s instincts from years and years and years of putting together deals,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.
This diplomatic stance represents a significant shift from the previous administration’s approach to Russia relations. The current leadership appears to be prioritizing direct negotiations and de-escalation strategies over confrontational policies, particularly regarding the ongoing Ukraine conflict. For Americans concerned about international stability, this approach may signal potential progress toward resolving a protracted conflict that has impacted global security and economic stability.