RSS
I don’t pay much attention to Spy-vs.-Spy stuff because my strengths are not in abstract reasoning but in noticing what is in front of one’s nose, using multiple public sources of knowledge.
In contrast, the whole “wilderness of mirrors” area just makes me sleepy. How am I supposed to know the inside scoop?
But analogies can be helpful.
In The Baffler, an old staffer from The Exile writes about how a lot of current American media assumptions about “cyberwar” go back to the Georgia-South Ossetia-Russia war of 2008.
From Russia, with Panic
Cozy bears, unsourced hacks—and a Silicon Valley shakedownYasha Levine
As you’ll recall, the actual physical fighting was reported in four stages:
– Lowly wire service stringers reported that Georgia had attacked South Ossetia around midnight of the night of August 7-8th, 2008.
– American Big Foot pundits declared that, obviously, Russia had been the aggressor against Georgia.
– Careful studies long after the fighting stopped concluded that the lowly wire service stringers had been right and the Big Feet wrong.
– Everybody in American forgot the post-mortems and went back to assuming the Big Feet’s assumption.
And that was an actual war involving artillery and tanks.
How much less likely are we to have a clear picture of who did what to whom in cyberwar?
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Neocons/Neolibs projecting their own behaviour and beliefs on to the Russians. Comment trolls, influencing foreign elections, corruption, annexing areas, destabilising countries etc.
It feels to me that a lot of the battle is not over getting a clear picture of who did what to whom, but merely advancing one narrative over another. As always.
This kind of thinking is probably very dangerous.
Personally, I blame Obama for all of this cyberwar stuff.
But what do I know?
Indeed – here’s this recent bit of fantasy from NPR.
I’m fed up with the ludicrous expression the “American Intelligence Community”.
I’m calling them ‘the Securitate’ from now on. I did consider using ‘the Stasi’ but I decided that the implication of German levels of competence would be misleading.
I really miss the eXile and even the eXiled. Maybe Ames simply burned out, but it seems that getting kicked out of Russia broke his spirit and Omydar bought them to put on his shelf like star wars figures in their unopened boxes. If you look hard you can still find them or their ghosts online but the synergy is missing. Sure they were leftists, but coherent and reasonable compared to the cucoobananas of the current year.
Hey, Mark, put the band back together!
Spy vs. Spy is the way to go. So is Billionaire vs. Billionaire. Everybody is playing the Voter vs. Voter game.
Patriotic peasants in the imploding American Empire should play the same damn divide and conquer game that is played on us. It is a positive development to see the split between the human intelligence faction and the signals intelligence faction in the American Empire’s intelligence services.
Obama and his minions spread far and wide the electronic data collected by the signals intelligence faction of the national security state. Presumably, before Obama opened up the electronic can of worms, this information was locked down in such a manner where the political appointees in the other intelligence services could not sniff at it at will. I don’t trust Michael Hayden, do you?
President Trump is a billionaire who has bolted from the billionaires’ club of globalization and multiculturalism. Ross Perot is another such billionaire who split apart from the other plutocrats on trade and immigration. Patriotic peasants should cheer on the splits and divisions within the American Empire’s plutocracy and national security state. It will open up more rhetorical space to finally allow a true Buchananite to take power in the United States.
The CIA should never have been given the ability to fire missiles from the drones; that should have been kept in the military chain of command to leave a trail back to a particular individual.
Creatures such as Michael Hayden who push mass immigration and supported Jebby Bush in the presidential election should be removed as soon as possible. The CIA and the FBI should be kept apart as much as possible to prevent any coordination that would be harmful to the interests of regular Americans. If they fight each other they won’t be ganging up on the enemies of the plutocrats. The enemies of the plutocrats are the regular American people.
IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW! DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS!
During this whole scandal, I have noticed that the all-military DIA is never mentioned as being involved in any way, although I am sure they have resources to rival any of the other agencies. This leads me to believe that they are on the side of the Constitution. (And, of course, DIA was Ge. Flynn's post prior to his appointment to the NSA position.)
Your thoughts?Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Autochthon
iSteve, this is misleading writing not unlike the NY Times article about the decline in international applicants featured in the next piece.
We are told that Georgia “attacked” South Ossetia. Wow, what a-holes, amiright?? However we are not given the crucial context that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia that was previously taken over by Russian backed insurgents.
Secondly, it's useful to spell out the exact time frame for your "previously." South Ossetians demanded an upgrade in the level of autonomy at the end of 1989 and declared their separation from Georgia at the end of 1990. You'll notice that both events happened well before the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991. Two things follow from that. (1) South Ossetia has never been a part of independent Georgia. (2) You call the South Ossetians rebels but they were the ones who wanted to remain in the USSR. The real rebels were the Georgians; South Ossetians were the loyalists.Replies: @Steve Sailer
I probably watch more network TV news than most iSteve commenters — “CBS This Morning” and CBS or NBC nightly news, six or so views a week altogether.
Indeed, the “The Russians Hacked The Election” has unfolded in the way that Steve describes.
The phrase goes undefined by network newshounds. Before November 8th, context suggested that it referenced the Wikileaks revelations. Afterwards, the “hack” came to include additional activities, including shady dealings by Trump advisors and hangers-on, Russian bank servers’ shady communications with Trump computers, and the RT.com (Russia Today) network’s shady anti-Clinton coverage.
Yet, as numerous commenters have noted, mainstream media (CBS and NBC included) were dismissive of Wikileaks, prior to the election. The only people who seemed to care were dedicated partisans on the right — hardly swing voters. And even stipulating Russian contact with the Trump campaign, Alfa Bank severs, and biased RT.com coverage, it’s hard to connect these dots to “determined the outcome of the election.” If the pivotal event was Wikileaks, that implies that those (truthful) revelations really did damn Clinton: I’ve heard nothing of the sort.
All this notwithstanding, “The Russians Hacked The Election” is now a routine part of CBS and NBC News packages on the subjects of Russia, cybercrime, or Trump. Since everybody knows what we’re referring to, there’s no need to waste precious airtime by reviewing it.
It is pretty rich for american pundits to get the vapors about foreign governments trying to exert influence upon american elections, given that the US government intervenes in elections across the globe, and has done so for at least 70 years. And the notion that the country that sticks its nose in our politics more than any other is Russia is risible.
What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC's emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks. Presumably that was done at the order of Putin or someone close to him--it's not the sort of thing some mid level flunky would take it on himself to do. My guess is that Putin et al figured Trump was going to lose (that was what most smart election watchers in the US thought, and there's no reason to think the Russians are better at understanding US politics than we are.). So probably he was hoping to sow discord among the democrats to weaken President Hillary after the election.
Russia has been pretty consistent in supporting a lot of far-right (nationalist, anti-immigrant, euroskeptic) politicians in Europe. I assume this has the do with trying to push back on NATO/EU expansion into places Russia considers their playground, like Ukraine. So supporting Trump would fit that pattern as well.Replies: @Jack D, @inertial, @MB, @Mr. Anon
I was going to comment that this is the whole point of being a bigfoot columnist: to insist upon a certain theme no matter how counter-factual. But Fred Reed just said the same thing at greater length and eloquence.
https://www.unz.com/freed/columnists/
The Russian narrative is smoke and mirrors. They already wanted a war with Russia before the election, which was one of the main reasons for electing Trump! The part that annoys me most about it, though, is the use of the term “The Russians”, begging the question of Russian conspiracy. Anyone who lives in Russia is in on it, and if an associate of Trump spoke to anyone in Russia, then that’s collusion! Also, Ukraine and Turkey are part of “The Russians” and never mind the fact that Ukraine and Russia are not lovey dovey right now. So if Trump, the International businessman, had any associates who spoke to anyone who resides (used to reside?) east of Budapest, then Trump committed “treason”.
