Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory originated from Russian Intelligence, confirmed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some of you may remember that, back during the 2016 election, a DNC staffer named Seth Rich was murdered, which was followed by numerous theories that he was killed due to the Clintons, because he was going to expose corruption in the Democratic Party (I recall these theories being quite popular among the Bernie or Buster crowd).

Well...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4521 ... -that-seth

Conspiracy theories that former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich was murdered on the orders of 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton originated with the Russian foreign intelligence service, according to a Yahoo News investigation.

The SVR circulated a fake “bulletin” it passed off as a genuine intelligence report about Rich, who was killed in Washington, D.C., in July 2016 in what the D.C. Police Department have said was a botched robbery, Yahoo news reported on Tuesday.

The document outlined the initial conspiracy theory, that Rich was killed on Clinton’s orders on his way to alert the FBI to corruption within the Clinton campaign. The same day, the details were reproduced on the website whatdoesitmean.com, which attributed them to “Russian intelligence.”

“To me, having a foreign intelligence agency set up one of my decedents with lies and planting false stories, to me that’s pretty outrageous,” former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines, who oversaw the Rich case until she retired in 2018, told Yahoo.

“Maybe other people don’t think it’s that outrageous. I did ... once it became clear to me that this was coming from the SVR, then that triggers a lot of very serious [questions about] ‘What do I do with this?’” Sines added.

Over the next 2 1/2 years, the Internet Research Agency, the group that conducted Russian intelligence’s social media misinformation operation during the 2016 election, promoted the conspiracy theories under accounts purporting to be American citizens or organizations, according to Yahoo.

The story gained traction among conservative outlets following WikiLeaks's release of hacked Democratic emails, hacks which U.S. intelligence believe were also conducted by Moscow.

As late as 2017, then-White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon reportedly texted a “60 Minutes” producer to say Rich’s death was "a contract kill, obviously," claiming that Rich was a supporter of Clinton's primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Fox News’s Sean Hannity also frequently promoted the conspiracy theory in 2017. Fox eventually retracted a report that Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks after one of its main sources backtracked on his claims.

Sines said she used her security clearance to obtain copies of two SVR intelligence reports about the Rich case and later wrote a memo about Russian intelligence’s role and briefed former special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors on the findings.

“It’s not rocket science before you add it up and you go, ‘Oh, if Seth is the leaker to WikiLeaks — it doesn’t have anything to do with the Russians.' So of course Russia’s interest in doing this is incredibly transparent,” she told Yahoo.

Rich’s parents, Mary and Joel, have repeatedly called for an end to the spread of the conspiracy theory, which has led some of its promoters to accuse them of involvement in a cover-up.

“I wish they had the chance to experience the hell we have gone through. Because this is worse than losing my son the first time. This is like losing him all over again,” Mary Rich told Yahoo.

But remember, its all a Deep State Red Scare McCarthyist witch hunt. There was no Russian interference (and even if there was, its okay because America does it too, which somehow makes America bad and Russia good).

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I don't know what the fuck Putin and his posse are smoking/drinking/combination right now because their goal right now looks like they want to set the world on fire just so they can make Russia a Great Power Again.

... and why do you see me screaming at the sky asking why reality has decided to make a setting of mine to turn into reality? Or made me far more authoritarian than I would have otherwise?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know what the fuck Putin and his posse are smoking/drinking/combination right now because their goal right now looks like they want to set the world on fire just so they can make Russia a Great Power Again.

Ding ding ding ding ding! You've got it!

... and why do you see me screaming at the sky asking why reality has decided to make a setting of mine to turn into reality? Or made me far more authoritarian than I would have otherwise?

Yeah, but if the only way to beat fascism is to become tyrants ourselves, we might as well throw in the towel, save ourselves the effort, and let Big Brother Vladimir and his orange sock-puppet win.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Ding ding ding ding ding! You've got it!

Now add to the fact that they are willing to use everything and anything -including the metaphorical kitchen sink- to do so... and those tools are being proliferated as we speak...

That and you are assuming that liberalism in the aspect of 'most adults are adults' isn't bunk, more often than not, the aspect of paternalism that assumes that 'most adults aren't adults' is true.

Yeah, but if the only way to beat fascism is to become tyrants ourselves, we might as well throw in the towel, save ourselves the effort, and let Big Brother Vladimir and his orange sock-puppet win.

Problem with that assumption is that we've actually got a choice. To quote a rather knowledgeable forum insect who has put it far more eloquently than I:

Between 1990 and today we went from digital cameras costing thousands of dollars and being the size of your head; too costing about 1 cent, are smaller than a fingernail, and everyone having at least one in their pocket at all times directly linked too a global information network upon which many people voluntarily post dozens of pictures every day that are analyzed by hundreds of information analysis programs.

Cameras are getting smaller and cheaper at a geometric rate, facial recognition software has gone from being computer intensive and unreliable, too highly reliable and processing efficient. Internet companies track your identity, interests and purchases simply too advertise too you better.

Human population is plateauing and we are congregating in dense cities while computers are increasing in power, efficiency and number all the time. We will reach a point in the first half of this century where the amount of sensors in a city is so great that the data floating around the net is sufficient too build a full picture of someones life in real time.


In a few decades you will reach the point where sensors are basically smart dust, incorporated into virtually everything; not leaving an easily identifiable trace of your life with such sensor density will be impossible.


The panopticon is a technological inevitability, it is basically the most sure thing we can predict about the coming century.
_____
The fear mongering in this thread

Dictatorships rely on secrets, denial of information and concentration of force; when the government is as exposed as the people it becomes very difficult for them too amass the power needed too become a dictatorship without being overthrown before they reach critical mass. A dictatorship always relies on a force of loyal enforcers smaller than the populace they try too oppress, when the movements and organization of this force are impossible too mask it becomes much easier too avoid and out maneuver them. With equal degree of omni-surveillance available too both sides it becomes a numbers game which the populace inevitably wins.

Secret organizations coming in the dark of night too drag away dissenters and throw them into a dark hole only works if the organizations are secret and they can't be tracked




Look it's a technological inevitability that a Panopticon will arise, so we should have a rational discussion (not FEAR FEAR FEAR DOOM) about how society and government should adapt too having a fair and free society in a post-privacy world


There are certainly an enormous number of benefits too a society that can see and record everything. Disasters, crime and accidents become far easier too control and reduce; emergency services can be dispatched the second someone is in trouble; corruption, blackmail and bribery become impossibly hard too pull off without reprisal. Constant monitoring of infrastructure, energy use, transportation, ect allows for vast increase in efficiency of all systems. Diseases and toxins can be tracked in real time, outbreaks that would cause great epidemics isolated quickly and all potential vectors shutoff and tested/cleaned.

The knowledge in the back of your mind that you are potentially being watched and judged will cause people too act more civil too each other, or understand why someone is so upset if you can trawl back through their recent past (family abuse is annihilated in this post-privacy world, bullying, harassment you ain't getting away with that shit)



There is a fuckload of positives too an omnisurveilance society, yet you people seem to be obsessed with it being a terrifying dystopia
_____
Ahh yes the "Your argument falls apart entirely at this one nitpick and thus I don't have to address any of the other points you made"

Classic lazy debating and lack of in depth consideration

Governments already have to dedicate silly huge budgets too information security in crucially sensitive departments like intelligence, and already it is shown too be quite permeable relying more on employee compliance than an airtight information security system.

