APP - 'Adversary Russia'

[midcan5]

CounterPunch is hard hitting site, since I often note the bias of a site, it is considered left. But what does that mean, as long as the site is accurate and not into conspiracy nonsense I'm ok with it. Fact are facts even when they offend some or counter fantasy-land baloney. I often disagree with CP as they seem too cynical in a world in which cynicism is not very helpful even when it is honest cynicism. Your opinion is welcome I do not ban thought.

"Has there been an election anywhere in the world since World War II that could have turned out wrong from the standpoint of America’s political and economic elites that the United States has not meddled with at least to some extent? "

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/25/adversary-russia/

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

Related see: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?110845-How-This-All-Happened

'CounterPunch provides excellent journalism and sources their information.' MediaBias

 

[anonymoose]

CounterPunch is hard hitting site, since I often note the bias of a site, it is considered left.

Never heard of it but it doesn't appear too left to me.

But what does that mean, as long as the site is accurate and not into conspiracy nonsense I'm ok with it. Fact are facts even when they offend some or counter fantasy-land baloney. I often disagree with CP as they seem too cynical in a world in which cynicism is not very helpful even when it is honest cynicism. Your opinion is welcome I do not ban thought.

"Has there been an election anywhere in the world since World War II that could have turned out wrong from the standpoint of America’s political and economic elites that the United States has not meddled with at least to some extent? "

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/25/adversary-russia/

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

Related see: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?110845-How-This-All-Happened

'CounterPunch provides excellent journalism and sources their information.' MediaBias

Could anything be more obvious than that the United States is more capable than any Russians could possibly be at undoing or otherwise delegitimizing American institutions.

Long read but so far that's the most profound statement in the article.

 

[Cypress]

CounterPunch is hard hitting site, since I often note the bias of a site, it is considered left. But what does that mean, as long as the site is accurate and not into conspiracy nonsense I'm ok with it. Fact are facts even when they offend some or counter fantasy-land baloney. I often disagree with CP as they seem too cynical in a world in which cynicism is not very helpful even when it is honest cynicism. Your opinion is welcome I do not ban thought.

"Has there been an election anywhere in the world since World War II that could have turned out wrong from the standpoint of America’s political and economic elites that the United States has not meddled with at least to some extent? "

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/25/adversary-russia/

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

Related see: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?110845-How-This-All-Happened

'CounterPunch provides excellent journalism and sources their information.' MediaBias

I agree that the current state of Russophobia has its elements of irrationality. Too many people think the preposterous movie "Red Dawn" is actually a reflection of reality.

I agree that the U.S. government has meddled relentlessly in the affairs of Russia and other countries.

Even if we do not remember it, every native born Russian knows that story about the United States sending an expeditionary military force to Russia, during their civil war -- to meddle in their affairs and promote our geopolitical interest. To kill Russians, on their own soil basically.

I agree that Vladimir Putin is not Josef Stalin, and does not even remotely resemble a faint replica of the Soviet dictator.

I agree that it behooves every fair minded American to advocate that our representative democracy not undermine or thwart the will of people in other nations. It ain't our business, Jack.


With all that said, none of the foregoing concessions even remotely provides justification for us to let our guard down, let the Kremlin meddle in our democracy, and neglect our obligation to defend our American democratic institutions.

 

[anonymoose]

With all that said, none of the foregoing concessions even remotely provides justification for us to let our guard down, let the Kremlin meddle in our democracy, and neglect our obligation to defend our American democratic institutions.

More difficult in the internet age.
China steals intellectual property. Russian buying Facebook ads. North Korea hacked Sony Pictures.
Unimaginable as late as the '90's yet easier done as time goes on it seems.

 

[anatta]

 

[Cypress]

I rank it January's worst attempt at drawing an false analogy.

Four private American political consultants giving Yeltsin campaign advice is not even remotely similar to Russian government state security services engaged in a clandestine form of asymmetric warfare, including computer hacking, social engineering, and intelligence gathering.

The analogy is not even remotely close.

More importantly.....what patriotic American didn't want Yeltsin to win?

Are you saying that Republicans wanted Yeltsin's hardcore communist opponent to win? Are you saying Republicans wanted To put the brakes on reform in Russia, and see Russia return to a Soviet past??

Me, liberals, Democrats, and patriotic Americans are glad Yeltsin won.

I am really surprised to hear that Republicans favored and were looking forward to a victory by Yeltsin's hard core communist opponent

 

[Cypress]

More difficult in the internet age.
China steals intellectual property. Russian buying Facebook ads. North Korea hacked Sony Pictures.
Unimaginable as late as the '90's yet easier done as time goes on it seems.

