Washington Post: Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Oh that’s right - only the United States can invade Middle Eastern countries, violate the UN, leave a hostile military alliance at their adversaries’ doorstep, build missile “shields”, and impose sanctions. :rolleyes: The United States assumed Russia was too impotent, economically and politically, to assert itself in pursuit of its own regional and international interests. When Putin actually did step forward to assert himself, the United States made another assumption that tough sanctions would quickly force Putin to back away with his tail in between his legs.

You keep arguing and asserting that sanctions are justified and that the United States and its allies should double down and escalate further, ignoring the simple fact that not only did Putin not back down, he DEFEATED the United States by seriously attacking and casting doubt on the very thing that is at our core: free and fair elections.

Diplomacy involves not dictating to other countries what America wants but also listening to and respecting the concerns of other countries.

[QUOTE=asahi]
Oh that’s right - only the United States can invade Middle Eastern countries, violate the UN, leave a hostile military alliance at their adversaries’ doorstep, build missile “shields”, and impose sanctions.
[/QUOTE]

At least we didn’t sign a non-aggression treaty with them to get them to give up their nukes, then when they were disarmed and when folks got a bit upset at the Russian’s puppet in charge and kicked him out decided, what the hell, let’s carve off a chunk of their territory for ourselves…no one will notice. :stuck_out_tongue:

Naw, we just assumed they wouldn’t act like a bunch of thugs and honor the treaties they signed. Foolish of us, I know.

The translation of this is ‘when Putin’s puppet was kicked out for ordering his thugs to shoot civilians, Putin decided that it was time for him to carve off the Crimea and annex it for Russia, then attempt to do the same with the rest of the country because he figured, no one will ever notice. When folks took exception to it he was caught out and the result were economic sanctions that, coupled with the fact that oil isn’t selling for the $90/barrel Russia needs to balance the books, have hurt Russia economically and continue to do so.’

:stuck_out_tongue: Keep telling yourself this. It’s been a massive defeat for the US, and Putin is a misunderstood genius that is simply under-appreciated…and the sanctions and other economic consequences of Russia’s actions are completely unjustified and just mean and stuff. Russia should be left to snatch back all of those unworthy provinces and countries that bolted from the sinking ship when the USSR folded…for their own good of course. And the world should just let them do so beause it’s Russia’s gods given right…plus Putin can totally kill a bear while shirtless on horseback and while flexing for the cameras!

Sure. Russia should have just had to tell the US that since their trained thug was kicked out it was totally Russia’s right to annex the entire Ukraine, and while they were at it take the Baltic states back too…and really, why DOES Poland need to be it’s own country? The US should totally stay out of these things and listen to and respect other countries opinions…well, when those other countries are Russia of course. If they are the Ukraine or some other equally unworthy place then we should just listen to Russia on that.

You make a strong case here. I’m sure there are all sorts of folks lining up to follow your channel and get your news letter, especially since it’s got a nice glossy picture of Putin flexing for the camera on it!!

[my italics]
Oh shit! Does that mean Russia is going to invade the US?

It’s just a hop, skip and a jump over the Bering Strait.

With Vlad’s private help and encouragement, Trump will commit acts that will be condemned by the United Nations and its International Court of Justice. Sanctions will be imposed on the US. Ultimately, military action may be deemed necessary.

And Vlad will be right there to grab the best pickin’s!

Russia may have swung the election not so much from brilliance, but just got lucky.

The DNC hack infuriated Bernie people who were mad that the DNC was against him. People swore to boycott Hillary, never to forgive, and so forth. No doubt many changed their minds when confronted with the direct threat of Trump. But, of those, how many wavered with the prospect of a likely Hilary win? That would be perfect for them, they don’t have to vote for Hilary, but don’t have to feel guilty for Trump. Oopsy-daisy.

So, how many votes are affected? Would more Hilary voters help anything? She already got more than Il Douche, and so what? Well, depends, don’t it? Were there 90,000 disgruntled Bernie bots in the rustbelt states that went Trump by a thin margin? I’m pleased to answer that question instantly and firmly: I don’t know. Certainly possible. But if it happened that way, then, yes, the Russian hacks of the DNC swung the election.

(Caveat: God alone knows what effect the Comey shenanigans had, may have done it all by itself, surely it didn’t help matters any. But back to the Russians.)