The vast majority of the government apparatus cannot afford such information security measures, it relies on thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens working office jobs; how do you get anyone too work for you at a cost effective wage if you have too demand they are completely stripped of all electronic devices (which already are practically a part of people, in coming decades they will be basically an indispensable part of a persons being) just too work in a government department?

Governments are made up of people, unless you reduce everyone too mindless automatons or have a gun too their head at all times you aren't going too have a productive and cost effective workforce that is information tight. The only government departments that have scary effective info security are the ones like the CIA and NSA which have enormously drawn out vetting processes and pay their people HUGE salaries with bonuses and pensions too keep them happy and quiet, there is no way that the government can afford too pay everyone in the bureaucracy that handles information the wages of intelligence department workers, and certainly cannot have such complex hiring processes.


In the modern world government policy is already leaked as fast as it is created and the minutes of meetings end up available too people who are interested. The increasing pervasiveness of digital data recording and processing will make it much easier and faster for leaked tidbits of information too be collated together into a coherent picture and built into a story of government scandal


The government can certainly keep some things secret from the people in a surveillance society, with great effort and expense. But what is infeasible is the government keeping secrets on a large enough scale that it can have a secretive government apparatus large and effective enough too openly oppress the people for the evilz. The larger the government group the more difficult it is too keep information from leaking, and the rest of government that cannot afford too hide in super secret evil plotting bunkers will have adapted too operating in open non-secretive politics, their political advantage of full openness makes them very hard too nail down with blackmail and they will gain political support by crusading against the secretive totally not plotting evilz part of government sucking up so much public funds in its effort too hide from the public.

When the parts of government actually busy doing the governing and public relations shit have accepted full openness, they are not going too tolerate secret little government cartels, they become a brilliant target for demonstrating how open and trustworthy you are too the voting public. A poltician that has accepted openness and embraced it will be a terrifying force too fight as another politician/government entity with secrets, especially if secret plotting department relies on the open no-secrets politicians are in charge of dividing up the budget.
____________
Being a monster is entirely relative, we are deep in the dark world of moral relativity in this discussion; black and white morality in decision making becomes impossible


If technology advances too the point where rogue individuals or small groups can be an existential threat too orders of magnitude more people than belong too the group; via weapons of mass destruction, bio plagues, ecosystem crashers, climate sabotage, ect... then the moral calculus balances out too determine that preventing the destruction or grievous harm of vast numbers of people justifies certain actions that seen abhorrently immoral in their own right


It's basically the Trolley Problem but on a Nation State -> Civilization -> Species level depending on how dangerous the threat is.


If technology has developed too the point that small groups can cause vast destruction, then either civilization and the species is doomed; or civilization will adapt too contain and control such threats... by whatever means necessary



Omnipresent surveillance is at least the most morally neutral of countermeasures, it is passive and can detect such problem groups before they can become a major threat and authorities intervene in the most morally just way possible (arrests and psychological treatment) Groups that actually manage too build a threatening weapon will likely be spotted before they can deploy it in an effective manner and the Panopticon system can help authorities manage the emergency response causing the least harm possible too the innocent and the guilty alike.
_____________
The thing is that technology is shifting the balance of risk; biological weapons formerly took years of work and enormously expensive facilities, trial and error, and as a result only States could implement them. With genetics now programmable on computers, the developing field of digitally simulated biology, genetic strings being written in a computer, printed and inserted into cells too create new species... this is only the beginning. The technology and resources required too create a super-plague has gone from state level down too merely company level, and it is inevitably going too fall further too the point that very small groups of individuals can create highly dangerous engineered organisms with equipment and knowledge available too civilians.

There are plenty of omnicidal nuts out there, the people who advocate culling humanity as a cure too environmental exploitation of 'Mother Nature' Would you trust these sorts with the ability too cook up plagues?

So you are confidently asserting that threats too civilization can never come from anything less than full nation states How could you possibly justify this claim, history is rife with small groups or individuals that caused great catastrophes through their own selfish philosophically driven actions; even if the ultimate destructive force was the war machines of nation states it was non-state-aligned individuals who tipped the balance from rational diplomatic confrontation too armed conflict

That is just with biotech, and now we're also dealing with memetics, which generally always have been one thing and one thing only: problematic to disastrous proportions.

So we've got a nostalgic leadership that is willing to do anything to get its way and will continue to do so until it gets its way... with the tools it's using to get its way proliferating to non-state actors. If that isn't the fact that technology and freedom being irreconcilable, then I don't know what is.

We're head deep in moral relativity in these topics anymore, I'm just getting with the new program (sadly enough).

[Straha]

It's interesting to me how fraught the reaction is to foreign intervention in Presidential Elections when the very office of the Presidency (or, at the very least, the executive branch as a whole) has been legitimated by its ability to intervene in the domestic matters of foreign nations since its inception. Especially in the last thirty years where the power of the Presidency has been explicitly tied to repeated intervention in Russian politics both foreign (see: NATO expansion, et al.) and domestic (see, notably, the entire history of the 90s).

Especially when the foreign intervention is so ham-fisted as this. "Hillary had a dude killed" isn't just an overt conspiracy theory, it's a tired retread of the Vince Foster story. To point to someone trying to insert this story into public discourse as a transgression in the context of the history of the U.S. Presidency is not just bizarre but also requires as a sort basckground truism that American voters are dumb as shit and easily influenced by horrendously transparent fabulation. Frankly, that narrative strikes me as far more destructive to the legitimacy of democracy than anything that Russia has been accused of doing.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's interesting to me how fraught the reaction is to foreign intervention in Presidential Elections when the very office of the Presidency (or, at the very least, the executive branch as a whole) has been legitimated by its ability to intervene in the domestic matters of foreign nations since its inception. Especially in the last thirty years where the power of the Presidency has been explicitly tied to repeated intervention in Russian politics both foreign (see: NATO expansion, et al.) and domestic (see, notably, the entire history of the 90s).

Part of the reason these tactics of Russia's are as effective as they are is that any time someone tries to draw attention to them, there are lots of people ready to shout "But America did it too!"

America's misdeeds are certainly a crucial topic, but its interesting how they are always immediately brought up in response to a criticism of Russia or another non-western dictatorship, usually by those who are defending said dictatorship's crimes. That sends a message that a lot of America's critics aren't really opposed to oligarchy or imperialism or authoritarianism per say (and at least some of them are quite open in admitting this)- attacking America's misdeeds is just a useful way to deflect blame and paint their own critics as hypocrites.

What's particularly dispiriting is seeing so-called progressives falling for this, in the mistaken belief that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

Russia, of course, has used and encouraged this narrative (aka Whataboutism) with great enthusiasm, and to great effect.

Especially when the foreign intervention is so ham-fisted as this. "Hillary had a dude killed" isn't just an overt conspiracy theory, it's a tired retread of the Vince Foster story. To point to someone trying to insert this story into public discourse as a transgression in the context of the history of the U.S. Presidency is not just bizarre but also requires as a sort basckground truism that American voters are dumb as shit and easily influenced by horrendously transparent fabulation. Frankly, that narrative strikes me as far more destructive to the legitimacy of democracy than anything that Russia has been accused of doing.

They don't have to fool all American voters, or even most American voters. All they need to do is sow enough doubt in the minds of a few percent of swing state voters to keep them home on election night.

Ain't the Electoral College grand?