It is so ludicrous that it is actually difficult to ridicule. It is Arthur Miller’s version of the Salem witch trials, using 6 degrees of separation instead of phony confession/ accusations. I do not underestimate the left to think this could possibly be unintentional or unnoticed. This is the most despicable kind of unfairness which often comes back to burn the original arsonist.
Start referring to “The Blacks” or “The Jews” and see how far you get. And of course the media are pushing some phony revolution in Russia. Likely more Soros dirty work. Try him at the Hague.
The pre-occupation of the media with Russia has gone psychotic.
How can these people pretend that it is Trump, not they, who have lost all connection to truth and reality?
Is there even the slightest good reason to believe that Trump actively courted any involvement of Russians in our election? This is exactly the sort of whacked-out conspiracy theory of which they accuse the other side.
How do their theories make any more sense than PizzaGate?
And these people comprise our “elite” media!
Hey, c’mon, RT is *totally different* in mission than VOA. Only an America-hating liberal, oops, I mean a neo-nazi alt-righter could disagree.
What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC’s emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks. Presumably that was done at the order of Putin or someone close to him–it’s not the sort of thing some mid level flunky would take it on himself to do. My guess is that Putin et al figured Trump was going to lose (that was what most smart election watchers in the US thought, and there’s no reason to think the Russians are better at understanding US politics than we are.). So probably he was hoping to sow discord among the democrats to weaken President Hillary after the election.
Russia has been pretty consistent in supporting a lot of far-right (nationalist, anti-immigrant, euroskeptic) politicians in Europe. I assume this has the do with trying to push back on NATO/EU expansion into places Russia considers their playground, like Ukraine. So supporting Trump would fit that pattern as well.
It's circumstantial, but the evidence hasn't so far pointed to Russia. http://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+mcafee+russia+hack&pc=Z201&form=ZGAFDF&install_date=20111129But the NSA does collect data on everbody in the United Soviet Surveillance States of Amerika so it's all good. Something to do with the Patriotism Act.
Yay Amerika, you're Number One.
In the Security state cross hairs, even if you can't see the red laser dot on your forehead.
It’s sort of ironic that the target of this conspiracy theory is Russia, the originator of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that the conspiracy is originating from the American left. In the old days, the conspiracy theory would have been “Jewish Bolsheviks Rig Election” and it would have come from the right and all goodthinking leftists would have denounced it as a crazy conspiracy theory.
What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC's emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks. Presumably that was done at the order of Putin or someone close to him--it's not the sort of thing some mid level flunky would take it on himself to do. My guess is that Putin et al figured Trump was going to lose (that was what most smart election watchers in the US thought, and there's no reason to think the Russians are better at understanding US politics than we are.). So probably he was hoping to sow discord among the democrats to weaken President Hillary after the election.
Russia has been pretty consistent in supporting a lot of far-right (nationalist, anti-immigrant, euroskeptic) politicians in Europe. I assume this has the do with trying to push back on NATO/EU expansion into places Russia considers their playground, like Ukraine. So supporting Trump would fit that pattern as well.Replies: @Jack D, @inertial, @MB, @Mr. Anon
That was my take on it as well. They really didn’t think that Trump was going to win, but Putin hates Hillary as a meddler in the Russian sphere of influence and was glad to do all that he could to damage and weaken her. The ideal thing for him was not a Trump victory but a weakened Hillary beset by scandals from day 1 and distracted from focusing on Russia. And Hillary would have always been beset by FUD that the Russians had even more on her and that if she acted to piss them off that they would leak even more. Leftists are all about projection so if you read the stories about the Russians having stuff on Trump and project them onto Hillary they make a lot of sense.
I assume that Russia has the capability to execute this sort of mischief, and you suggest why they could have decided that doing so was in their interests. But there are other states and non-state actors who also had means and motive. Analogously, other known breaches could have been the handiwork of the Russians, as well. But Putin is not being fingered for them (at least publicly).Replies: @Jack D
The problem for Putin is that Trump is likely to be worse that Hillary from Putin's standpoint. Territorial issues are a zero-sum game. If Trump just sits back and lets Putin take more European territory, he is going to look weak. Unlike the Democrats, Trump takes insults to his personal prestige seriously. When Putin took eastern Ukraine, the Democrats hemmed and hawed, but did nothing to help Ukraine. Trump won't be as passive if the Russians go any further, anywhere along their borders.Replies: @vinteuil
It is so ludicrous that it is actually difficult to ridicule. It is Arthur Miller's version of the Salem witch trials, using 6 degrees of separation instead of phony confession/ accusations. I do not underestimate the left to think this could possibly be unintentional or unnoticed. This is the most despicable kind of unfairness which often comes back to burn the original arsonist.
Start referring to "The Blacks" or "The Jews" and see how far you get. And of course the media are pushing some phony revolution in Russia. Likely more Soros dirty work. Try him at the Hague.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
Soros? We wish. I doubt he’s immune to a little 210 in his tea.
The billionaire who creates crises is a real-life James Bond villain. The only question is who he's working for. If the goal is enriching himself, he's an agent of SPECTRE, but if the real goal is overthrowing the West, he's an agent of SMERSH.
Hey, Mark, put the band back together!Replies: @anonitron1
nsfw-corp was a kind of eXile-lite but that was bought out by Pando when it almost went under. The podcast Ames is doing with Dolan (The War Nerd) these days is pretty good and I’m sure having a few-hundred subscribers pays better than independent journalism.
Georgia attacked South Ossetia? Could USA attack Vermont?
What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC's emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks. Presumably that was done at the order of Putin or someone close to him--it's not the sort of thing some mid level flunky would take it on himself to do. My guess is that Putin et al figured Trump was going to lose (that was what most smart election watchers in the US thought, and there's no reason to think the Russians are better at understanding US politics than we are.). So probably he was hoping to sow discord among the democrats to weaken President Hillary after the election.
Russia has been pretty consistent in supporting a lot of far-right (nationalist, anti-immigrant, euroskeptic) politicians in Europe. I assume this has the do with trying to push back on NATO/EU expansion into places Russia considers their playground, like Ukraine. So supporting Trump would fit that pattern as well.Replies: @Jack D, @inertial, @MB, @Mr. Anon
True, if by “solid” you mean “no evidence whatsoever.” Your consequent musings about Putin’s supposed motivations appear to be just as solid.
Just like West Virginia has always been a part of Virginia.
• The people occupying the region have a right to self-determination notwithstanding formal jurisdiction under law: The American War for Independence, Texas' War for Independence, California's War for Independence, The (Unconstitutional) Creation of West Virginia
• Formal jurisdiction trumps the desire for self-determination of the people of the region: The War of Northern Aggression, Russia's Reclamation of Crimea, The Unending Wars Between Israelis & Palestinians, China's Occupation of Uyghurstan & Tibet
I could add to these lists all day, but the point is made. As ever with the detestable government, it's Choose Your Own Adventure all the way down....
No one in America even knew that there was such a thing as an Ossetian. Also, it always has to be pointed out that they’re talking about Georgia the country and not the state. Yes, there’s a country by the name of Georgia. Yet then everybody is supposed to get outraged because the Russians invaded it, wherever or whatever it happens to be.
There’s an easy way to shut up a prog who spouts this Russian conspiracy nonsense: Ask him: (1) whose military budget is 10 times larger than the other’s; (2) who’s repudiated arms reduction treaties to station nuclear tipped missiles within easy range of whose country; (3) who’s stationed armies and fleets on the borders of whose country; (4)who’s staged coups against legitimately elected governments (EU and USA certified) in bordering nations.