Irrespective of how hard it is, patriotic Americans are still obligated to defend the integrity of our democratic institutions against subversion by state security services of foreign adversaries.

And that holds true no matter how often someone points to the fact that America has wrongly meddled in the affairs of other nations.

Two separate issues, with two different solutions, and they cannot be linked at the hip.

p.s. I, for one, am glad Boris Yeltsin won the election in 1996 against a hard core communist opponent, thus preventing Russia from backsliding into Soviet totalitarianism. I have no idea why conservatives routinely on this board express their outrage and disappointment that Yeltsin won.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I rank it January's worst attempt at drawing an false analogy.

Four private American political consultants giving Yeltsin campaign advice is not even remotely similar to Russian government state security services engaged in a clandestine form of asymmetric warfare, including computer hacking, social engineering, and intelligence gathering.

The analogy is not even remotely close.

More importantly.....what patriotic American didn't want Yeltsin to win?

Are you saying that Republicans wanted Yeltsin's hardcore communist opponent to win? Are you saying Republicans wanted To put the brakes on reform in Russia, and see Russia return to a Soviet past??

Me, liberals, Democrats, and patriotic Americans are glad Yeltsin won.

I am really surprised to hear that Republicans favored and were looking forward to a victory by Yeltsin's hard core communist opponent

Actually, it's news to me that Democrats and leftists wanted Yeltsin to win instead of his opponent.

 

[Cypress]

Actually, it's news to me that Democrats and leftists wanted Yeltsin to win instead of his opponent.

Maybe you weren't old enough in the 1990s to remember?

Bill Clinton made it quite clear he preferred to work with Boris Yeltsin, rather than his hard core communist opponent.

While there is no evidence Bill Clinton and the US intelligence agencies directly and/or covertly undermined Russia's election, the preference of the US Government was clear - it was in our interest that Boris Yeltsin defeat a hard line Soviet communist opponent.

Even if the US Government interefered (no plausible evidence they did though) - you would probably see zero complaints coming from me. The world - and Russia - is immeasurably better off that Boris Yeltsin defeated the hard line communist opponent...for whatever Yeltsin's flaws were.

Having Russia backslide to Soviet totalitarian communism in 1996 would have been a disaster for both the United States and for Russia.

And that is why I am agog when conservatives on this forum complain that Yeltsin won the election, or that he was Bill Clinton's preferred candidate.

 

[anatta]

Irrespective of how hard it is, patriotic Americans are still obligated to defend the integrity of our democratic institutions against subversion by state security services of foreign adversaries.

And that holds true no matter how often someone points to the fact that America has wrongly meddled in the affairs of other nations.

Two separate issues, with two different solutions, and they cannot be linked at the hip.

p.s. I, for one, am glad Boris Yeltsin won the election in 1996 against a hard core communist opponent, thus preventing Russia from backsliding into Soviet totalitarianism. I have no idea why conservatives routinely on this board express their outrage and disappointment that Yeltsin won.

ROFL.. Yeltsin winning and being a worthless drunk led directly to the rise of Putin. Russia was literally staggering under Yeltsin
We basically were the cause of the rise of Putin,just like we were the cause of Euromaidan meddling
( remember that ALSO?) that led to the annexation of Crimea.

Those are 2 YUGE evens caused by US meddling in Russian elections -while troll farms had no real effect on our election

You should read the Times article -it was extensive campaign management by the Clinton proxies

 

[Cypress]

ROFL.. Yeltsin winning and being a worthless drunk led directly to the rise of Putin. Russia was literally staggering under Yeltsin
We basically were the cause of the rise of Putin,just like we were the cause of Euromaidan meddling
( remember that ALSO?) that led to the annexation of Crimea.

Those are 2 YUGE evens caused by US meddling in Russian elections -while troll farms had no real effect on our election

You should read the Times article -it was extensive campaign management by the Clinton proxies

Putin was the hand-picked successor to Yeltsin. He is who Yeltsin wanted, dude!

It sounds like you completely forgot that Yeltsin's opponent in 1996 was the hard core communists intent on a return to the Soviet Union. And now, you are backtracking and trying to avoid considering and addressing what would have happened if Yeltsin lost to the communists in 1996.