Ding ding ding ding ding! You've got it!

Now add to the fact that they are willing to use everything and anything -including the metaphorical kitchen sink- to do so... and those tools are being proliferated as we speak...

That and you are assuming that liberalism in the aspect of 'most adults are adults' isn't bunk, more often than not, the aspect of paternalism that assumes that 'most adults aren't adults' is true.

I assume no such thing. I observe that throughout history, dictatorship has not proved a more stable system than democracy, and that society is constantly evolving, and that every generation, there have been people who have predicted that these were uniquely catastrophic times, that a certain outcome was inevitable (usually one that fitted their agenda), that this would be the generation where the wheel stopped turning and the world stopped changing.

It never has.

You, I will note have offered no real evidence for your competing authoritarian assumptions that modern media must be a tool only for despotism, and that human beings are generally too stupid or immature to choose for themselves (both Luddism and elitism are also very old arguments, which have been used by authoritarians for a long, long time, so you'll have to work hard to convince me that they have suddenly become more valid than they ever were before).

Problem with that assumption is that we've actually got a choice. (snip quote)

Another thing that is not unique to this era is people claiming that a certain future is inevitable as a way to justify their agenda.

That is just with biotech, and now we're also dealing with memetics, which generally always have been one thing and one thing only: problematic to disastrous proportions.

I see no reason why we cannot use memetics to facilitate the spread of good ideas, as well as bad ones. If the Left put more work into that, we might not be losing so much.

So we've got a nostalgic leadership that is willing to do anything to get its way and will continue to do so until it gets its way... with the tools it's using to get its way proliferating to non-state actors. If that isn't the fact that technology and freedom being irreconcilable, then I don't know what is.

Partly because you seem to assume that these tools can only be used for authoritarian ends. For many of them, that's not the case.

We're head deep in moral relativity in these topics anymore, I'm just getting with the new program (sadly enough).

If you have chosen surrender, then you have done so prematurely. I do not see that the cause of freedom and human rights is any more hopeless now than it was in say 1940 or (in America) 1861.

[Straha]

It's interesting to me how fraught the reaction is to foreign intervention in Presidential Elections when the very office of the Presidency (or, at the very least, the executive branch as a whole) has been legitimated by its ability to intervene in the domestic matters of foreign nations since its inception. Especially in the last thirty years where the power of the Presidency has been explicitly tied to repeated intervention in Russian politics both foreign (see: NATO expansion, et al.) and domestic (see, notably, the entire history of the 90s).

Part of the reason these tactics of Russia's are as effective as they are is that any time someone tries to draw attention to them, there are lots of people ready to shout "But America did it too!"

America's misdeeds are certainly a crucial topic, but its interesting how they are always immediately brought up in response to a criticism of Russia or another non-western dictatorship, usually by those who are defending said dictatorship's crimes. That sends a message that a lot of America's critics aren't really opposed to oligarchy or imperialism or authoritarianism per say (and at least some of them are quite open in admitting this)- attacking America's misdeeds is just a useful way to deflect blame and paint their own critics as hypocrites.

This isn't just America did it too. (Although it did, and to throw a hissy fit about this while not opposing American interventionism overseas is the height of hypocrisy.) It's more complicated: The legitimacy of the Presidency and of American foreign policy is based, fundamentally, in intervention in other countries' domestic affairs. The list of countries where the policy goals and designs of the US President and the US State Department are more influential than those of their own government is not insubstantial. Russia's inclusion on that list is debatable, but the long-term goal of various Presidents (including Obama) and their State Departments to put it on that list is undeniable. As such, why shouldn't Russia have a stake in determining who the President is? Especially when your argument is that the people who pick the President in the US are idiotic rubes who can be influenced by the weakest of deceptions. The only logical move then is to intervene, rather then let put what is most precious to Russia into the hands of incompetents and imbeciles, to sit back and be complacent would be the worst abrogation of the responsibility that the Russian government has to its citizens.

Especially when the foreign intervention is so ham-fisted as this. "Hillary had a dude killed" isn't just an overt conspiracy theory, it's a tired retread of the Vince Foster story. To point to someone trying to insert this story into public discourse as a transgression in the context of the history of the U.S. Presidency is not just bizarre but also requires as a sort basckground truism that American voters are dumb as shit and easily influenced by horrendously transparent fabulation. Frankly, that narrative strikes me as far more destructive to the legitimacy of democracy than anything that Russia has been accused of doing.

They don't have to fool all American voters, or even most American voters. All they need to do is sow enough doubt in the minds of a few percent of swing state voters to keep them home on election night.

Ain't the Electoral College grand?

You cannot at one and the same time say you're fighting for the legitimacy of the American democratic project while also actively perpetuating the narrative that its fate rests in the hands of a clique of idiotic bumpkins whose votes are given out so capriciously as to be more reflective of paper-thin slander than deeper self-interest or legitimate structural issues.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's interesting to me how fraught the reaction is to foreign intervention in Presidential Elections when the very office of the Presidency (or, at the very least, the executive branch as a whole) has been legitimated by its ability to intervene in the domestic matters of foreign nations since its inception. Especially in the last thirty years where the power of the Presidency has been explicitly tied to repeated intervention in Russian politics both foreign (see: NATO expansion, et al.) and domestic (see, notably, the entire history of the 90s).

Part of the reason these tactics of Russia's are as effective as they are is that any time someone tries to draw attention to them, there are lots of people ready to shout "But America did it too!"

America's misdeeds are certainly a crucial topic, but its interesting how they are always immediately brought up in response to a criticism of Russia or another non-western dictatorship, usually by those who are defending said dictatorship's crimes. That sends a message that a lot of America's critics aren't really opposed to oligarchy or imperialism or authoritarianism per say (and at least some of them are quite open in admitting this)- attacking America's misdeeds is just a useful way to deflect blame and paint their own critics as hypocrites.

This isn't just America did it too. (Although it did, and to throw a hissy fit about this while not opposing American interventionism overseas is the height of hypocrisy.)

Is that a reference to me, or a general comment?

If that comment was a general one, then I agree. If it was an attempt to characterize my views/posts, then it is false, dishonesty, and an attempt to derail the debate with a personal attack, and I advise you to retract it immediately.

It's more complicated: The legitimacy of the Presidency and of American foreign policy is based, fundamentally, in intervention in other countries' domestic affairs.

I didn't mention it in my last post, but the notion that the legitimacy of the Presidency is based in foreign interventions is absurd. What do you even mean by "legitimacy"? The legitimacy of the Presidency legally is based on being elligible to run (ie 35 or older and a natural-born citizen), and on getting a majority of votes in the Electoral College (or, in the event of a tie, the House of Representatives). What defines moral legitimacy is more open to debate, but I would say it be having the general support of a majority of the American people on election day, and generally conducting oneself in office in accordance with the rule of law.

The list of countries where the policy goals and designs of the US President and the US State Department are more influential than those of their own government is not insubstantial. Russia's inclusion on that list is debatable, but the long-term goal of various Presidents (including Obama) and their State Departments to put it on that list is undeniable. As such, why shouldn't Russia have a stake in determining who the President is? Especially when your argument is that the people who pick the President in the US are idiotic rubes who can be influenced by the weakest of deceptions. The only logical move then is to intervene, rather then let put what is most precious to Russia into the hands of incompetents and imbeciles, to sit back and be complacent would be the worst abrogation of the responsibility that the Russian government has to its citizens.

