AFAIK the only proven meddling from Russia was stirring stuff up in a party- and faction-neutral way. They were trying to cause chaos, not try and get one party or another elected. Their agents would, for example, organize a protest on Facebook, then organize the counter-protest at the same location.
Do you believe that's a meaningful metric? Because it's not.
The distinction between Biden and Trump is that Trump is opposed to the machine that's been responsible for decades of disastrous foreign policy, while Biden is the face of that very same machine.
Putin is far from the only foreign leader who would prefer Trump. It's silly to attempt this framing.
I mean, sorry if you're one of those "electricians on the Death Star" just trying to pay your mortgage, but your downvotes aren't going to put that toothpaste back in the tube.
>> They were trying to cause chaos, not try and get one party or another elected.
But what if the decision is between a stability candidate and a pro-chaos candidate? I think then that Russia would take a side. And I doubt many would debate that one candidate is clearly more pro-chaos than the other.
Maybe. And yet it did rather work out in their favor.
If you were Russia in 2016, would you have preferred that the next US President be someone competent with significant foreign policy experience, or a Putin-idolizing fool with zero foreign policy experience?
The Cold War never ended and criticism of Russia is not criticism against Russians.
If the Cold War was truly over when the wall fell, we'd have welcomed Russia into NATO. That would have been a huge mistake, as Russia has proven to be antithetical to democracy and an aggressor against the interests of the West, despite dressing up in its skirt.
Instead we've engaged in proxy war after proxy war with very little changing in the best part of 40 years or so. That's no accident.
Suggesting otherwise IMO is to take talking points from the mouth of the Kremlin. I get tired of the "Russia is being bullied by the mean ol' United States" narrative, they're malignant and hostile. I think you're right to raise this point.
Absolutely. Most Western leaders (though not all) deluded themselves thinking Russia wanted better relations and that all the problems were somehow the fault of the West. Countless confidence-building measures were taken. Most Western countries reduced defense budgets. Russian leaders, ridiculously claiming that they were threatened by NATO, were dishonest the whole time. As the USSR collapsed, Russia surrounded itself with, and fueled, many "frozen" conflicts: Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Nagorno Karabakh in Azerbaijan, Japanese Islands. Gestures of goodwill, escalation management, appeals to political solutions were seen as weakness by Russia. Putin attacked Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 not because he felt threatened in any way, but to the contrary because he thought that no one would do anything about it.
Yeah, everyone made this a comment about a specific candidate. But objectively one candidate is pro-supporting Ukraine and one is against it this time around. Regardless of your prior beliefs, Putin benefits far more from a specific candidate this time around.
And they have repeatedly been caught meddling directly in Western countries (see i.e. multiple assassinations in the West).
Exactly. I treat anyone suggesting Russia should be treated with kid gloves with suspicion. The sentiment that they are being bullied is flatly offensive. Russia made its bed in the 90s and complains about lying in it.
I get that your comment is a hyperbolic jab at Trump supporters but why is a pro-Russian candidate actually bad - besides the tiresome comparisons of Putin to Hitler and similar claims? It seems like NATO didn't disband or let Russia join after it asked to multiple times because we have a military industrial complex that requires perpetual war to sustain itself. Why risk nuclear war over vague political goals like "containment" and "spreading democracy" when engaging Russia in this way will mean Russia is fighting for its survival. Honestly asking because I don't understand.
George Kennan (Diplomat, "Architect of the Cold War Containment Policy") - Criticized NATO expansion as a severe mistake in a 1998 interview with the New York Times .
Henry Kissinger (Former U.S. Secretary of State) - Expressed concerns about NATO expansion increasing tensions with Russia over several years, particularly noted in discussions and forums during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
William Perry (Former U.S. Secretary of Defense) - Voiced apprehensions about the strategy and pace of NATO expansion, particularly in the late 1990s during his tenure and in reflections thereafter.
Sam Nunn (Former U.S. Senator, Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative) - Warned of strategic miscalculations and heightened conflict risks due to expansion, prominently during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Jack Matlock (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union) - Criticized NATO expansion for potentially setting the stage for conflict with Russia, in articles and public lectures, particularly during the 1990s.
These people were/are credible pro-western. They weren't propagandized by Russian agents to take the stances they took. They were generally opposed to escalating proxy conflict with Russia after the cold war and also generally opposed to expanding NATO eastward. They made credible warnings about pursuing hawkish policy decades before tensions along Russia's border reached their current level.
you would give russia a platform in NATO? I think russian wars with its neighbors speak for itself (and not just with Ukraine) to keep them out. NATO is for instance needed to keep russian imperialismus away from europe. It's also a deterrent against China, North Korea, Serbia etc
Putin is compared to Hitler because he is like Hitler. You are not honestly asking. This, and the rest of it, has been explained to you countless times before.
"This, and the rest of it, has been explained to you countless times before."
Yes, that's how propaganda works. But in the face of new information, that propaganda has to be tweaked or abandoned. To keep hammering the same message produces quickly diminishing returns.
I'm earnestly and honestly asking. Is there some good source material you can point me to that explains how this is in US citizens' interest? All I can find is hyperbolic nonsense that seems markedly similar to the kind of information that was available during the invasion of Iraq. I really would rather feel good about US/Western foreign policy.
Like actually why the fuck would I be pro-Russia? What's in it for me? Seeming edgy or something? Do you assume I'm unable to read the room? I'm a liberal computer nerd from a highly liberal locale. It's obviously so much easier to just agree that the US is bringing democracy or freedom or greater security to eastern Europe. Why would I bother unless it was actually deeply disturbing to me the more I earnestly dig into it? Have I been brainwashed by Russian agents through the internet or something? I am willing to accept this I just don't think that's actually the case upon close inspection.
Many people are pro-Russia because the Russian government pays them to be. Many others are pro-Russia because most of what they read or hear is from the first group.
It seems naive to imply the US has a less effective propaganda apparatus than Russia within its own direct sphere of influence. The idea that a country with 1/10th the GDP of the US outcompetes the US in propaganda delivery on its own pay-to-play media platforms doesn't make a lot of sense to me personally. Seeing any kind of anti-war dissent as influenced by pro-Russian agents seems like low-effort thinking. Being weary of an escalating proxy war with a high-manufacturing capacity, energy-rich superpower that historically has sacrificed large percentages of its population in total war is not inherently a pro-Russian stance; it's a common-sense stance that values life.
It seems equally naive to assume the opposite, given that some people are so eager to dismiss all material against the interests of Russia as "hyperbolic nonsense".
I'm not eager to dismiss all material against the interests of Russia. I'm highly incentivized to see the Western sphere in a positive light. It's simply difficult to do so given the facts of the conflict at my disposal. What material are you referring to here? I'm motivated to change my opinion on this because the intelligent and sensitive people around me all seem to think the West is doing the right thing and at the very least I want to fit in while maintaining basic integrity.
I haven't, and I'm familiar with this page. I am honestly worried about the US foreign policy. I'm not JAQing off. I want some credible source material from a community I trust. I'm sure other people reading this do too.
