Posted on 10/25/2026 2:43:17 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Last Friday, hidden in the aftermath of the U.S. government’s decision to waive sanctions on Russia, was language proposing a joint U.S.-Russia project on data centers. As part of wider negotiations with the United States, Special Envoy to the Russian President Kirill Dmitriev suggested that a joint initiative between the two countries could focus on building data center infrastructure. Moreover, his statement suggested that several Russian companies were “actively participating” in the preliminary stages of these discussions.
Data centers are a delicate issue. Domestically, the rise in AI use is driving massive economic investment in data center development across the nation. Corresponding levels of opposition against data centers and AI remain high among the American public as the United States heads into midterm elections in November. Militarily, this proposal comes just as Ukraine conducted strikes against Russian data centers, disrupting services across Russia, and as President Zelensky vowed to continue targeting them, despite criticism from President Trump.
Most importantly, critical sectors across the U.S. economy and society depend upon data centers—which themselves hold sensitive data—making them vital national security and critical infrastructure assets. Collaboration with Russia in this sector poses severe risks to U.S. national security. Congress should act urgently to understand the proposal’s origin and substance before it becomes an irreversible reality.
IS THIS PROPOSAL FEASIBLE?
Little detail has been released about the proposed idea, locations, participating parties, or timelines. Its origins are also unclear: Is it a serious proposal by the Russian government? Or subtle retaliation at Ukraine’s recent targeting of Russian data centers? Or a means of keeping what some are branding as Russia-Ukraine “peace negotiation” channels open?
Its timing suggests the idea is very much in its infancy. Last week, President Trump waived new sanctions and tariffs on Russia that the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 would have imposed. President Trump noted that the issuance of the waiver was in the “national interests” of the United States. However, the waiver does not appear to impact preexisting sanctions for the technology sector, levied against Russia beginning in 2022 by then-President Biden. Additionally, the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce have regulations restricting financial transactions and information technology services with Russia that limit U.S. companies from selling technology to Russia.
This makes it especially unclear as to how such a deal would work in practice, such as whether the Treasury and Commerce regulations would require different exemptions or thresholds in order for the United States to collaborate with Russia. It is also unclear whether new commercial incentives would be needed in order for U.S. private sector companies to participate—let alone to navigate the sanctions landscape. In the current regulatory and political environment, and absent further executive or agency intervention to ease these longstanding regulatory restrictions, the U.S. technology sector would take on significant risk working with Russia on developing data centers.
Although there is historical precedent for security cooperation between the United States and Russia, such as on counterterrorism during the early days of the Global War on Terror, these attempts at cooperation went rapidly downhill. Most importantly, cooperation fell apart following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. A relationship marred by historical and mutual distrust, and a checkered history of cooperation, raises significant questions as to why cooperation on data centers would be possible with an adversary actively involved in war.
SERIOUS SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
Developing a data center with a hostile adversary of the United States would be a terrible move for national security. Russia views itself as being at war with the West, and the Kremlin sees the United States as its main enemy. It has skilled and well-resourced security and intelligence organs, a large cyber web it can use to steal data from and disrupt Western systems, and a military and security apparatus pursuing a full-scale, illegal war on Ukraine and sabotage and destruction across Europe. The Russian government’s legal and extralegal architecture of repression enables its security services—especially the FSB, Russia’s Federal Security Service, which takes primacy at home—to compel or coerce cooperation from a wide range of Russian businesses, organizations, and individuals that do not advertise themselves as government-connected.
Russia’s domestic legal requirements for technology companies are onerous, autocratic, and subject to politically driven changes and discriminatory enforcement on a whim. Any server that sat in Russia or had a business agreement with a Russian entity would immediately expose itself to potential Russian government data access and cyber exploitation. Moreover, the Russian government would never permit such a project to take place without the active involvement of the Russian security services. This renders mere U.S.-Russia calls and emails (on U.S. government systems or nongovernment devices) about the potential deal itself, not to mention any infrastructure that could be built or allocated as part of the stated idea, a significant counterintelligence and cybersecurity threat vector for the United States.