So your argument is "The Russian government should be allowed to pick the President of the United States, because Americans are too stupid to have democracy"? And then you have the audacity to claim that I am the one basing my argument on the general stupidity of the American people, even after I explicitly pointed out the first time you tried it that you only need to fool a small percentage of the public under our current system?

Well, then I am forced to conclude that you are a morally bankrupt liar, and a willing tool of fascism, as well as of misogyny, homophobia, oligarchy, organized crime, and imperialism.

Also, the notion that Russia's policies are more determined by the US than by the Russian government (or Russian organized crime, there isn't really a difference) is not debatable, its laughable. You are truly delusional, or an utterly shameless propagandist and liar, if you are trying to argue that fucking Russia is a US puppet state.

As to whether Russia should have a say in US affairs, I ultimately believe in one world government, in which all the people of every nation have a say in the affairs of every other. This, I believe, is the only just course in a world that is as interconnected as ours'. However, that is very different from a small group of Russian oligarchs (or American oligarchs) getting to pick the US President. And if Russia got such a say in our affairs, we should also have such a say in there's, but you would obviously oppose that. Because the real purpose of all this "Both Sides do it" obfuscation is, as always, not actually to hold both sides equally accountable- its to legitimize Russia's crimes while deflecting the blame onto the US.

You cannot at one and the same time say you're fighting for the legitimacy of the American democratic project while also actively perpetuating the narrative that its fate rests in the hands of a clique of idiotic bumpkins whose votes are given out so capriciously as to be more reflective of paper-thin slander than deeper self-interest or legitimate structural issues.

I believe you are trying (as Kremlin apologists generally do) to trap me with a false dilemma, where I must either agree that America is undemocratic (and therefore, in your mind, that Russia's actions are justified), or else that I'm a hypocrite. Either way, of course, the Kremlin's narrative wins.

I reject your false choice. I can recognize that America is not fully Democratic while still recognizing that some countries are less democratic, and opposing moves to make America even less democratic in turn. Also, in what way are the Electoral College's votes reflective of slander? You can't just string random words together and sound clever, you know.

I'll add that the shear dishonesty (and always in the same, entirely predictable forms) used by Kremlin apologists on this board, without a word of reprimand or sanction by (and sometimes participation from) members of the moderator team, makes a mockery of this board's claim to support evidence-based debate and prohibit dishonest debate. If it were up to me, I would explicitly add Whataboutism to the list of dishonest debating tactics considered a violation of board rules. Sadly, however, that choice is not mine to make.

[The Romulan Republic]

Jesus Christ, how did Putin convince so many useful idiots on the Internet that they're being progressive and anti-Imperialist by defending a regime that tortures and jails gay people and currently has troops on the ground in Syria while occupying a large part of the Ukraine?

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Putin's only on your side if you're a wealthy male Russian nationalist and a fascist. Anyone else who supports him or his narrative is just a tool.

[Straha]

Is that a reference to me, or a general comment?

If that comment was a general one, then I agree. If it was an attempt to characterize my views/posts, then it is false, dishonesty, and an attempt to derail the debate with a personal attack, and I advise you to retract it immediately.

Your kneejerk defensiveness about this, coupled with your ranting below, speaks volumes more to this than anything I could ever say.

I didn't mention it in my last post, but the notion that the legitimacy of the Presidency is based in foreign interventions is absurd. What do you even mean by "legitimacy"? The legitimacy of the Presidency legally is based on being elligible to run (ie 35 or older and a natural-born citizen), and on getting a majority of votes in the Electoral College (or, in the event of a tie, the House of Representatives). What defines moral legitimacy is more open to debate, but I would say it be having the general support of a majority of the American people on election day, and generally conducting oneself in office in accordance with the rule of law.

Okay, buddy. Political and Cultural legitimacy are kind of basic Poli Sci topics that you should have a grasp of if you're going to post like this. At the very least, read the Wikipedia page and assorted links about the concept before acting befuddled about it here. This isn't Norm Ornstein level stuff here, it's all pretty basic.

As for the U.S. Presidency, there are a number of things a potential president has to do, and then a reigning president must avowedly affirm, in order to be taken seriously. They are, in part and in no particular order:

• Establish oneself as a christian. Preferably a Protestant but Wasp-y Catholic will suffice.
• Be avowedly Capitalist.
• Establish a largely uncritical relationship with the US' history, with minor 'corrective' apologies allowed but deeper systemic issues denied.
• Tied to that, be a firm believer in American Exceptionalism and all it entails.
• Be unabashedly supportive of the US Military, and be fundamentally supportive of American military intervention abroad.
• Affirm an imperialist foreign policy.

The use of the rhetoric of white supremacy is another long-standing one, and Obama's partial transgression of it is arguably one of the reasons why people were so incensed by him.

Anyway, since the beginning of the union the President has always established their bona fides by directly intervening in the internal politics of foreign nations. This is seen earliest on, and perhaps most starkly, in the constant, repeated, and unending (to this day) interventions in Native Nations across the continent, but can also be seen from the earliest days with interventions in Haiti, Spanish Florida, etc. through the 1800s starting with the disruption (and eventual invasion of) Mexico and continuing with constant interference in the Caribbean, all through the 20th and 21st Century.

I don't want to turn this into a laundry list of interventions, but it's beyond dispute that by the late 20th and early 21st Century the president is expected, de rigeur, to intervene forcefully in other nations in a myriad of different ways to enrich US monied interests and protect the international interests of the country, whether or not the intervention is welcome in or good for the countries in which the US is intervening. It is what it means to be the head of this imperial project and to imagine the office otherwise is taboo.

The cornerstone of this since the Russian Revolution has been the containment of the Soviet experiment, the rolling back of communism through any means available, and (since the collapse of the USSR) the denuding and containing of the Russian state. Clinton and H.W. Bush did this with great force, W. and Obama both established 'tough on Russia' as a cornerstone of their foreign policy. This, again, isn't some revelation, there's plenty of stuff written about this and the rhetoric that surrounds American policy viz-a-viz Russia and I encourage you to read it.

So your argument is "The Russian government should be allowed to pick the President of the United States, because Americans are too stupid to have democracy"? And then you have the audacity to claim that I am the one basing my argument on the general stupidity of the American people, even after I explicitly pointed out the first time you tried it that you only need to fool a small percentage of the public under our current system?

Buddy. Your argument is that American democracy is so broken that it can be influenced by tired rehashes of lies which were stale when Gingrich was still an elected official. Like, straight up the claim that "the idea that Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich changed the 2016 election" is absurdly elitist and dismissively condescending towards the American voter, deeply pessimistic about the American political project, and fucking asburd on its face.

My argument re: intervention as a praxis, which is pretty blatant, is that given how the US positions itself in the world, the influence it wields like a hatchet, and the effect it has on other nations other nations need to intervene in US Domestic politics in order to protect their own people. If you believe that that's a fundamentally illegitimate action that should be opposed as an almost categorical imperative, that's fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But that also means that the American political system is one which is fundamentally illegitimate, and to defend the sanctity of its elections is at best an act of imperialist complacency.

Also, the notion that Russia's policies are more determined by the US than by the Russian government (or Russian organized crime, there isn't really a difference) is not debatable, its laughable. You are truly delusional, or an utterly shameless propagandist and liar, if you are trying to argue that fucking Russia is a US puppet state.