Then step back and watch the sputtering begin
https://youtu.be/o8IUZ03Xqtc
I keep asking the Russophobes of my acquaintance to tell me where, exactly, he's wrong, here - and they keep avoiding the question.
Since giving crucial context is a good thing let’s give more of it. First, the “Russian backed insurgents” who “took over” South Ossetia were… South Ossetians! The locals! I get an impression that 80% of people who write about this stuff in the West (and 99% of the big foot media) do not realize that South Ossetia is populated by these separate people called South Ossetians who are neither Georgians nor Russians.
Secondly, it’s useful to spell out the exact time frame for your “previously.” South Ossetians demanded an upgrade in the level of autonomy at the end of 1989 and declared their separation from Georgia at the end of 1990. You’ll notice that both events happened well before the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991. Two things follow from that. (1) South Ossetia has never been a part of independent Georgia. (2) You call the South Ossetians rebels but they were the ones who wanted to remain in the USSR. The real rebels were the Georgians; South Ossetians were the loyalists.
Like Kosovo?
I'm calling them 'the Securitate' from now on. I did consider using 'the Stasi' but I decided that the implication of German levels of competence would be misleading.Replies: @Art Deco, @Lugash
Whether you’re fed up or not, that’s its name. The agencies in question have a common clearinghouse but are distributed among several departments, hence the eccentric usage (“United States Intelligence Community”). You have ephemeral inter-agency committees, but this is the only formal cross-departmental collection.
Jack D (or NOTA) — Do you have a reference or link that makes the case that Russia (or one of its proxies) was responsible for purloining the emails that ended up on Wikileaks?
I assume that Russia has the capability to execute this sort of mischief, and you suggest why they could have decided that doing so was in their interests. But there are other states and non-state actors who also had means and motive. Analogously, other known breaches could have been the handiwork of the Russians, as well. But Putin is not being fingered for them (at least publicly).
Now the CIA may not be a trustworthy source and it is the nature of such things that they are not going to reveal the means and methods by which they reached this conclusion, but I think you have to do better than just to assume that they are dirty liars because the CIA always lies.
While this is far from clear and convincing evidence, the flip side is that the Russians were probably pretty careful to cover their tracks so you are never going to see the smoking gun until the Putin regime falls.Replies: @ic1000, @RadicalCenter, @inertial
I'm calling them 'the Securitate' from now on. I did consider using 'the Stasi' but I decided that the implication of German levels of competence would be misleading.Replies: @Art Deco, @Lugash
I prefer to call it the ‘transnational surveillance syndicate’. The ‘Five Eyes’ partners work hand in glove to evade even whats left of their privacy protections, it doesn’t keep us safe and the private sector is lockstep in sync with the governments.
I assume that Russia has the capability to execute this sort of mischief, and you suggest why they could have decided that doing so was in their interests. But there are other states and non-state actors who also had means and motive. Analogously, other known breaches could have been the handiwork of the Russians, as well. But Putin is not being fingered for them (at least publicly).Replies: @Jack D
See for example, http://time.com/4625301/cia-russia-wikileaks-dnc-hacking/
Now the CIA may not be a trustworthy source and it is the nature of such things that they are not going to reveal the means and methods by which they reached this conclusion, but I think you have to do better than just to assume that they are dirty liars because the CIA always lies.
While this is far from clear and convincing evidence, the flip side is that the Russians were probably pretty careful to cover their tracks so you are never going to see the smoking gun until the Putin regime falls.
For instance, the reporter writes, "Another example of inferential evidence, the officials said, was that as time passed and the early leaks attracted media attention that undermined or eclipsed Clinton's campaign, the Russians increasingly focused their hacking 'almost exclusively' on Democratic rather than Republican targets."
I must have missed the intense spotlight of media attention that undermined or eclipsed Clinton's campaign. But somehow the Russians subsequently focusing their hacking on Democrats helps prove (inferentially) that the Russians done it. Or something.
Do you also refer to the US government as a "regime"? If not, specifically how is Russia so much more authoritarian than our current US surveillance state?
I don't want to live under a government like either of them.Replies: @Jack D, @snorlax
I can see Russian intelligence services breaking into the DNC servers (without leaving behind those silly "traces".) I can think of no reason for them to release the contents to Wikileaks or anyone else.
First of all, this is not how intelligence services operate. They don't like releasing data to outsiders, period. Even when they do, it happens only after months of reviews and bureaucratic sign-offs.
Secondly, the reason usually given for the supposed release of information - undermining American democracy - is bunk. It's pure projection. American and European globalists want to destabilize Russian government (or "Putin"), so they think Russian government (or "Putin") wants to do the same to them. This is not true. There is no discernible upside in that for Russia and there are considerable downsides, even if successful.
And finally, the Russians would have to know American political system incredibly well to anticipate the effects. Remember what was the biggest scandal in the DNC emails? The fact the the DNC tipped the scaled in Hillary's favor against Bernie. The Russians were genuinely surprised that this was a problem at all. Of course a party apparatus helps their favorite candidate. That's how it works in Russia and in the majority of the world where parties tend to be centered around personalities. Now someone in Russia might have had enough expertise in American system to understand that this kind of behavior was considered wrong in America. But if such a knowledgeable person existed he would've anticipated that American media will have given this scandal no coverage, so what's the point.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Patriotic peasants in the imploding American Empire should play the same damn divide and conquer game that is played on us. It is a positive development to see the split between the human intelligence faction and the signals intelligence faction in the American Empire's intelligence services.
Obama and his minions spread far and wide the electronic data collected by the signals intelligence faction of the national security state. Presumably, before Obama opened up the electronic can of worms, this information was locked down in such a manner where the political appointees in the other intelligence services could not sniff at it at will. I don't trust Michael Hayden, do you?
President Trump is a billionaire who has bolted from the billionaires' club of globalization and multiculturalism. Ross Perot is another such billionaire who split apart from the other plutocrats on trade and immigration. Patriotic peasants should cheer on the splits and divisions within the American Empire's plutocracy and national security state. It will open up more rhetorical space to finally allow a true Buchananite to take power in the United States.
The CIA should never have been given the ability to fire missiles from the drones; that should have been kept in the military chain of command to leave a trail back to a particular individual.
Creatures such as Michael Hayden who push mass immigration and supported Jebby Bush in the presidential election should be removed as soon as possible. The CIA and the FBI should be kept apart as much as possible to prevent any coordination that would be harmful to the interests of regular Americans. If they fight each other they won't be ganging up on the enemies of the plutocrats. The enemies of the plutocrats are the regular American people.
IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW! DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS!Replies: @SteveRogers42
Excellent summary.
During this whole scandal, I have noticed that the all-military DIA is never mentioned as being involved in any way, although I am sure they have resources to rival any of the other agencies. This leads me to believe that they are on the side of the Constitution. (And, of course, DIA was Ge. Flynn’s post prior to his appointment to the NSA position.)
Your thoughts?
Obama just allowed all the raw electronic data to be made available to anyone; including CIA and other human intelligence outfits. Obama obviously had partisan political motivations for widely disseminating the electronic data gathered by NSA and other signals intelligence elements.
https://youtu.be/Ac0oaXhz1u8Door #2
https://youtu.be/4zgh0y9vTgYBut, hey, look! – a Russian!
Now the CIA may not be a trustworthy source and it is the nature of such things that they are not going to reveal the means and methods by which they reached this conclusion, but I think you have to do better than just to assume that they are dirty liars because the CIA always lies.