For this reason, functionally speaking, setting up a U.S.-Russia data center deal could likely lead to one of two scenarios, neither of which is good for the United States and its national security:
1. A HOLLOW PACT: The first would be a scenario in which neither side trusts anything that would go into the data center, meaning neither side does anything of value with said infrastructure. The project would lack any clarity or clear sense of purpose, beyond to potentially create high-risk touchpoints between businesspeople in the United States and hostile actors in Russia. This would only serve to advance a Kremlin propaganda line about Russia as a place with which to do business. 2. ASYMMETRIC RISK: The second would be a scenario in which one or both countries—most likely the United States—put some data or software of note in said data center. Such a move would put all U.S. information, related technology, and related personnel at immediate risk of exploitation by the Russian security services. Again, the gains would be none, and the security risks to U.S. data, technology, people, and involved organizations would be enormous. Russia would again win in the propaganda sphere; it could position itself as a country with which one could do business, rather than an authoritarian state waging illegal war on Ukraine and not-so-covert, below-the-threshold conflict on the entirety of the West.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL ALLIES
All 27 European Union (EU) Member States formally expressed their regret last week at the U.S. decision to temporarily lift sanctions on Russian diesel imports. Moreover, the EU just imposed its largest-ever sanctions package against Russia for its sustained conflict against Ukraine. The proposal undermines these penalties and normalizes Russia’s aggression during active conflict, not to mention sending a message to other states—such as China—that aggression toward neighbors will be tolerated, undermining national sovereignty.
The proposal also poses severe implications for information sharing and data flows. Given that a joint U.S.-Russia data center would bridge two very different geographic and legal jurisdictions, one unintended consequence would be to push the United States’ close partners toward tighter restrictions on their data flows, storage, and greater sovereign architecture. There are also economic consequences: U.S. companies and organizations could face barriers and higher scrutiny operating internationally for fear of customer data being accessible to Russia.
The data center would also be considered a high-risk national security threat by close allies—particularly the Five Eyes, EU member states, and NATO. Even if the joint data center were solely for commercial or energy purposes, the national security risks would be beyond any acceptable risk tolerance. Under joint architecture with Russia, the potential for Russian espionage, cyberattacks, or data exfiltration would be ever-present. Though an extremely adverse consequence, it should come as no surprise if close U.S. allies decided to restrict intelligence sharing with the United States as a result.
CONCLUSION
The proposal remains in the early stages of discussion between the two governments. As that discussion continues, there needs to be significant scrutiny of the proposal. At a time when U.S. public sentiment is starkly against the building of new data centers in the United States, Congress can play a critical role. It should ask urgent questions of the Trump administration to understand why and how such a proposal should go ahead and whether it can be done safely. Additionally, lawmakers should summon U.S. tech and AI companies to clarify their equities in such a deal, and, most importantly, their preparedness efforts to protect U.S. data should the proposal become a reality.
Russia is an adversary of the United States and NATO. It is engaged in a persistent campaign of subversion and sabotage (and even assassination attempts) against the West, and it is actively involved in a conflict that runs counter to U.S. and NATO interests. A proposal to intermingle with Russia—at the core of the U.S. economy—risks endangering U.S. national security by whitewashing the proposal as part of a broader economic deal. By comparison, in a China-Taiwan conflict scenario, the United States would surely not strike a similar deal to build a data center with China. China is considered both a strategic competitor to the United States and a national security threat. A deal over a data center would legitimize China’s aggression, alienate allies, and signal a lack of U.S. strategic resolve. It would also invite a slew of national security risks from a state with a history of targeting U.S. critical sectors. So, why should the U.S.-Russia proposal be acceptable for U.S. interests? Data centers are a vital national security asset, not a bargaining chip to be used in negotiations with a long-term adversary of the United States.
It stinks. It is a slope not wanted.
The position of the US doesn’t make much sense unless there’s some information we, the public, don’t have. I’m guessing that the military has modeled another Soviet style collapse of the Russian Federation. There must be a significant possibility of the nuclear arsenal either ending up in the hands of multiple parties who hate each other, or of a collapse where it gets loose into the wider world.