'You can't just string random words together and sound clever, you know.'

As to whether Russia should have a say in US affairs, I ultimately believe in one world government, in which all the people of every nation have a say in the affairs of every other. This, I believe, is the only just course in a world that is as interconnected as ours'. However, that is very different from a small group of Russian oligarchs (or American oligarchs) getting to pick the US President. And if Russia got such a say in our affairs, we should also have such a say in there's, but you would obviously oppose that. Because the real purpose of all this "Both Sides do it" obfuscation is, as always, not actually to hold both sides equally accountable- its to legitimize Russia's crimes while deflecting the blame onto the US.

Strawman much?

You cannot at one and the same time say you're fighting for the legitimacy of the American democratic project while also actively perpetuating the narrative that its fate rests in the hands of a clique of idiotic bumpkins whose votes are given out so capriciously as to be more reflective of paper-thin slander than deeper self-interest or legitimate structural issues.

I believe you are trying (as Kremlin apologists generally do) to trap me with a false dilemma, where I must either agree that America is undemocratic (and therefore, in your mind, that Russia's actions are justified), or else that I'm a hypocrite. Either way, of course, the Kremlin's narrative wins.

I reject your false choice. I can recognize that America is not fully Democratic while still recognizing that some countries are less democratic, and opposing moves to make America even less democratic in turn. Also, in what way are the Electoral College's votes reflective of slander? You can't just string random words together and sound clever, you know.

Not a whit of this comment is about the legitimacy of Russian action. I'm genuinely baffled that you don't get how saying that American elections can have their outcome changed by the spreading of the line that "Hillary Clinton is a murderer" (that's the slander I'm referencing, btw) doesn't mean, as a straight up conclusion, that democracy as a political system is fundamentally broken.

I'll add that the shear dishonesty (and always in the same, entirely predictable forms) used by Kremlin apologists on this board, without a word of reprimand or sanction by (and sometimes participation from) members of the moderator team, makes a mockery of this board's claim to support evidence-based debate and prohibit dishonest debate. If it were up to me, I would explicitly add Whataboutism to the list of dishonest debating tactics considered a violation of board rules. Sadly, however, that choice is not mine to make.

Pepsi Challenge, where do you think I engaged in Whataboutism.

Jesus Christ, how did Putin convince so many useful idiots on the Internet that they're being progressive and anti-Imperialist by defending a regime that tortures and jails gay people and currently has troops on the ground in Syria while occupying a large part of the Ukraine?

The whining about 'honest debating' is deeply undercut when you engage in such pathetically transparent strawmanning.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

[Straha]

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

See, this is what I mean about the legitimacy of the presidency being tied up with the American imperial project. To even question the imperialism laden in the office means you must actually be a subversive foreign operative because that line of questioning is politically unthinkable without an ulterior motive.

[Gandalf]

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

Warn everyone Gaffe! Warn them of this thought criminal, and possible Eurasian spy!

[The Romulan Republic]

Your kneejerk defensiveness about this, coupled with your ranting below, speaks volumes more to this than anything I could ever say.

"If you object to my defamation and ad homiem, that proves its true!"

Go fuck yourself. I am long past tired of every lazy, cowardly shit stain on this board trying to paint me with the same damn smears and ad hominems about how I'm an imperialist, an American exceptionalist, etc. because they've got a grudge, or its an easy way to discredit my arguments by ad hominem, or because I don't have my mouth figuratively clamped around Putin's dick.

I take such offense because it is a lie, because it is meant to discredit my arguments and to advance the propaganda of a fascist regime by defamation, and that is more than enough justification to get angry. It would say something pretty bad about me if you implied I was an imperialist and I wasn't offended. Likewise, my hostility towards the Russian government (not the Russian nation or people, because I am not racist enough to regard Putin as synonymous with Russia), is due to its actions, not any support for American exceptionalism.

Okay, buddy. Political and Cultural legitimacy are kind of basic Poli Sci topics that you should have a grasp of if you're going to post like this. At the very least, read the Wikipedia page and assorted links about the concept before acting befuddled about it here. This isn't Norm Ornstein level stuff here, it's all pretty basic.

"You're stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with my definition".

Do you understand that there is, in fact, a difference between a rebuttal and a smear? Don't you?

As for the U.S. Presidency, there are a number of things a potential president has to do, and then a reigning president must avowedly affirm, in order to be taken seriously. They are, in part and in no particular order:

• Establish oneself as a christian. Preferably a Protestant but Wasp-y Catholic will suffice.
• Be avowedly Capitalist.
• Establish a largely uncritical relationship with the US' history, with minor 'corrective' apologies allowed but deeper systemic issues denied.
• Tied to that, be a firm believer in American Exceptionalism and all it entails.
• Be unabashedly supportive of the US Military, and be fundamentally supportive of American military intervention abroad.
• Affirm an imperialist foreign policy.

The use of the rhetoric of white supremacy is another long-standing one, and Obama's partial transgression of it is arguably one of the reasons why people were so incensed by him.

Those are largely accurate as traditional political conventions (although ones that are slowly being eroded- the diversity of the current Democratic field is frankly stunning compared to any prior race in American history), but they are not the same as "legitimacy" in a legal sense. Hence the confusion.

Anyway, since the beginning of the union the President has always established their bona fides by directly intervening in the internal politics of foreign nations. This is seen earliest on, and perhaps most starkly, in the constant, repeated, and unending (to this day) interventions in Native Nations across the continent, but can also be seen from the earliest days with interventions in Haiti, Spanish Florida, etc. through the 1800s starting with the disruption (and eventual invasion of) Mexico and continuing with constant interference in the Caribbean, all through the 20th and 21st Century.

I don't want to turn this into a laundry list of interventions, but it's beyond dispute that by the late 20th and early 21st Century the president is expected, de rigeur, to intervene forcefully in other nations in a myriad of different ways to enrich US monied interests and protect the international interests of the country, whether or not the intervention is welcome in or good for the countries in which the US is intervening. It is what it means to be the head of this imperial project and to imagine the office otherwise is taboo.

The cornerstone of this since the Russian Revolution has been the containment of the Soviet experiment, the rolling back of communism through any means available, and (since the collapse of the USSR) the denuding and containing of the Russian state. Clinton and H.W. Bush did this with great force, W. and Obama both established 'tough on Russia' as a cornerstone of their foreign policy. This, again, isn't some revelation, there's plenty of stuff written about this and the rhetoric that surrounds American policy viz-a-viz Russia and I encourage you to read it.

I am, in fact, well aware of all of the above. I simply am employing a different definition of "legitimacy", because none of these are legal requirements of the office of the Presidency, nor even practical requirements except insofar as Presidents have traditionally been from a social class that benefits from such actions.

I do hope, however, that you are at least not foolish enough to imagine that Russia today has anything to do with the Soviet Union or communism, or to equate current opposition to Russia with opposition to communism. Russia today is fascist, not communist.

And while I expect you to ignore what I am about to say, I will reiterate that whatever the reasons for US policy towards Russia, I personally have no hostility toward the Russian nation or people- my opposition is to the Putin regime, and my desire to "contain" Russia extends only so far as Russia is currently a fascist state. Much like I have no hatred of or desire to constrain the United States- my hostility is to the Trump regime, and I wish to constrain the actions of the US only insofar as the US is currently a fascist state. My enemy is fascism, despotism, and bigotry, and I do not care what borders it lies within or what flag it marches under or what name it calls itself, whether it be in my nation or in any other. So to those who equate those things with America, and automatically side with those who are against America, I am the enemy, because unlike them I actually try to be consistent in my opposition to tyranny.