While this is far from clear and convincing evidence, the flip side is that the Russians were probably pretty careful to cover their tracks so you are never going to see the smoking gun until the Putin regime falls.Replies: @ic1000, @RadicalCenter, @inertial
Thanks. That’s a weak report (IMO), but it’s something. Weak, because the CIA is not, as you say, a trustworthy source, and Time is a bit too credulous to be credible.
For instance, the reporter writes, “Another example of inferential evidence, the officials said, was that as time passed and the early leaks attracted media attention that undermined or eclipsed Clinton’s campaign, the Russians increasingly focused their hacking ‘almost exclusively’ on Democratic rather than Republican targets.”
I must have missed the intense spotlight of media attention that undermined or eclipsed Clinton’s campaign. But somehow the Russians subsequently focusing their hacking on Democrats helps prove (inferentially) that the Russians done it. Or something.
Now the CIA may not be a trustworthy source and it is the nature of such things that they are not going to reveal the means and methods by which they reached this conclusion, but I think you have to do better than just to assume that they are dirty liars because the CIA always lies.
While this is far from clear and convincing evidence, the flip side is that the Russians were probably pretty careful to cover their tracks so you are never going to see the smoking gun until the Putin regime falls.Replies: @ic1000, @RadicalCenter, @inertial
Why do you refer to the elected Putin administration (and presumably the elected Duma) as a “regime”? Isn’t that a word we used to reserve for totalitarian and un-democratic governments?
Do you also refer to the US government as a “regime”? If not, specifically how is Russia so much more authoritarian than our current US surveillance state?
I don’t want to live under a government like either of them.
Putin has subverted democracy even more than the Democrats have. Yesterday there were huge "anti-corruption" (you can't say anti-Putin) demonstrations all over Russia but not a word on Russian TV. Crickets.Replies: @Art Deco, @inertial
Secondly, it's useful to spell out the exact time frame for your "previously." South Ossetians demanded an upgrade in the level of autonomy at the end of 1989 and declared their separation from Georgia at the end of 1990. You'll notice that both events happened well before the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991. Two things follow from that. (1) South Ossetia has never been a part of independent Georgia. (2) You call the South Ossetians rebels but they were the ones who wanted to remain in the USSR. The real rebels were the Georgians; South Ossetians were the loyalists.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Did the South Ossetians want to be in a polity along with the North Ossetians? Perhaps Russia offered more desirable terms for that than Georgia did.
There are always problems with where to draw borders. Rivers look good on maps, but both banks are usually the same people and they don’t want to be divided. Mountains work a little better, but usually the mountains are inhabited by mountaineers, who tend to be ornery about having the Plains Peoples draw the border along the crest.
During this whole scandal, I have noticed that the all-military DIA is never mentioned as being involved in any way, although I am sure they have resources to rival any of the other agencies. This leads me to believe that they are on the side of the Constitution. (And, of course, DIA was Ge. Flynn's post prior to his appointment to the NSA position.)
Your thoughts?Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Autochthon
Information control is probably better in the military branch intelligence services. Plus there is the accountability aspect of someone actually giving an order for information to be shared or made available.
Obama just allowed all the raw electronic data to be made available to anyone; including CIA and other human intelligence outfits. Obama obviously had partisan political motivations for widely disseminating the electronic data gathered by NSA and other signals intelligence elements.
Same thing might have happened with Iran in the sense that they disliked the incumbent Carter administration to the point of not being able to imagine that the alternative might be worse. In fact, given the way Reagan was hammering away at Carter’s weakness, it’s amazing that Khomeini did not free the hostages just before the election in order to give Carter a boost. Whereas Trump was really laying it on thick about how petrostate emir Putin was this great leader, when Russia’s economy basically tracked the huge spike in oil and gas prices starting around the turn of the millennium.
The problem for Putin is that Trump is likely to be worse that Hillary from Putin’s standpoint. Territorial issues are a zero-sum game. If Trump just sits back and lets Putin take more European territory, he is going to look weak. Unlike the Democrats, Trump takes insults to his personal prestige seriously. When Putin took eastern Ukraine, the Democrats hemmed and hawed, but did nothing to help Ukraine. Trump won’t be as passive if the Russians go any further, anywhere along their borders.
Does anybody seriously believe that Putin would even *want* to invade the Baltic States, or Poland, or Czechia, or Slovakia, or Hungary, or Romania, or Bulgaria?Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @anon, @BB753
“fed up or not, that’s its name”
What’s your point? Names change. You yourself refer to it as “eccentric.”
Indeed, the "The Russians Hacked The Election" has unfolded in the way that Steve describes.
The phrase goes undefined by network newshounds. Before November 8th, context suggested that it referenced the Wikileaks revelations. Afterwards, the "hack" came to include additional activities, including shady dealings by Trump advisors and hangers-on, Russian bank servers' shady communications with Trump computers, and the RT.com (Russia Today) network's shady anti-Clinton coverage.
Yet, as numerous commenters have noted, mainstream media (CBS and NBC included) were dismissive of Wikileaks, prior to the election. The only people who seemed to care were dedicated partisans on the right -- hardly swing voters. And even stipulating Russian contact with the Trump campaign, Alfa Bank severs, and biased RT.com coverage, it's hard to connect these dots to "determined the outcome of the election." If the pivotal event was Wikileaks, that implies that those (truthful) revelations really did damn Clinton: I've heard nothing of the sort.
All this notwithstanding, "The Russians Hacked The Election" is now a routine part of CBS and NBC News packages on the subjects of Russia, cybercrime, or Trump. Since everybody knows what we're referring to, there's no need to waste precious airtime by reviewing it.Replies: @guest
Look at it the other way ’round. Clinton was supposed to win, then out of nowhere she didn’t. Had to be due to something, and it can’t have been that Trump was a good campaigner, Clinton screwed up, or the MSM was wrong all along. That doesn’t leave much.
It could attack Vermont, in the same manner it in fact attacked the Confederacy, which it maintained had never left the Union.
Now the CIA may not be a trustworthy source and it is the nature of such things that they are not going to reveal the means and methods by which they reached this conclusion, but I think you have to do better than just to assume that they are dirty liars because the CIA always lies.
While this is far from clear and convincing evidence, the flip side is that the Russians were probably pretty careful to cover their tracks so you are never going to see the smoking gun until the Putin regime falls.Replies: @ic1000, @RadicalCenter, @inertial
You should read the article linked by Steve to see who makes these judgments and how. It’s a long read but worth it.
I can see Russian intelligence services breaking into the DNC servers (without leaving behind those silly “traces”.) I can think of no reason for them to release the contents to Wikileaks or anyone else.
First of all, this is not how intelligence services operate. They don’t like releasing data to outsiders, period. Even when they do, it happens only after months of reviews and bureaucratic sign-offs.
Secondly, the reason usually given for the supposed release of information – undermining American democracy – is bunk. It’s pure projection. American and European globalists want to destabilize Russian government (or “Putin”), so they think Russian government (or “Putin”) wants to do the same to them. This is not true. There is no discernible upside in that for Russia and there are considerable downsides, even if successful.
And finally, the Russians would have to know American political system incredibly well to anticipate the effects. Remember what was the biggest scandal in the DNC emails? The fact the the DNC tipped the scaled in Hillary’s favor against Bernie. The Russians were genuinely surprised that this was a problem at all. Of course a party apparatus helps their favorite candidate. That’s how it works in Russia and in the majority of the world where parties tend to be centered around personalities. Now someone in Russia might have had enough expertise in American system to understand that this kind of behavior was considered wrong in America. But if such a knowledgeable person existed he would’ve anticipated that American media will have given this scandal no coverage, so what’s the point.
I realized who Soros is this morning.