The Russian military is breathtakingly corrupt. Apparently, the Clinton administration authorized the CIA to purchase any nukes that got onto the market. If so, it’s probably the only good thing Clinton ever did. Newly factory refurbished fighter planes were sold by people who simply had a pass to get onto the airfield. At least one, sent off fully fueled and armed, was never recovered. So, the idea that relatively small, transportable objects like nukes could be obtained by just about anyone in a collapse is possible.
After the first collapse an international inspection team was sent to remote positions in the woods to inspect truck transported nuclear missiles. They arrived to find the site deserted. They stayed there with the missile waiting for someone to come. At dusk the military team guarding the missile returned. They’d been hunting with their AK’s because they hadn’t been fed in months.
This is what a collapse looks like. It’s chaos.
Bizarre, isn’t it. Russia’s spent the last 25 years cyber-attacking anything in the USA that it can hit (from hospitals to police precincts).
The three other tech industries it excels at are
1. crypto scams (targeting American boomers mainly)
2. ransomware (targeting American businesses of all kinds)
3. troll farms (amplifying anti-USA sentiment while also interfering in American domestic political discourse).
One has to wonder which of those four the current US administration finds attractive enough to risk getting into bed with Russia.
There’s a pattern with Russia - if you get into bed with Moscow hoping to curry favor, they’ll screw you over, laugh to your face about how easily they were screwing you over, and carry on doing whatever it was that they were doing, that you hoped might slow down or stop IF you got into bed with them.
Don’t believe me? Ask Germany. Merkel spent years batting away anti-Putin / anti-Medvedev talking points; she ignored warnings from Poland; she laughed at President Trump in his first term when he warned about relying too much on Russia.
Eventually, even she realised she was on a hiding to nothing, and backed Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s serial abuse of negotiations in relation to Georgia and Ukraine.
Same happened with Ukraine - nothing escalated while the hostile Poroshenko was in power; Zelensky (by comparison far more sympathetic to Russian concerns) started delivering on Minsk and Putin’s response was to send impossible demands to NATO immediately before invading Ukraine.
Nobody in their right mind in any Western country would ever do a deal with Russia that put themselves at risk, given that Moscow has a prolific rap sheet for being abusive in negotiations, welching on its own signed commitments at the first opportunity, demanding the West deliver absolutely everything on that side of the deal despite already breaking the deal itself...
Mods should put the Butler pic of Trump up for the last week before election day.
TRUMP IS ON THE BALLOT!!!
Mods should put the Butler pic of Trump up for the last week before election day.
TRUMP IS ON THE BALLOT!!!
But no, there is no deal at all. It was broight up merely as a topic for discussion.
These talks were disclosed by Kirill Dmitriev, a special envoy for President Vladimir Putin, at the Russian Energy Week forum in mid-October 2026. Dmitriev stated that a concrete list of projects has been drafted with several Russian companies involved, and he expressed optimism that major joint initiatives would be announced soon.
In my opinionit has too many hurdles to overcome to ever become a reality. Sanctions technology sharing, public opinion & Comgress all stand in the way.
CSIS knows all of this, or should. Sounds like they may be engaging in election influencing interference to me. They are located in D.C. in the N.M. quadrant on Rhode Island St.
Putin saved the children that were being trafficked in the Ukraine.
I had this confirmed to me, in person, by a high level retired officer.
Indeed, a DC lobbyist, with some interesting associations:
Thomas J. Pritzker DEMOCRATLots more names, though less well known to many. But essentially Democrats and RINOs, led by a Democrat.
Executive Chairman, The Pritzker Organization; and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, CSISWilliam Daley DEMOCRAT
Former Chief of Staff, President Barack Obama, and Former Secretary of CommerceSam Nunn DEMOCRAT
Cofounder and Co-Chair, Nuclear Threat Initiative; and Chairman Emeritus of the Board, CSISLeon Panetta DEMOCRAT
Chairman, The Panetta Institute for Public PolicyPaul Ryan RINO
Former Speaker of the U.S. House of RepresentativesFrances F. Townsend -- RINO -- Trilateral Commision, Atlantic Council
Former Assistant to the U.S. President for Homeland Security and CounterterrorismJames Winnefeld Jr. -- served under Obama and Biden
Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of DefenseCSIS donors include -- The Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Wellcome Trust, European Climate Foundation, The Margot and Thomas Pritzker Family Foundation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Two CSIS articles were posted this morning by the OP.