If you or any of Putin's water carriers on this board were honest, you would acknowledge that I have been as harsh in my condemnation of American crimes as of Russian crimes. I mean fuck, have you read any of my posts about Trump and Republicans? I will admit I may have gone too easy on Democrats on occassion, but I still disavowed Tulsi Gabbard when she dabbled in Islamophobia and xenophobia, I disavowed Bill Clinton for being a fucking rapist, and I will acknowledge that Obama committed grave errors by not prosecuting Bush era war crimes (you hear that, I acknowledged that the Bush Administration committed war crimes), by soft-peddling the response to white supremacist terrorism, and by sending troops into Syria. So let's be clear here- I don't give a shit about American exceptionalism or America ruling the world. I won't claim that I am immune to bias- I don't think there is a human being on Earth who can honestly claim that. But I try to be aware of and resist my own biases, and to be consistent in my opposition to fascism. And I regard being painted as an advocate of American exceptionalism and Imperialism as nothing less than libel, though the insult to me is insignificance next to the fact that you are (hopefully in ignorance) advancing a fascist agenda. This is the cause of my anger. Because in fact I am not an American exceptionalist- I try to hold America to the same standard as every other nation, which is to condemn tyranny when I see it, without engaging in general condemnation of the nation or its people.

Buddy. Your argument is that American democracy is so broken that it can be influenced by tired rehashes of lies which were stale when Gingrich was still an elected official. Like, straight up the claim that "the idea that Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich changed the 2016 election" is absurdly elitist and dismissively condescending towards the American voter, deeply pessimistic about the American political project, and fucking asburd on its face.

I'm surprised you acknowledge it is a lie.

In any case, nowhere did I claim that this single lie, that Clinton murdered Seth Rich, decided the election. It is one example of a vast pattern of Russian interference. Which, as I have repeatedly noted, did not have to sway all or even most of the American populace. Just a relatively small block of voters in certain swing states. Because while not yet completely broken, American "democracy" is and always has been deeply flawed.

That is no justification for Russia wreaking further ruin on it, and undermining any efforts to reform it.

My argument re: intervention as a praxis, which is pretty blatant, is that given how the US positions itself in the world, the influence it wields like a hatchet, and the effect it has on other nations other nations need to intervene in US Domestic politics in order to protect their own people. If you believe that that's a fundamentally illegitimate action that should be opposed as an almost categorical imperative, that's fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But that also means that the American political system is one which is fundamentally illegitimate, and to defend the sanctity of its elections is at best an act of imperialist complacency.

So your argument is literally "If you support the right of the American people to choose their own government, you're an Imperialist".

That is so fucking warped it defies description. As Orwell put it, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength".

I will support the right of Russian people to have a say in America's government on the day that there is a global government in which every citizen of the world gets a vote. I will not support the "right" of Russian oligarchs/mobsters to pick our President for their personal benefit.

You think Putin gives a fuck about protecting the Russian people? Tell that to the people starving while he enjoys his billions. Tell that to the homosexuals his regime has jailed and tortured and killed, and the dissidents its murdered. Putin cares about his nation as an abstract concept, not its actual people, and he cares about lining the pockets of himself and his friends, nothing more. Much like Trump, really.

'You can't just string random words together and sound clever, you know.'

So no defense of the preposterous suggestion that Russian policy is dictated by America, no rebuttal of my characterizing it as delusional or a lie, just repeating my own words back at me as though kindergarten-level debating tactics make you sound clever.

Okay, concession accepted.

Strawman much?

The intention of your posts to deflect blame from Russia's actions and onto the US is utterly obvious.

Not a whit of this comment is about the legitimacy of Russian action. I'm genuinely baffled that you don't get how saying that American elections can have their outcome changed by the spreading of the line that "Hillary Clinton is a murderer" (that's the slander I'm referencing, btw) doesn't mean, as a straight up conclusion, that democracy as a political system is fundamentally broken.

Already refuted above, and yes, you did explicitly argue in your last post that American democracy being broken makes Russian intervention justified:

As such, why shouldn't Russia have a stake in determining who the President is? Especially when your argument is that the people who pick the President in the US are idiotic rubes who can be influenced by the weakest of deceptions. The only logical move then is to intervene, rather then let put what is most precious to Russia into the hands of incompetents and imbeciles, to sit back and be complacent would be the worst abrogation of the responsibility that the Russian government has to its citizens.

Pepsi Challenge, where do you think I engaged in Whataboutism.

Immediately responding to the issue of Russian election interference in your first post by bringing up "but America does it too".

The whining about 'honest debating' is deeply undercut when you engage in such pathetically transparent strawmanning.

You say its a strawman? Despite the fact that your posts are all attacking me or attacking America while arguing that Russia's election interference is justified?

Alright. Prove me wrong by acknowledging and denouncing the Kremlin's jailing and torture of homosexuals, the murder and harrassment of dissidents, illegal interference in the elections of multiple sovereign nations for the purpose of undermining democracy and formenting instability, and the imperialist occupation of Ukraine and support for the mass-murdering Assad regime.

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

I think you meant patsy.

Nah, he's been around long enough on this board that I know he's not a Russian sock-puppet account. I honestly wish he was, because the idea that someone would post this drivel pro bono is deeply depressing. I could at least respect the pragmatism of a well-paid whore.

[The Romulan Republic]

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

See, this is what I mean about the legitimacy of the presidency being tied up with the American imperial project. To even question the imperialism laden in the office means you must actually be a subversive foreign operative because that line of questioning is politically unthinkable without an ulterior motive.

Stupidity, or the mistaken belief that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, is sadly motive enough.

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

Warn everyone Gaffe! Warn them of this thought criminal, and possible Eurasian spy!

GrosseAdmiralFox is an authoritarian, and I call him out on it too, despite his sharing my views on the nature of the Putin regime.

[Straha]

"If you object to my defamation and ad homiem, that proves its true!"

Go fuck yourself. I am long past tired of every lazy, cowardly shit stain on this board trying to paint me with the same damn smears and ad hominems about how I'm an imperialist, an American exceptionalist, etc. because they've got a grudge, or its an easy way to discredit my arguments by ad hominem, or because I don't have my mouth figuratively clamped around Putin's dick.

I take such offense because it is a lie, because it is meant to discredit my arguments and to advance the propaganda of a fascist regime by defamation, and that is more than enough justification to get angry. It would say something pretty bad about me if you implied I was an imperialist and I wasn't offended. Likewise, my hostility towards the Russian government (not the Russian nation or people, because I am not racist enough to regard Putin as synonymous with Russia), is due to its actions, not any support for American exceptionalism.

Hit close to home, have I?

"You're stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with my definition".

Oh, no. Not stupid. Just ignorant.

Like, straight up, if you don't recognize and understand legitimacy as a political and social concept distinct from the barebones constitutional requirements to hold the office of president then you're not conversant in basic political theory. This is a concept covered in Poli Sci 101, Philosophy, History, hell even a decent English Lit class, and one that is a naturalized part of the discourse for those who've engaged these concepts. The fact that it's alien to you speaks volumes.