The billionaire who creates crises is a real-life James Bond villain. The only question is who he’s working for. If the goal is enriching himself, he’s an agent of SPECTRE, but if the real goal is overthrowing the West, he’s an agent of SMERSH.
I can see Russian intelligence services breaking into the DNC servers (without leaving behind those silly "traces".) I can think of no reason for them to release the contents to Wikileaks or anyone else.
First of all, this is not how intelligence services operate. They don't like releasing data to outsiders, period. Even when they do, it happens only after months of reviews and bureaucratic sign-offs.
Secondly, the reason usually given for the supposed release of information - undermining American democracy - is bunk. It's pure projection. American and European globalists want to destabilize Russian government (or "Putin"), so they think Russian government (or "Putin") wants to do the same to them. This is not true. There is no discernible upside in that for Russia and there are considerable downsides, even if successful.
And finally, the Russians would have to know American political system incredibly well to anticipate the effects. Remember what was the biggest scandal in the DNC emails? The fact the the DNC tipped the scaled in Hillary's favor against Bernie. The Russians were genuinely surprised that this was a problem at all. Of course a party apparatus helps their favorite candidate. That's how it works in Russia and in the majority of the world where parties tend to be centered around personalities. Now someone in Russia might have had enough expertise in American system to understand that this kind of behavior was considered wrong in America. But if such a knowledgeable person existed he would've anticipated that American media will have given this scandal no coverage, so what's the point.Replies: @Steve Sailer
The Russians have a tradition of revealing other country’s secrets to the whole world. One reason you hear so much about how bad the Sykes-Picot Treaty between Britain and France was was because Lenin and Trotsky published the Czarist foreign ministry’s secret archives a few weeks after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. That caused a lot of embarrassment for the other Powers.
The U.S. tends to do this kind of thing retail (e.g., publishing Kruschev’s Secret Speech against Stalin), but the Russians sometimes do it wholesale.
;^)
Are there comparable episodes from the Czarist era?
Then step back and watch the sputtering beginReplies: @vinteuil
Putin himself makes these points, among others, in a really interesting exchange with BBC reporter John Simpson:
I keep asking the Russophobes of my acquaintance to tell me where, exactly, he’s wrong, here – and they keep avoiding the question.
The problem for Putin is that Trump is likely to be worse that Hillary from Putin's standpoint. Territorial issues are a zero-sum game. If Trump just sits back and lets Putin take more European territory, he is going to look weak. Unlike the Democrats, Trump takes insults to his personal prestige seriously. When Putin took eastern Ukraine, the Democrats hemmed and hawed, but did nothing to help Ukraine. Trump won't be as passive if the Russians go any further, anywhere along their borders.Replies: @vinteuil
“If Trump just sits back and lets Putin take more European territory, he is going to look weak.”
Does anybody seriously believe that Putin would even *want* to invade the Baltic States, or Poland, or Czechia, or Slovakia, or Hungary, or Romania, or Bulgaria?
You get China and Russia complaining about being encircled. Does anyone really think this is about a fear of being invaded? Is Uncle Sam about to send an expeditionary force to detach or annex pieces of either country, despite the disastrous political consequences of losing just thousands of GI's in Iraq and Afghanistan - a pittance compared to fighting either China or Russia? Given their historically expansive territorial ambitions, it's more about their discomfort at having those ambitions constrained.Replies: @inertial, @guest
Like I want a bigger yard to mow.Replies: @Jack D, @dfordoom
What the Bolsheviks did may not be quite the best evidence of Russian traditions.
;^)
Are there comparable episodes from the Czarist era?
The perfect example to illustrate that no principled or even consistent position is ever at play. Here are a sample of the U.S.A.’s federal government’s positions:
• The people occupying the region have a right to self-determination notwithstanding formal jurisdiction under law: The American War for Independence, Texas’ War for Independence, California’s War for Independence, The (Unconstitutional) Creation of West Virginia
• Formal jurisdiction trumps the desire for self-determination of the people of the region: The War of Northern Aggression, Russia’s Reclamation of Crimea, The Unending Wars Between Israelis & Palestinians, China’s Occupation of Uyghurstan & Tibet
I could add to these lists all day, but the point is made. As ever with the detestable government, it’s Choose Your Own Adventure all the way down….
Yes, but in those early days the Bolsheviks had abolished the death penalty, freed their enemies in exchange for promise not to raise arms against the new regime, declared that they need no stinking army, and generally did many foolish, idealistic things. When the expected Millennium failed to arrive the Bolsheviks….had adjusted.
Does anybody seriously believe that Putin would even *want* to invade the Baltic States, or Poland, or Czechia, or Slovakia, or Hungary, or Romania, or Bulgaria?Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @anon, @BB753
It’s not a matter of belief. If Putin goes no further, no harm, no foul. If he does, then Trump will likely act decisively to slow him down.
You get China and Russia complaining about being encircled. Does anyone really think this is about a fear of being invaded? Is Uncle Sam about to send an expeditionary force to detach or annex pieces of either country, despite the disastrous political consequences of losing just thousands of GI’s in Iraq and Afghanistan – a pittance compared to fighting either China or Russia? Given their historically expansive territorial ambitions, it’s more about their discomfort at having those ambitions constrained.
I think the Zman nailed it pretty well here, especially the last few paragraphs: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=9899
During this whole scandal, I have noticed that the all-military DIA is never mentioned as being involved in any way, although I am sure they have resources to rival any of the other agencies. This leads me to believe that they are on the side of the Constitution. (And, of course, DIA was Ge. Flynn's post prior to his appointment to the NSA position.)
Your thoughts?Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Autochthon
I think you are onto something, in that the DIA are overwhelmingly focused on actors and locations outside the U.S.A., as nearly all collection of intelligence should be; it is only the madness during the past sixty years or so of admitting millions of hostile aliens and pretending they are Americans which necessitates internal operations – an entirely unnecessary evil. Likewise with rigmarole on intranational flights, not being able to leave children to roam the streets and play, constantly pressing 1 for English, and any number of other things only endured since about 2000 and thereafter. Ironically, when the Russians actually did have inimical relations with the U.S.A., life was pretty sweet and we were all a lot safer. I’ve lived though both eras, and I emphatically prefer the bogeyman of nuclear warheads over the reality of murderous rapists any day.
Door #1
Door #2
But, hey, look! – a Russian!
News is a business. They have 1,440 minutes per day to fill or lose. Much of that time is rehashing, a lot is spin, quite a bit is partisan hackery and there is on occasion some real, objective, verifiable news.
Real journalists before the talking head era must be embarrassed for what has happened to what was once a noble profession with respectable practitioners.
Does anybody seriously believe that Putin would even *want* to invade the Baltic States, or Poland, or Czechia, or Slovakia, or Hungary, or Romania, or Bulgaria?Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @anon, @BB753
I do, I do! If Putin could figure out a way to do it without starting WWIII, his fondest dream would be to extend the borders and the sphere of influence of Russia to where they were in 1989. Then he would be enshrined forever as Russia’s greatest Czar. Now, he’s not a madman (not at all) and he will in reality go only as far as he thinks he can get away with, but does he WANT it? Hell yes!
Russians generally don't want to reincorporate the old Soviet republics (and what little support for this that still exists is usually found among the few remaining "friendship of peoples" idealists.)
The reason for that is something that is never mentioned in the West but is well known in Russia today. Under USSR, these places were heavily subsidized at Russia's expense. In the last years of the Soviet Union the level of consumption in Russia was only 2/3 the level of production. In the Baltic republics consumption was about twice the production; in Georgia four times. Ukraine is too big to be subsidized at those levels but it still received about 10% more than it produced.