I had this confirmed to me, in person, by a high level retired officer.”
Da ! President Putin saved the world from Reptilians ! Q told me so. Trust the plan !!1
My post is meant to be a counter. Your post enhances my post. When I tried to take it to the next step by asking if CSIS was negatively baised against President Trump, it respoded that it was not. So, you have proven that this AI lies, because the programmers of the this AI are negatively biased against President Trump. 😁🤙
Hate to admit that I didn't interrogate who might be involved in CSIS, because I wasn't sure that it would reveal any interesting information. Shame on me for not doing so.
The following link to youtube with Robert Gouveia Esq. is current from today that talks about the two FBI agents who turned themselves in today:
I sat at the table with a man who is a hero to our country. He confirmed what I said.
Why are you afraid of the truth?
A reasonable commentary on data centers:
“Until this fall, Russia refrained from striking Ukrainian data centers. However, these facilities are as integral to military infrastructure as any other component; they facilitate troop command, communications, and logistics management. They support critical Ukrainian systems like Obereg and Rezerv+ recruitment centers, the electronic procurement platform Prozorro, and the Diia Unified State Web Portal of Electronic Services. Disrupting these systems would undoubtedly undermine Ukraine’s military operations.
In the past month, Russia has targeted various data centers, including Bi-Mobile in Kiev, De Novo Data Center, NewTelco, United DC, as well as Kievstar, Parkovy, and Vodafone telecommunications centers.
Despite these disruptions, the unified digital environment of Ukraine remains largely intact. In response, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) struck several Yandex data centers in Russia.
In this ‘war of cities’, the fate of data centers and the resilience of communication networks are being monitored particularly closely worldwide, with many countries considering the security of their own networks.”
https://rt-english.com/russia/647584-whats-on-russias-target-list/
Must have been Q himself ! WWG1WGA !
“Why are you afraid of the truth?”
Clearly, I must be a neo-con warmonger.
I’m only offering my honest report.
Why do you disparage me?
“She is an active Zeeper (someone who supports Zelenskyy).”
Yes. I am not saying this is your intent.
True, there are some that creates labels to name-call in an attempt to degrade other Freepers for whatever their rationale may be.
But, I accept this negative behavior because in the U.S. each person is entitled to freedom of thought and expression.
I support Ukraine.
I deeply value and appreciate the struggle of a nation fighting for their independence and freedom to not be controlled by another nation or political power.
As Americans, we understand the fight for freedom because the pursuit of freedom and peace is in our blood!
“She is an active Zeeper (someone who supports Zelenskyy).”
Yes. I am not saying this is your intent.
True, there are some that creates labels to name-call in an attempt to degrade other Freepers for whatever their rationale may be.
But, I accept this negative behavior because in the U.S. each person is entitled to freedom of thought and expression.
I support Ukraine.
I deeply value and appreciate the struggle of a nation fighting for their independence and freedom to not be controlled by another nation or political power.
As Americans, we understand the fight for freedom because the pursuit of freedom and peace is in our blood!
“She is an active Zeeper (someone who supports Zelenskyy).”
Yes. I am not saying this is your intent.
True, there are some that creates labels to name-call in an attempt to degrade other Freepers for whatever their rationale may be.
But, I accept this negative behavior because in the U.S. each person is entitled to freedom of thought and expression.
I support Ukraine.
I deeply value and appreciate the struggle of a nation fighting for their independence and freedom to not be controlled by another nation or political power.
As Americans, we understand the fight for freedom because the pursuit of freedom and peace is in our blood!
“She is an active Zeeper (someone who supports Zelenskyy).”
Yes. I am not saying this is your intent.
True, there are some that creates labels to name-call in an attempt to degrade other Freepers for whatever their rationale may be.
But, I accept this negative behavior because in the U.S. each person is entitled to freedom of thought and expression.
I support Ukraine.
I deeply value and appreciate the struggle of this nation fighting for their independence and freedom to not be controlled by another nation or political power.
As Americans, we understand the fight for freedom because the pursuit of freedom and peace is in our blood!