Was this their plan? Russians don’t take a datadump, son, without a plan. Well, not that unlikely. One would have to be fairly savvy to pick up on that prospect, that riling up Bernie supporters would screw over Hillary. But we have people who specialize in poring over Russian media and stuff, so they likely have them as well.

More likely, they just dumped the DNC stuff because they could. They may, or may not, have been aware of the possible effect of pissing of the Bernie people, or may just have dumped everything in the hope that people poring over it would find something they missed, or didn’t understand. Why not, they already got away with it. And note, they did not do the same with RNC data.

So, yeah, the Russian interference might have decided the election. I’m not at all sure they are that smart, to actually plan that out. But they might have just plain got lucky.

Are you suggesting that the world may unite behind some UN-sanctioned military action against the USA because of Trump? That’s what it sounds like, but I’m having a hard time believing it because it’s just so far-fetched. Could you please clarify?

Certainly. “Because of Trump” isn’t within miles of what I suggested. My actual words were “Trump will commit acts [that will be condemned…].” Commit acts.

Your attempt to transform my meaning makes no sense.

You do realize the USA has a veto on the UN Security Council, right? There won’t be any UN-sanctioned military actions against the USA. Even if the UN could sanction something, the rest of the world doesn’t have the power projection capabilities to impose their will on the USA through conventional military means.

And the rest of the world knows this, so they are unlikely to commit forces to a suicide mission.

Right-wing militia fantasies are made up of scenarios like this, and have about as much basis in reality as your post.

It’s a hostile world. If you can’t hold what’s yours, someone may just take it. This goes for international waters as well. China is making a huge territorial grab and the world is too weak to stop it.

That’s ludicrous. Unlike Ukraine we can only lose territory or strategic influence from within or from no will.

Instigating factional warfare is an ancient strategy. That’s why the left did it with their support for Trump early.

Your fantasizing that my post went directly to ‘military actions’ tends to undercut your argument. But let’s look at the question of ‘the international community expressing displeasure with the actions of one nation, in something other than words,’ aka sanctions and/or military action.

Russia appears to be suffering under sanctions (imposed by the USA and by the EU) despite its possession of a UN Security Council veto. So, too, could the USA under Trump. Those sanctions might be imposed by the EU or by China, for example.

If Trump is so foolish as to do some of the things he suggested he’ll do, we may well find out exactly how the rest of the world will register its disapproval.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN11G01K?il=0

So it’s okay that Russia interfered in our election–because it’s “an ancient strategy”…?

The United States is not Russia. Neither the EU nor China is going to impose sanctions on their most important trading partner and the world’s largest economy.

Not blanket sanctions, no. But targeted sanctions are a possibility; targeting, specifically, Trump and his businesses. (Assuming, with complete safety, that he will divest himself of none of them before taking office.)

Individuals can be subjected to travel bans and limitations on financial dealings; for example, this discussion of EU sanctions against particular Russian oligarchs:

How far do EU-US sanctions on Russia go? - BBC News

Trump has said (and signaled recently with the Taiwan phone call) that he intends to “get tough” on China. China has opportunities to retaliate against Trump personally–opportunities that have not existed with previous Presidents.

Will Americans arise en mass to say ‘China, we will gladly enlist in our military and come punish you, at risk of our own lives, in the defense of Donald Trump’s personal fortune!!!1!!!’

Or…not so much?

“China we will gladly assist you in punishing Donald Trump”?

The support of the left for Trump is news to me. Having been on the left since I got tired of losing arguments. Perhaps you will clarify? Astonish me with proof.

There’s a more likely middle ground between your suggestion, and the dubious outcome of Americans enlisting with great eagerness to put their lives in danger to defend Trump’s fortune —

— namely, that Americans would decide that it’s a shame that China decided to act against Trump’s businesses, but after all Trump didn’t need to order deadly force in response to gestures made by sailors (or whatever other brilliant decision he might make to retaliate against perceived insult).

Oh please. The billion dollars of free media from left leaning outlets was intended in part to bolster Trump’s visibility in order to meddle with the Republican primaries. The media have more responsibility for the ascension of Trump than the “Russians” could have ever hoped for. And what about democrats who changed or said they’d change party affiliation to vote for Trump in the primaries? Were those idle threats and lies or did they follow through to empower Trump?

It’s ok? I know I didn’t type anything of the sort. So why the implication? That’s a transparently misleading tactic to mischaracteize exposition for endorsement.

I’m with you. I just gave what my response might be.

The attachment for this email from Marissa Astor clearly describes such a strategy. In particular…