So today, when Russians hear about a possible restoration of the USSR the most common reaction is "we ain't feeding those lazy ingrates anymore."Replies: @guest, @Art Deco
Do you also refer to the US government as a "regime"? If not, specifically how is Russia so much more authoritarian than our current US surveillance state?
I don't want to live under a government like either of them.Replies: @Jack D, @snorlax
It’s possible to be both elected and a huge crook. See Huey Long, Boss Tweed, etc.
Putin has subverted democracy even more than the Democrats have. Yesterday there were huge “anti-corruption” (you can’t say anti-Putin) demonstrations all over Russia but not a word on Russian TV. Crickets.
Speaking of those perfidious Russians, I found this subhead pretty funny:
‘Show me on this doll where Russia touched you’
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/26/where-the-anti-russian-moral-panic-is-leading-us/
Does anybody seriously believe that Putin would even *want* to invade the Baltic States, or Poland, or Czechia, or Slovakia, or Hungary, or Romania, or Bulgaria?Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @anon, @BB753
Would the US want to annex Mexico? Or Canada?
Like I want a bigger yard to mow.
The US did, BTW, annex about 1/2 of Mexico in the 1840s. Apparently America DID want a bigger back yard.Replies: @inertial
What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC's emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks. Presumably that was done at the order of Putin or someone close to him--it's not the sort of thing some mid level flunky would take it on himself to do. My guess is that Putin et al figured Trump was going to lose (that was what most smart election watchers in the US thought, and there's no reason to think the Russians are better at understanding US politics than we are.). So probably he was hoping to sow discord among the democrats to weaken President Hillary after the election.
Russia has been pretty consistent in supporting a lot of far-right (nationalist, anti-immigrant, euroskeptic) politicians in Europe. I assume this has the do with trying to push back on NATO/EU expansion into places Russia considers their playground, like Ukraine. So supporting Trump would fit that pattern as well.Replies: @Jack D, @inertial, @MB, @Mr. Anon
“What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC’s emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks.”
You need to get out more. McAfee pretty much put the whole thing to bed.
It’s circumstantial, but the evidence hasn’t so far pointed to Russia.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+mcafee+russia+hack&pc=Z201&form=ZGAFDF&install_date=20111129
But the NSA does collect data on everbody in the United Soviet Surveillance States of Amerika so it’s all good. Something to do with the Patriotism Act.
Yay Amerika, you’re Number One.
In the Security state cross hairs, even if you can’t see the red laser dot on your forehead.
Like I want a bigger yard to mow.Replies: @Jack D, @dfordoom
What if you were Canadian or Mexican and the US had previously annexed your country, leaving only recently, would that change your answer or perhaps make you suspicious of American intentions?
The US did, BTW, annex about 1/2 of Mexico in the 1840s. Apparently America DID want a bigger back yard.
"What if you were a citizen of the recently independent Texas or Florida and the US had previously annexed your country, leaving only recently, would that change your answer or perhaps make you suspicious of American intentions?"
And the answer is, this would entirely depend on what you've been told about this "USA" entity. If they told you it was the most horrible thing ever you'd be suspicious.Replies: @bored identity
You get China and Russia complaining about being encircled. Does anyone really think this is about a fear of being invaded? Is Uncle Sam about to send an expeditionary force to detach or annex pieces of either country, despite the disastrous political consequences of losing just thousands of GI's in Iraq and Afghanistan - a pittance compared to fighting either China or Russia? Given their historically expansive territorial ambitions, it's more about their discomfort at having those ambitions constrained.Replies: @inertial, @guest
Don’t know about China, but in Russia quite a few people are genuinely afraid that America is (or was) preparing for invasion. Putin even had to make a speech to calm these people down. He said, in effect, “they’d be crazy to invade – we have nuclear weapons.” This had been reported in the West as “Putin threatens America with nukes!!!”
Putin has subverted democracy even more than the Democrats have. Yesterday there were huge "anti-corruption" (you can't say anti-Putin) demonstrations all over Russia but not a word on Russian TV. Crickets.Replies: @Art Deco, @inertial
Wm. M. Tweed was the Chairman of the New York County Democratic Committee. I don’t think he was ever a public official. The rap on Huey Long was demagogy and abuse of power. His successor once removed, Richard Leche, was the major crook.
I had to smile about how little you know about the public mood in Russia. Not your fault, of course.
Russians generally don’t want to reincorporate the old Soviet republics (and what little support for this that still exists is usually found among the few remaining “friendship of peoples” idealists.)
The reason for that is something that is never mentioned in the West but is well known in Russia today. Under USSR, these places were heavily subsidized at Russia’s expense. In the last years of the Soviet Union the level of consumption in Russia was only 2/3 the level of production. In the Baltic republics consumption was about twice the production; in Georgia four times. Ukraine is too big to be subsidized at those levels but it still received about 10% more than it produced.
So today, when Russians hear about a possible restoration of the USSR the most common reaction is “we ain’t feeding those lazy ingrates anymore.”
Unless the Baltic States were enjoying consumption levels similar to Britain's, no it wasn't. The domestic product per capita of the Baltic States is roughly 12% higher than Russia's and 25% higher when you bracket out the natural resource rents.
The US did, BTW, annex about 1/2 of Mexico in the 1840s. Apparently America DID want a bigger back yard.Replies: @inertial
Let me rephrase it for you, for the sake of better analogy.
“What if you were a citizen of the recently independent Texas or Florida and the US had previously annexed your country, leaving only recently, would that change your answer or perhaps make you suspicious of American intentions?”
And the answer is, this would entirely depend on what you’ve been told about this “USA” entity. If they told you it was the most horrible thing ever you’d be suspicious.
Let me rephrase it for you, for the sake of better analogy:
Tdzak's high moral ground on the subject of the annexation will disappears in a thin air if , to quote ex British diplomate, you try to exercise Tdzak's of all trades analogies on one particular “ shitty little country”.
Makes me suspicious.Replies: @Jack D
Putin has subverted democracy even more than the Democrats have. Yesterday there were huge "anti-corruption" (you can't say anti-Putin) demonstrations all over Russia but not a word on Russian TV. Crickets.Replies: @Art Deco, @inertial
From Unz.com’s own Anatoly Karlin:
You see the same thing happen in the US (e.g. Haven Monahan) - yes if you read obscure blogs you might know the story of Haven Monahan but if you get your news from the CBS Evening News you'd never learn who he was.
Does anybody seriously believe that Putin would even *want* to invade the Baltic States, or Poland, or Czechia, or Slovakia, or Hungary, or Romania, or Bulgaria?Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Jack D, @anon, @BB753
Well, Truman did let Stalin take a large chunk of Europe after WWII. Did he look weak or was he just sharing the spoils of war? Remember that the USA still has military bases all over Western Europe, but there are no Russian troops in the former Warsaw Pact area. To the Russians , and indeed to any non-biased observer, NATO is a hostile military force.
Do you also refer to the US government as a "regime"? If not, specifically how is Russia so much more authoritarian than our current US surveillance state?
I don't want to live under a government like either of them.Replies: @Jack D, @snorlax
Putin is elected in the same sense that, say, Marcos was elected. Putin’s government was recently rather controversial in Chechnya, but no more! In the last election he won 99.82% of the Chechen vote on 99.59% turnout.
Stalin (a man who may or may not have been studied by Putin) said 'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.' Putin's people were willing to subvert the Olympic drug testing system to win worthless medals but they surely wouldn't subvert the election process to stay in power and reap trillions.
I don't doubt that Putin is popular. As long as Hitler was winning, he was also very popular with the German population. Hitler barely got elected in '33, but by say '38 if he had held elections, even legitimate ones, I have no doubt he would have won overwhelmingly.