And, to be clear, there's no shame in ignorance and I certainly don't judge you for it. I don't know you, what you do, or what you've gone through. Ignorance is a state we all hold actively in many many fields for all sorts of reasons. The shame is in willful action despite ignorance.

As for the U.S. Presidency, there are a number of things a potential president has to do, and then a reigning president must avowedly affirm, in order to be taken seriously. They are, in part and in no particular order:
>snip<
The use of the rhetoric of white supremacy is another long-standing one, and Obama's partial transgression of it is arguably one of the reasons why people were so incensed by him.

Those are largely accurate as traditional political conventions (although ones that are slowly being eroded- the diversity of the current Democratic field is frankly stunning compared to any prior race in American history), but they are not the same as "legitimacy" in a legal sense. Hence the confusion.

A. We'll bring this back up later.
B. If you think that the current democratic field represents a radical shift on any of these issues (with the noted exception of Bernie Sanders and the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren)... well...

I do hope, however, that you are at least not foolish enough to imagine that Russia today has anything to do with the Soviet Union or communism, or to equate current opposition to Russia with opposition to communism. Russia today is fascist, not communist.

American representation of Russia and its reaction to Russian foreign policy has been pretty much directly contiguous with the end of the Cold War. This isn't a fucking stretch, when people like Jim Baker and Bill Perry express public regret for the continuity in policy of containment in the 90s and '00s (with, for instance, NATO expansion right up to the border of Russia) you can be damn sure it happened.

If you or any of Putin's water carriers on this board were honest, you would acknowledge that I have been as harsh in my condemnation of American crimes as of Russian crimes. I mean fuck, have you read any of my posts about Trump and Republicans?

Honestly? Not really.

I realize you've got this ego trip thing going on here (quick ctrl-f finds 20+ "I" statements in your post) but I really don't give a damn about your past posts. I poke my head into the boards every six months or so to see what's going on, and skim some threads. I saw a thread here that seemed like an interesting starting point for a discussion about the meta nature of American reaction and made a post.

I say this with no malice or ill-will, but I really don't care about your posting history and I don't care enough to make any deeper judgment about your political projects or views. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm surprised you acknowledge it is a lie.

Jeepers. Buddy. Who hurt you?

It is one example of a vast pattern of Russian interference. Which, as I have repeatedly noted, did not have to sway all or even most of the American populace. Just a relatively small block of voters in certain swing states.

Again. If your vision of the American political project is that it can be thrown into turmoil by the Russian releasing, en masse, of inept and incongruent lies via garbage media streams then you're staking out a position which fundamentally contradicts the core thesis of the American political project, that large groups of voters will be able to reason out political issues and determine the best way forward.

If you are right in this claim, then nothing else really matters.

That is no justification for Russia wreaking further ruin on it, and undermining any efforts to reform it.

Two things:
First, we're back to the question of 'if the American political system is legitimate then is the Russian attempt to influence it legitimate?'. It's a two part question, and if you don't have a robust answer to the first part your answer to the second is pretty much irrelevant.

Second, let's loop back to the discussion above. If you've spotted that the American presidency is one that is built on militaristic containment of Russia and tied inextricably to enforcing American will on other nations of the world (especially potential rivals) then what is Russia supposed to do to protect its interests? I mean this. What is the rational response that Russia should engage in to a US that has marched its military up to the borders of Russia and which is actively seeking to economically isolate Russia from the countries around it? Before you condemn Russia I want to know what the realist foreign policy alternative is that they should have engaged in.

My argument re: intervention as a praxis, which is pretty blatant, is that given how the US positions itself in the world, the influence it wields like a hatchet, and the effect it has on other nations other nations need to intervene in US Domestic politics in order to protect their own people. If you believe that that's a fundamentally illegitimate action that should be opposed as an almost categorical imperative, that's fine, I don't necessarily disagree. But that also means that the American political system is one which is fundamentally illegitimate, and to defend the sanctity of its elections is at best an act of imperialist complacency.

So your argument is literally "If you support the right of the American people to choose their own government, you're an Imperialist".

Nope, try again.

So no defense of the preposterous suggestion that Russian policy is dictated by America, no rebuttal of my characterizing it as delusional or a lie, just repeating my own words back at me as though kindergarten-level debating tactics make you sound clever.

If you make an actual argument I'll respond. Until that point it's not worth my time.

The intention of your posts to deflect blame from Russia's actions and onto the US is utterly obvious.

If that's what you think walk me through how you think I'm doing it.

Already refuted above, and yes, you did explicitly argue in your last post that American democracy being broken.

Two things:

1. You're the one who's making the explicit claim that the American people were duped by paper thin lies and slander. My discussion of the 'broken' nature of American democracy is directly in the context of your post. To quote from your quote of me: "when your argument is that the people who pick the President in the US are idiotic rubes who can be influenced by the weakest of deceptions".

2. I don't think American democracy is broken. I think it's working exactly as intended, even in the last election. I just think America is a fundamentally imperialist state and that the set-up for American democracy is part of that project.

Immediately responding to the issue of Russian election interference in your first post by bringing up "but America does it too".

Explicitly not what I did, and the following post made very clear where my objection lied and it isn't just "America interfered in Russia's elections, turnabout is fair play!" Try again.

Alright. Prove me wrong by acknowledging and denouncing the Kremlin's jailing and torture of homosexuals, the murder and harrassment of dissidents, illegal interference in the elections of multiple sovereign nations for the purpose of undermining democracy and formenting instability, and the imperialist occupation of Ukraine and support for the mass-murdering Assad regime.

1. See, this is textbook whataboutism.
2. Yes, the Russian state is a vile illegitimate entity which I view with deep revulsion. Nothing I've said here indicates otherwise.
3. This really isn't the winning argument you think it is.

[Straha]

Um, TRR, I think you're arguing with either a Russian pasty OR a Russian operative with Straha...

Warn everyone Gaffe! Warn them of this thought criminal, and possible Eurasian spy!

O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! How could I have been so wrong?

[Gandalf]

O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! How could I have been so wrong?

Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, Straha. It's insidious. It can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my sleep! Yes, that's a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit. Never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! How could I have been so wrong?

Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, Straha. It's insidious. It can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my sleep! Yes, that's a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit. Never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all.

Yeah, sure, focus on GrosseAdmiralFox being an idiot instead of the constant defense by strawman and ad hominem of a regime that annexes its neighbors, murders dissidents, robs its people, and tortures and kills homosexuals, in addition to intervening in multiple nations' elections for the purpose of undermining democracy in favor of its kleptocratic, neo-fascist agenda.

[Gandalf]

I'm defending Russia? Where?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm defending Russia? Where?

You're not. I'm just annoyed that every time Lord Vladimort's various crimes (or the penchant of certain faux progressives to defend him) comes up, someone always ends up changing the topic to something else. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Straha]

O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! How could I have been so wrong?

Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, Straha. It's insidious. It can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my sleep! Yes, that's a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit. Never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all.

Yeah, sure, focus on GrosseAdmiralFox being an idiot instead of the constant defense by strawman and ad hominem of a regime that annexes its neighbors, murders dissidents, robs its people, and tortures and kills homosexuals, in addition to intervening in multiple nations' elections for the purpose of undermining democracy in favor of its kleptocratic, neo-fascist agenda.

It is genuinely fascinating to me how you've constructed a zero-sum world wherein any fundamental disagreement with your viewpoint must be because of Russian influence, either witting or unwitting, on the part of the poster. Coupled with the full-bore charge you engage in to try and make people publicly confess Russia's crimes. Strong echoes of McCarthy.