They had independence & freedom. They should have remained so, by not helping in the fomenting war against them with NATO membership. All because some in this countruy & Great Britian, promised that we would have their backs which embolden them to flip off Russia, instead of seriously trying to work towards a peaceful resolution.
But the reality is that this nation can no longer be used to make the world safe, as we allow our nation to fall into deteriation, and that deteriation is being done on purpose by the same forces within this country that provoked Russia into invading Ukraine on the guise that they wanted to make Ukraine a member nation of NATO, even though they knew without question that the ruse of inviting Ukraine to become a NATO member was not supported by many of the current member nations, and that was due to the criminal issues that were rampant within Ukraine's government. Because the goal was not really to make Ukraine a NATO nation, but to goad Russia into the invasion that ultimately did occur.
The opening salvo was to foment a Color Revolution whipping up the citizenry into a unruly violent mob., which ultimately resulted in a coup d'etat that forced that current duly elected President of Ukraine to flee Ukraine out of fear for his life. The election that elected him was monitored, and that monitorung deemed that it was a fair & free election. Wgat was this President's crime, he signed the Russian trade deal. He had intended to sign both trade deals, because he deemed that to be the best for Ukraine. It created competition, which we all agree is a reality. However, the EU informed him that if he sigened the Russian Trade deal, hat they would take the EU trade deal off the table. That helped him to make the decision to sign just the Russian trade deal. The next step was to bring the Nazi's into the national security forces, and allowed them to go into the Russian speaking sector's of eastern Ukraine where they began attacking those Ukrainian citizens, who considered themselves as Ukrainia's.
Then the gaslighting fear campaign began to support Ukraine, by claiming that Russia & Putin wanted to retake Ukraine & worse, take Europe as well. That Purin would never honor any deal that was reached. Putin tried to work within the framework that existed in the U.N. to try to get international involvment in order to hammer out a peaceful resolution. That started the Minsk talks, in whichnot just 1 but two accords were created and signed by Russia & Ukraine, along with the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). However, they were never implemented bu Ukraine. Zelenskyy had campainged to enact those Accords, but afrer being elected he didn't follow through on that campaign promise. He later admitted in 2023 that he had never intended to inact or honor those accords.
So, the truth was that Putin was tryting to stop the terroristic attacks upon the Russian speaking population who considered themselves as Ukrainian's along with stopping the NATO expansion. that they believed would be taking place.
Putin began amassing soldiers along the Ukrainian border in 2021. He then stayed on that border for almost a year to the day. He did this because Putin had stated in 2008 that NATO expansion into either Georgia or Ukraine would be considered as redlines that would not be tolerated. So, can you explain why Putrin waited a year before he actually went intyo Ukraine, since you believed that Russia intention was to retake Ukraine, & then continue on to take all of Europe?
I contend that Putin was trying to signal that Russia was taking the threat of NATO expansion as a serious threat, in order to get the intenational communirty to get Ukraine to enact the Minsk Accrds that had been signed.
Getting Putin to invade was working its way to the invasion that they were goading Russia to execute, for all they had to do was do nothing to get Ukraine to enact the Minsk Accords. They then even ignored the incursion. They still did not get involved in seeking a peaceful resolution.
Yes, we do understand about the fight for freedom. We also understand that that this nation is also under attack, and that attack was being fomented by the very same actors that were involved in what transpired in Ukraine, for they actually pulled the same methodology against this nation using the George Floys death as their excuse, just as the citizens of Ukraine had used the Russian trade deal as thier excuse.
The riots in the street was the Color Revolution & the theft of the 2020 election was the coup d'etat. They had tried imperachment, but that failed.
For me, this nation is of far more importance than Ukraine, not just for personal reasons, but for the entire world. For without this nation the world falls into tuyrannical control.
Way past time for you to begin to recognize reality, instead of allowing you emotional feelings rule your decision making instead of using critical thinking skills to riule your decision making. Because the emotional feelings makes you become a useful ifiot only.
As a proclaimed reverend of the United Methodist Church, you should recofnize when the fight between good & evil is taking place, but apparently you refuse to see. None so blindf as those who who will not see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.