Now Putin (along with Trump) is not Hitler. Navalny likens him to a Mafia figure - imagine that Michael Corleone had been elected POTUS. Mike would not have gone for genocide, but if he needed to do a few selected hits then he would not have had any qualms. Putin is even more than that - he is sort of Michael Corleone if Michael had gone into the OSS instead of the Marines.
You get China and Russia complaining about being encircled. Does anyone really think this is about a fear of being invaded? Is Uncle Sam about to send an expeditionary force to detach or annex pieces of either country, despite the disastrous political consequences of losing just thousands of GI's in Iraq and Afghanistan - a pittance compared to fighting either China or Russia? Given their historically expansive territorial ambitions, it's more about their discomfort at having those ambitions constrained.Replies: @inertial, @guest
Uncle Sam doesn’t invade countries with comparable modern militaries anymore, no. But I would still be concerned about encroachment through breaking pieces off, destabilization, election meddling, “dollar diplomacy,” and all the little tricks we pull. Those things are easier to do when you’re right on their doorstep, as opposed to thousands of miles away. Even though we can get to them from over here if we want.
They feel encircled because we are trying to encircle them, so as eventually to own (or re-own) them. Same way we felt when Russia had a friendly regime in Cuba. Same way we’d feel if they set up puppet governments and stationed troops in, or carried out intelligence operations from Canada and Mexico.
Talk about 'dollar diplomacy' is an exercise in rhetorical gamesmanship, You'd be hard put to find an example of American diplomats scheming to 'break little pieces off' any other country. See Yugoslavia. The State Department was addled by the notion that boundaries should never change. Babble about 'destabilization' is humbug. Babble about 'election meddling' at least refers to a definite phenomenon (though not one babbler in 10 ever delineates a sequence of events he posits happened that would be of decisive significance).
Russians generally don't want to reincorporate the old Soviet republics (and what little support for this that still exists is usually found among the few remaining "friendship of peoples" idealists.)
The reason for that is something that is never mentioned in the West but is well known in Russia today. Under USSR, these places were heavily subsidized at Russia's expense. In the last years of the Soviet Union the level of consumption in Russia was only 2/3 the level of production. In the Baltic republics consumption was about twice the production; in Georgia four times. Ukraine is too big to be subsidized at those levels but it still received about 10% more than it produced.
So today, when Russians hear about a possible restoration of the USSR the most common reaction is "we ain't feeding those lazy ingrates anymore."Replies: @guest, @Art Deco
To be fair, the above poster was talking about Putin personally. Whether it’s important to consider what this or that world leader might ask for as his fantasy Make a Wish, I don’t know.
"What if you were a citizen of the recently independent Texas or Florida and the US had previously annexed your country, leaving only recently, would that change your answer or perhaps make you suspicious of American intentions?"
And the answer is, this would entirely depend on what you've been told about this "USA" entity. If they told you it was the most horrible thing ever you'd be suspicious.Replies: @bored identity
“…recently independent …” part tells enough about Tdzack’s subconscious alignment with a volatile sense of Justice.
Let me rephrase it for you, for the sake of better analogy:
Tdzak’s high moral ground on the subject of the annexation will disappears in a thin air if , to quote ex British diplomate, you try to exercise Tdzak’s of all trades analogies on one particular “ shitty little country”.
Makes me suspicious.
What looks pretty solid: Russia got access to the DNC's emails, and many of those emails were leaked via Wikileaks. Presumably that was done at the order of Putin or someone close to him--it's not the sort of thing some mid level flunky would take it on himself to do. My guess is that Putin et al figured Trump was going to lose (that was what most smart election watchers in the US thought, and there's no reason to think the Russians are better at understanding US politics than we are.). So probably he was hoping to sow discord among the democrats to weaken President Hillary after the election.
Russia has been pretty consistent in supporting a lot of far-right (nationalist, anti-immigrant, euroskeptic) politicians in Europe. I assume this has the do with trying to push back on NATO/EU expansion into places Russia considers their playground, like Ukraine. So supporting Trump would fit that pattern as well.Replies: @Jack D, @inertial, @MB, @Mr. Anon
No, I don’t think it does. And honestly I trust Julian Assange a lot more than I trust James Clapper, who lied under oath to Congress and the America people about the extent of NSA spying.
An parallel to that conjecture.
At the time of the Crimea takeover it was reported that that a large proportion of Crimeans are retired public servants. These people were delighted because they typically got 160% percent increases in their pensions, as they were adjusted to Russian pay scales. Russia’s per capita real GDP was approximately 4.5x that of Ukraine. Crimea also had many government workers, indirectly connected with the Russian base and activities. They too received massive raises when were they switched to the Kremlin payroll. Not surprisingly, public support in Crimea for accession to Russia was very high.
Also overlooked is that the Ukrainian Constitution of 1992 gave Crimea the right to form an autonomous government and hold referendums to secede. This was unilaterally abrogated by the Ukrainian parliament in Kiev, which Crimeans remember well.
I doubt if more than a couple of Western outlets mentioned all this in passing. Will post links if I can find them again.
[Note to self-always bookmark interesting stuff like that for the future and don’t trust to Google.]
No, 3x.Replies: @PiltdownMan
Let me rephrase it for you, for the sake of better analogy:
Tdzak's high moral ground on the subject of the annexation will disappears in a thin air if , to quote ex British diplomate, you try to exercise Tdzak's of all trades analogies on one particular “ shitty little country”.
Makes me suspicious.Replies: @Jack D
Appeals to morality are useful mainly as another weapon – diplomacy is war by other means. In the end, de facto IS de jure (Yankees are still occupying S. Carolina 150 years later). The Russians left various parts of their empire because the costs of the occupation outweighed the benefits, not because of any higher morality (and they came back to Crimea when they perceived that the balance had tilted the other way). Israel left Gaza for the same reason and will leave (or not leave) the West Bank based on the same calculus. It is up to the other side to raise the costs and making moral arguments to the rest of the world and cultivating powerful friends is part of that.
It's not fun when you're not calling me names.
For the record, I respect the
raison d'être for necessity of Israel's existence.
Eretz Israel is also probably not the worst thing that could happen to MENA Map.
I always liked cowboys more than the indians.
I just don't like America footing the bill for... all of that.
I also disagree with you about neoconishly simplistic assesment of Putin's Russia.
Tdzak, Putin's Russia is funky,geopolirical realm in which an unholly coalition of Gessen, Kasparov and Limonov are marching under the same Sorosite Flag.
Nothing to do with a Democracy.
That sounds weasel wordy to me. The real question is whether it was covered on Channel 1 which is the main news source for most Russians? My understanding was nyet.
You see the same thing happen in the US (e.g. Haven Monahan) – yes if you read obscure blogs you might know the story of Haven Monahan but if you get your news from the CBS Evening News you’d never learn who he was.
That’s nothing. In certain precincts in Philadelphia, Obama received the votes of 101% of the (living) population. He was so popular that even dead people voted for him!
Stalin (a man who may or may not have been studied by Putin) said ‘Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.’ Putin’s people were willing to subvert the Olympic drug testing system to win worthless medals but they surely wouldn’t subvert the election process to stay in power and reap trillions.
I don’t doubt that Putin is popular. As long as Hitler was winning, he was also very popular with the German population. Hitler barely got elected in ’33, but by say ’38 if he had held elections, even legitimate ones, I have no doubt he would have won overwhelmingly.
Now Putin (along with Trump) is not Hitler. Navalny likens him to a Mafia figure – imagine that Michael Corleone had been elected POTUS. Mike would not have gone for genocide, but if he needed to do a few selected hits then he would not have had any qualms. Putin is even more than that – he is sort of Michael Corleone if Michael had gone into the OSS instead of the Marines.