I do not, and have never considered Yeltsin or Putin to be on a par with the truly deplorable Andropov, Brezhnev, Stalin, or Lenin. They promote Russian interests, they sometimes play dirty. But they are not even remotely analogous to the Stalinist dictatorship, or the reactionary Brezhnev. I do not view Russia under either Putin or Yeltsin as an existential threat to the United States. An adversary, a competitor, but not a mortal threat.


What it all boils down to.....

Me: Given the choices, I would rather have Yeltsin-Putin, than a return to Soviet communism..

Noise: I wish the communists beat Yeltsin in 1996, and brought a return of Soviet totalitarian communism!

 

[anatta]

Putin was the hand-picked successor to Yeltsin. He is who Yeltsin wanted, dude!

It sounds like you completely forgot that Yeltsin's opponent in 1996 was the hard core communists intent on a return to the Soviet Union. And now, you are backtracking and trying to avoid considering and addressing what would have happened if Yeltsin lost to the communists in 1996.

truthfully I did forget Putin was the hand picked successor. My objection is always meddling. It might have worked out better, but there are so many cases where it did not like the John Mccain /Euromaidan meddling -which cause the police riot and the full revolution
which has been disastrous for the Ukraine, and Russia too as well.

I do not, and have never considered Yeltsin or Putin to be on a par with the truly deplorable Andropov, Brezhnev, Stalin, or Lenin. They promote Russian interests, they sometimes play dirty. But they are not even remotely analogous to the Stalinist dictatorship, or the reactionary Brezhnev. I do not view Russia under either Putin or Yeltsin as an existential threat to the United States. An adversary, a competitor, but not a mortal threat.

awesome. glad to hear it. but you and I are way way in the minority as the rest of the US is gripped by Russiaphobia. Cold War 2.0, ending the INF, and NATO expansion have caused Russia to become a boogeymen.

The Russian reset should have been the cornerstone of Obama's attempt at Fixing Russia,
but was undermined by his own State Dept

 

[Cypress]

truthfully I did forget Putin was the hand picked successor. My objection is always meddling. It might have worked out better, but there are so many cases where it did not like the John Mccain /Euromaidan meddling -which cause the police riot and the full revolution
which has been disastrous for the Ukraine, and Russia too as well.


awesome. glad to hear it. but you and I are way way in the minority as the rest of the US is gripped by Russiaphobia. Cold War 2.0, ending the INF, and NATO expansion have caused Russia to become a boogeymen.

The Russian reset should have been the cornerstone of Obama's attempt at Fixing Russia,
but was undermined by his own State Dept

Thanks, then I assume we agree that it was a good thing Boris Yeltsin won the election in 1996, beating back hard core communist opposition. A good thing for both Russia and the United States.

Yeltsin may have become sick and unhealthy in his later years, but I believe his legacy is under-rated. You could say, through strength of character and dogged determination, he - more than anyone else - beat back the communists and ensured that Soviet communist totalitarianism did not return to Russia. And while he certainly was surrounded by corruption and kleptocracy, he more than anyone else brought to Russia some measure of respect for democratic institutions, and was instrumental in discrediting Soviet communism. While we can never claim that today Russia is a healthy democracy, Russians are now used to casting votes in (sometimes) competitive elections, and there is a measure of cultural and intellectual freedom (if not political freedom) in Russia that it generally has never seen in the last 600 years.

That is progress that cannot be dismissed out of hand. Yes, Yeltsin became a sick, doddering old man over time. But we forget that he was the dynamic and robust leader who got up on a tank and shutdown the communist counter revolution. And as an ardent Russian nationalist, he can be credited in large measure with consigning Soviet totalitarian communism to the dustbin of history, and ensuring Russia made at least baby steps towards some manner of democratic institutions - though they obviously have a long way to go.

 

[Cypress]

I do not get the impression many posters here actually remember in detail what was happening in Russia in the 1990s, but for me personally, this is one of the most iconic images of that decade. Yeltsin on the tank.

Yeltsin may be dismissed as a drunk and a corrupt autocrat. But prior to obviously succumbing to debilitating alcoholism and bad health, he was a dynamic leader. And he should get his due credit for almost single handedly stopping the communist counterrevolutionary coup. And he should get credit for being the most important individual for burying Soviet communism so that it would never come back. That 1996 election between Yeltsin and the hardline communists was a watershed moment, and Russia in my opinion is better off that Yeltsin won - and Russia did not backslide into Soviet communism. There is no evidence Bill Clinton or American intelligence agencies directly subverted that 1996 Russian election, but even if Yeltsin won with American help, I do not think you would hear me - as a Patriotic American - complain too much about it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Maybe you weren't old enough in the 1990s to remember?