[Coop D'etat]

I question Straha's framing of the US conduct in Eastern Europe as "marching its military up to their borders." What the US did do is extend its existing NATO security guarantee to states formerly controlled by the Soviet Union, at the request of those states. States with ample reason to fear Russian imperialism, facing a massive power imbalance with the Russian state and living with a long history of being threatened and oppressed by them. Most recently being compelled into living under police states backed by Red Army tanks.

Its not like the US took advantage of the situation to pre-position forces to threaten Russia on its borders either. Existing in theater forces are notoriously of low combat strength and of minimal military threat to Russian soil under current circumstances.

It seems a lot of these US/Russia discussions like to ignore the agency and interests of those living in the space between Berlin and Smolensk. Raproachment between Russian and the US seems to necessarily make the world safe for Russian imperialist aims, and much less safe for smaller states on the eastern end of the European plain. Frankly, I think the post Cold War US presence in Eastern Europe is far more functionally anti-imperial than imperial.

The recent deterioration of American-Russian relations is also the direct consequence of aggressive, militaristic and imperialistic actions the Russian state undertook of their own will, so lets not act like the American's backed them into a corner. The Kremlin by and large brought this response down onto themselves.

Now an influence operation to tip an election is well within the rules Washington lives by, if it worked it was only due to having many willing American accomplices and ultimately the decision was made by the American electorate and not "rigged." So there's no call for grand moral outrage against them for it (distinct for American's being outraged with other Americans for going along with it). I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the nature of the present Russian regime and take a skeptical view of their perceived grievances.

[Straha]

I question Straha's framing of the US conduct in Eastern Europe as "marching its military up to their borders." What the US did do is extend its existing NATO security guarantee to states formerly controlled by the Soviet Union, at the request of those states. States with ample reason to fear Russian imperialism, facing a massive power imbalance with the Russian state and living with a long history of being threatened and oppressed by them. Most recently being compelled into living under police states backed by Red Army tanks.

Yeah, bullshit.

NATO was framed since its inception as a geo-strategic tool to contain and rollback Soviet influence in Europe and a way to forecfully, and irrevocably, integrate member countries defense structures into the US' (a control so great that France left the alliance in the 60s because of it.) Expanding NATO and doubling down on NATO commitments, while excluding Russia from serious participation in NATO, was always read as a clear signal that the US and the member nations still viewed Russia as a threat despite their post-Cold War rhetoric. (Something you seem to spot) As such granting NATO membership to nations on the border with Russia is exactly marching troops up to the border with Russia, complete with actual forward deployment of ships and soldiers.

To be clear, a freakout in response to this is absolutely not unprecedented. See the US freakout over hints of communist influence in Latin America or the USSR deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba with the enthusiastic consent of the Cuban government. Doing the same, but in reverse to Russia, was guaranteed to cause a geo-political shitstorm and everyone knew it.

If you want an insider's account of this I recommend Bill Perry's autobiography, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, it's short, well written, and he goes into some length about his perspective as SecDef on building up trust with the Russians in the 90s and why it went to shit.

It seems a lot of these US/Russia discussions like to ignore the agency and interests of those living in the space between Berlin and Smolensk. Raproachment between Russian and the US seems to necessarily make the world safe for Russian imperialist aims, and much less safe for smaller states on the eastern end of the European plain.

Nobody is denying them agency. The question is why does the US consider Russian-Eastern European relations of tantamount importance to its geostrategic future? American rhetoric post-cold war has been one of internationalism and a new global peace, and one that discounts Russia's position as anything other than a regional power (most notably with Obama's continued dismissiveness towards Russian capability). American action has been to treat Russia as a deeper existential threat than any other global power, including China. That incongruence is worrisome to many parties, especially those in the Kremlin.

Frankly, I think the post Cold War US presence in Eastern Europe is far more functionally anti-imperial than imperial.

The recent deterioration of American-Russian relations is also the direct consequence of aggressive, militaristic and imperialistic actions the Russian state undertook of their own will, so lets not act like the American's backed them into a corner. The Kremlin by and large brought this response down onto themselves.

I'll spot to you the same question I spotted to TRR. What is the 'correct' realist response by Russia to US foreign policy assuming it doesn't want to become a client state of the US and the EU and wants to make sure its neighbors, in both a geo-political and economic terms, remain Russian partners? What should they do/have done differently?

[stormthebeaches]

Yeah, bullshit.

NATO was framed since its inception as a geo-strategic tool to contain and rollback Soviet influence in Europe and a way to forecfully, and irrevocably, integrate member countries defense structures into the US' (a control so great that France left the alliance in the 60s because of it.) Expanding NATO and doubling down on NATO commitments, while excluding Russia from serious participation in NATO, was always read as a clear signal that the US and the member nations still viewed Russia as a threat despite their post-Cold War rhetoric. (Something you seem to spot) As such granting NATO membership to nations on the border with Russia is exactly marching troops up to the border with Russia, complete with actual forward deployment of ships and soldiers.

Almost everything in this paragraph is wrong. NATO was originally formed by Britain and France in 1947, although back then it was called the Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance. It's original purpose was to stop Germany rising up again, not opposing Russia. America was invited to join this organisation in 1949, where it was renamed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). And isn't the fact that France was able to leave prove NATO doesn't "forcefully and irrevocably" align it's member states with the USA? If it did, France would never have been able to leave. Most NATO countries don't even meet their spending requirements. I think your massively overestimating just how much influence NATO has over its member states.

To be clear, a freakout in response to this is absolutely not unprecedented. See the US freakout over hints of communist influence in Latin America or the USSR deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba with the enthusiastic consent of the Cuban government. Doing the same, but in reverse to Russia, was guaranteed to cause a geo-political shitstorm and everyone knew it.

The USA has history of bullying Latin American nations, however, that doesn't give Russia the right to behave in a similar manner in Eastern Europe. Bigger countries should not treat neighbouring smaller countries as their own backyard. It's wrong when America does it and it's wrong when Russia does it.

Nobody is denying them agency. The question is why does the US consider Russian-Eastern European relations of tantamount importance to its geostrategic future? American rhetoric post-cold war has been one of internationalism and a new global peace, and one that discounts Russia's position as anything other than a regional power (most notably with Obama's continued dismissiveness towards Russian capability). American action has been to treat Russia as a deeper existential threat than any other global power, including China. That incongruence is worrisome to many parties, especially those in the Kremlin.

I don't think America views Russian-Eastern European relations of tantamount of importance. It's more like NATO let the Eastern European nations join without thinking about the long term consequences and now has to support them otherwise it will look weak. Your assuming some sort of masterplan is going on when it's more likely a combination of hubris and short term thinking.

I'll spot to you the same question I spotted to TRR. What is the 'correct' realist response by Russia to US foreign policy assuming it doesn't want to become a client state of the US and the EU and wants to make sure its neighbors, in both a geo-political and economic terms, remain Russian partners? What should they do/have done differently?

Acknowledge that Russia has a history of bullying the Eastern European nations, apologise for it and promise never to repeat such behaviour. Then make a convincing argument to the Eastern European countries that their interests are better served by aligning themselves with Russia instead of the West. Don't act like Russia has a right to determine the path of the Eastern European nations because they will only drive them further to the West. In short, treat them as business partners, instead of vassal states.