Russian pay scales. Russia’s per capita real GDP was approximately 4.5x that of Ukraine.
No, 3x.
Crimea had an autonomous government. Putin wasn’t persuaded that Russophile sentiment was sufficient (as there’s a large minority who are not Great Russian), so he had to stuff the ballot boxes.
But I would still be concerned about encroachment through breaking pieces off, destabilization, election meddling, “dollar diplomacy,” and all the little tricks we pull.
Talk about ‘dollar diplomacy’ is an exercise in rhetorical gamesmanship, You’d be hard put to find an example of American diplomats scheming to ‘break little pieces off’ any other country. See Yugoslavia. The State Department was addled by the notion that boundaries should never change. Babble about ‘destabilization’ is humbug. Babble about ‘election meddling’ at least refers to a definite phenomenon (though not one babbler in 10 ever delineates a sequence of events he posits happened that would be of decisive significance).
Ferdinand Marcos actually was elected in 1965 and 1969, though there were complaints about electoral fraud regarding the latter contest. Public opinion surveys in Russia are consistent with election results, more or less. Students of comparative political systems use terms like ‘democradura’ or ‘managed pluralism’ to describe regimes like Putin’s.
Russians generally don't want to reincorporate the old Soviet republics (and what little support for this that still exists is usually found among the few remaining "friendship of peoples" idealists.)
The reason for that is something that is never mentioned in the West but is well known in Russia today. Under USSR, these places were heavily subsidized at Russia's expense. In the last years of the Soviet Union the level of consumption in Russia was only 2/3 the level of production. In the Baltic republics consumption was about twice the production; in Georgia four times. Ukraine is too big to be subsidized at those levels but it still received about 10% more than it produced.
So today, when Russians hear about a possible restoration of the USSR the most common reaction is "we ain't feeding those lazy ingrates anymore."Replies: @guest, @Art Deco
In the Baltic republics consumption was about twice the production;
Unless the Baltic States were enjoying consumption levels similar to Britain’s, no it wasn’t. The domestic product per capita of the Baltic States is roughly 12% higher than Russia’s and 25% higher when you bracket out the natural resource rents.
What are you talking about? Stalin’s sphere of influence in Europe was derived from the position of the armies at the end of the war. Britain and the United States had only an uncertain influence over precisely where the various armies would be when the fighting concluded. Truman took office just 26 days before V-E Day. He had to navigate in the waters in which he found himself.
So, do you blame Roosevelt?
No, 3x.Replies: @PiltdownMan
Thanks. I had a hard time trying to figure out a good number. The World Bank numbers for that year don’t quite capture the gyrations of both the hryvnia and the ruble in that last tumultuous year before the annexation, affecting calculations of relative GDP.
Real journalists before the talking head era must be embarrassed for what has happened to what was once a noble profession with respectable practitioners.Replies: @dfordoom
Journalism was never a noble profession. They have always been prostitutes. The difference between then and now is that now they don’t even pretend to have ethics.
Like I want a bigger yard to mow.Replies: @Jack D, @dfordoom
Or rather, would the US want to annex more of Mexico?
1) Remaining largely unsettled and claimed only on paper by Mexico, they were ultimately settled by Americans, who later decided they had rather affiliate with America than Mexico (California / The Mexican Cession)
2) They had already themselves fought a fierce war for independence and, having voluntarily renounced that independence to join the U.S.A., the U.S.A. defended them from reconquista by the Mexicans (California / Texas)
3) Having been won in a bloody war to defend Texas from invasion, at a cost of some thirteen thousand American lives, they were retained by right of conquest (California / The Mexican Cession)
4) They were purchased via arms-lengths dealing between two sovereign governments (the Gadsden Purchase)
All told, we've acquisitions of lands already peopled by Americans and, in the last instance, desired for the efficient route of a railroad. I would expect no similar desire for lands teeming with alien mestizoids would motivate acquiring such lands as those. But then, the federal government has countenanced the cession of the U.S.A.'s lands to those alien mestizoids, so perhaps the equally insane and deleterious acquisition of their lands may be in order after all....
And in Australia. We were your ally (or so we fondly imagined) but we still got to be an occupied country.
The empire is now post-American. We're as much an occupied territory of the empire as you are.Replies: @dfordoom
Uncle Sam doesn’t like to fight folks who have the ability to fight back.
And your territory is not under NATO protection.
You’re still the ally of this country (one of the closest). We now have a president for the first time in a while.
The empire is now post-American. We’re as much an occupied territory of the empire as you are.
I'd like Australia to be an independent nation but apparently that option's not on the table.
Tdzak, Tdzak,Tdzak.
It’s not fun when you’re not calling me names.
For the record, I respect the
raison d’être for necessity of Israel’s existence.
Eretz Israel is also probably not the worst thing that could happen to MENA Map.
I always liked cowboys more than the indians.
I just don’t like America footing the bill for… all of that.
I also disagree with you about neoconishly simplistic assesment of Putin’s Russia.
Tdzak, Putin’s Russia is funky,geopolirical realm in which an unholly coalition of Gessen, Kasparov and Limonov are marching under the same Sorosite Flag.
Nothing to do with a Democracy.
The empire is now post-American. We're as much an occupied territory of the empire as you are.Replies: @dfordoom
Strangely enough I’d feel a lot of safer if we weren’t. So far it’s gotten us into a whole stack of wars. I worry that the next war the US drags us into will be the big one.
I’d have voted for him as the lesser of two evils but he still worries me. The only good thing about him is that he’s not Hillary Clinton.
I’d like Australia to be an independent nation but apparently that option’s not on the table.
Then China cannot attack Taiwan either.
What if I told you that just as de facto Taiwan has never been part of the People’s Republic of China (even if it’s an internationally recognized part of China), so South Ossetia has de facto never been part of the Republic of Georgia? Also South Ossetia has declared its independence prior to the dissolution of the USSR (though after the declaration of independence by Georgia). A few countries have already recognized its independence.
It must be noted that Russia stationed troops on South Ossetian territory as part of a CIS-brokered international ceasefire agreement, of which it was the guarantor power. Georgia by way of that international treaty voluntarily relinquished its right to move troops into (or to start shooting into) South Ossetian territory, and it never had the right to start shooting at the Russian peacekeepers lawfully stationed there.
So just why was it impossible for Georgia to attack both South Ossetia and Russia at that time? I mean, if Hungary attacked American troops lawfully stationed at its territory, I’m pretty sure we would all agree that Hungary attacked America. (I don’t think Hungary will ever do such colossal stupidity, it’s just an example.)
I should say not, being as how those parts it (I can no longer bring myself to write “we”) did annex previously were added because:
1) Remaining largely unsettled and claimed only on paper by Mexico, they were ultimately settled by Americans, who later decided they had rather affiliate with America than Mexico (California / The Mexican Cession)
2) They had already themselves fought a fierce war for independence and, having voluntarily renounced that independence to join the U.S.A., the U.S.A. defended them from reconquista by the Mexicans (California / Texas)
3) Having been won in a bloody war to defend Texas from invasion, at a cost of some thirteen thousand American lives, they were retained by right of conquest (California / The Mexican Cession)
4) They were purchased via arms-lengths dealing between two sovereign governments (the Gadsden Purchase)
All told, we’ve acquisitions of lands already peopled by Americans and, in the last instance, desired for the efficient route of a railroad. I would expect no similar desire for lands teeming with alien mestizoids would motivate acquiring such lands as those. But then, the federal government has countenanced the cession of the U.S.A.’s lands to those alien mestizoids, so perhaps the equally insane and deleterious acquisition of their lands may be in order after all….