Bill Clinton made it quite clear he preferred to work with Boris Yeltsin, rather than his hard core communist opponent.

While there is no evidence Bill Clinton and the US intelligence agencies directly and/or covertly undermined Russia's election, the preference of the US Government was clear - it was in our interest that Boris Yeltsin defeat a hard line Soviet communist opponent.

Even if the US Government interefered (no plausible evidence they did though) - you would probably see zero complaints coming from me. The world - and Russia - is immeasurably better off that Boris Yeltsin defeated the hard line communist opponent...for whatever Yeltsin's flaws were.

Having Russia backslide to Soviet totalitarian communism in 1996 would have been a disaster for both the United States and for Russia.

And that is why I am agog when conservatives on this forum complain that Yeltsin won the election, or that he was Bill Clinton's preferred candidate.

It would have been bad optics for Bubba to voice support for the communist. The left's ongoing love affair with Gorbachev makes me wonder, though.

 

[Cypress]

It would have been bad optics for Bubba to voice support for the communist. The left's ongoing love affair with Gorbachev makes me wonder, though.

You may have duped by the tepid rubric that American Democrats = Soviet Communists.

But educated people, people aware of history are not.

You know who some of history's biggest mass murderers of democratic socialists and liberal intellectuals were?

Yep, the Bolsheviks, the Cheka, the Soviet communists, Lenin, and Stalin.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You may have duped by the tepid rubric that American Democrats = Soviet Communists.

But educated people, people aware of history are not.

You know who some of history's biggest mass murderers of democratic socialists and liberal intellectuals were?

Yep, the Bolsheviks, the Cheka, the Soviet communists, Lenin, and Stalin.

For which the American left never seemed to care. They still swoon over Che and the Castros.

 

[Cypress]

For which the American left never seemed to care. They still swoon over Che and the Castros.

I cannot have a discussion with someone who begins with the preposterous, and flagrantly dishonest premise that American Democrats = Soviet Communists.

There is no basis for discussion when you start with that level of dishonesty.

If you were ever genuinely interested in substantive discussion, you should be aware that the Russian liberals, the Russian democratic socialists were seeking to form a democratic socialist republic or constitutional monarchy in post-tsarist Russia.

They did not advocate for, or participate in the armed coup and unilateral establishment of a totalitarian Leninist state in Russia by the Bolsheviks. And as such, the liberals and democratic socialists were deemed enemies of the Bolsheviks, many of them killed, exiled, and repressed - and some of them even fought on the White side in the civil war.

Any attempt at conflating the liberal international tradition with totalitarian Leninism has to be spawned either from abject ignorance, or from appalling dishonesty .

 

[Minister of Truth]

I cannot have a discussion with someone who begins with the preposterous, and flagrantly dishonest premise that American Democrats = Soviet Communists.

There is no basis for discussion when you start with that level of dishonesty.

If you were ever genuinely interested in substantive discussion, you should be aware that the Russian liberals, the Russian democratic socialists were seeking to form a democratic socialist republic or constitutional monarchy in post-tsarist Russia.

They did not advocate for, or participate in the armed coup and unilateral establishment of a totalitarian Leninist state in Russia by the Bolsheviks. And as such, the liberals and democratic socialists were deemed enemies of the Bolsheviks, many of them killed, exiled, and repressed - and some of them even fought on the White side in the civil war.

Any attempt at conflating the liberal international tradition with totalitarian Leninism has to be spawned either from abject ignorance, or from appalling dishonesty .

Speaking of dishonesty, perhaps you can cite where I wrote "American Democrats = Soviet Communism." The whole point of "Useful Idiots" never meant that to be the case.

 

[midcan5]

I agree that the current state of Russophobia has its elements of irrationality. Too many people think the preposterous movie "Red Dawn" is actually a reflection of reality.

I agree that the U.S. government has meddled relentlessly in the affairs of Russia and other countries.

Even if we do not remember it, every native born Russian knows that story about the United States sending an expeditionary military force to Russia, during their civil war -- to meddle in their affairs and promote our geopolitical interest. To kill Russians, on their own soil basically.

I agree that Vladimir Putin is not Josef Stalin, and does not even remotely resemble a faint replica of the Soviet dictator.

I agree that it behooves every fair minded American to advocate that our representative democracy not undermine or thwart the will of people in other nations. It ain't our business, Jack.


With all that said, none of the foregoing concessions even remotely provides justification for us to let our guard down, let the Kremlin meddle in our democracy, and neglect our obligation to defend our American democratic institutions.

I completely agree, well said.